Why do I oppose the current Obama health care plan?

A few thoughts...

The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.

The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.

Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.

Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:

• The democrats would like to provide health care coverage as a "right" to an additional 47 million individuals, and claim they will do so without increasing public debt. Does anyone believe this isn't a lie?
  
• Where are all the new doctors who will care for those 47 million individuals? Congress can't manufacture them.
  
• Many believe that under the proposed plan, their access to medical care and the quality of that care will decrease: millions more recipients will stretch thin the existing pool of medical providers.
  
• The so-called "public option" is hardly an "option". It would be the ONLY option permitted to people who don't already have coverage. They would be legally barred from buying private coverage.
  
• Who really believes that the government plan will not ultimately destroy the existing private providers, resulting in total government domination of health care? People increasingly view our federal government as insatiable in its appetite to nationalize one industry after another, and the medical industry is currently in the crosshairs.
  
• Does anyone really believe that the government can do a better job of providing health care than the private sector? In which countries has this been the case? Cuba? England? Canada?
  
• Many people do not believe it is just or fair to grant comprehensive medical benefits to illegal aliens -many of whom pay no taxes- and expect taxpaying citizens to pay the cost, especially when so many citizens are already struggling to provide for their own families.
  
• The American medical industry is the greatest in the world, despite its flaws. Who thinks that a government takeover really will improve it?
  
• Many people -myself included- deeply mistrust the federal government's ability to administer medical benefits fairly without violating the basic human rights of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. The danger is that government will have a strong financial motivation to make medical decisions not to benefit individuals, but according to some other criteria.
  
• And why have the president and Congress been pressing for such rapid passage of such a monumental bill? If it's so important to get it right, why did they press so hard to pass it before the August recess, even before many members had had a chance to read it?
  

These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.

U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens

US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News

The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.

In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com

How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.

Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?

The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.

But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.

Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.

What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.

If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.

Conservative talk show host banned from U.K.

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

I have heard Michael Savage express many strong opinions, but I have never heard him advocate violence outside of legitimate warfare. For years his mantra has been the preservation of "borders, language, and culture", and has opposed those who desire the hostile overthrow of western culture.

It's ironic that the UK should single out such a talk show host and bar him from entry, in light of the fact that the UK has become increasingly a major producer of radical islamists who espouse violence... one of the very threats which Savage warns against.

Sad and worrisome. Freedom of non-violent speech is a cornerstone of democratic society. In the UK as well as in the USA, this cornerstone is being rapidly eroded by the forces of statism and those who determine that edgy political commentary at odds with state policy must be suppressed.

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case - Los Angeles Times

"The Supreme Court today took away one tool for prosecuting and deporting workers who are in this country illegally, ruling that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who knew they had stolen another person's Social Security number.

"The 9-0 decision overturns part of an Illinois man's conviction for using false documents.

"The court agreed he could be imprisoned for using an ID card he knew was false, but it also said he could not be charged with a felony of 'aggravated identity theft' because he did not know he was using someone's Social Security number."

If any of the Supreme Court justices had had their identities stolen or "borrowed", their accounts raided, and their credit histories damaged as a result, I wonder if they would have ruled differently.

So, if I break into someone's house, find a pile of cash, and take it, it's not necessarily stealing, as long as I didn't know with certainty that the cash actually belonged to somebody?

Anyone who buys false identification -with or without a Social Security number- reasonably can be expected to realize that since the identifying information does not belong to himself, it quite possibly belongs to another real individual. It's reasonable to expect that buying such false documents should fall within the scope of laws prohibiting "identity theft".

The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, so it seems there was little controversy over the meaning of the law. Rather than blaming the court for a poor decision, it's probably more appropriate to blame the law for being badly written.

Perhaps identity theft laws should be expanded to prohibit any deliberate use Social Security numbers, account numbers, names, etc., that do not belong to the individual presenting them.

2,000 join immigrant rights march

Only 2,000 join immigrant rights march - Chicago Tribune

Do You leave Your home unsecured so that any trespasser can simply barge into Your home and take up residence? Suppose a stranger not only breaks into Your home, but then begins to insist You pay for his education, medical care, and more? Suppose he demands the same status, rights, and benefits of the home life enjoyed by You and Your family members?

No, if strangers attempt to break into Your home and claim the property and rights of Your family members, You call upon the police to enforce existing law, and to help restore Your legitimate rights and security... unless You want Your home and property to disappear.

I welcome LEGAL immigrants to this country. They are human beings with dignity and deserve humane treatment. I wish them success. But those who break into our country illegally do not have a right to demand citizenship or the rights of citizens.

It's not fair to offer illegal aliens special treatment not afforded to those in foreign countries who have worked and waited their turn to obtain legal entry into this country.

The borders need to be secured, and our immigration policies should be humane, even generous, as well as just, practical, ...and enforced.

U.S. government response to swine flu threat: lax and worrisome

US reaction to swine flu more muted than elsewhere - Breitbart

"EL PASO, Texas (AP) - U.S. airports and border agents waved people through Monday with little or no additional screening for Mexico's deadly swine flu - a far more muted reaction than the extreme caution elsewhere around the world... But the American reaction to swine flu, which has killed up to 149 people in Mexico and on Monday led the World Health Organization to raise its alert level, was mostly limited to steps that hospitals, schools and mask-wearing individuals took on their own."

In many countries passengers arriving from Mexico or the U.S. are being actively screened for fever or other symptoms. But in the U.S. people arriving from Mexico are being waved through "with little or no additional screening". Why such is the Department of Homeland Security so lax about preventing an influx of swine flu infection from the source of the infection: Mexico?

Obama administration harasses sheriff for enforcing immigration laws

Supported predictably by ACORN and other leftist groups, several Democratic congressmen have prompted the Justice Department to investigate the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona. The sheriff's office is alleged to have violated the civil rights of illegal aliens.

Or was the real problem that the law enforcement activities of the sheriff's office were producing such amazing results? An August 2008 press release of the sheriff's office reports some of these results and statistics:

Nearly 2300 arrests;
16,000 inmates found to be illegal aliens who have been or will be deported;
20% of Maricopa County Jail inmates are illegal aliens, and 70% of them (2000 individuals) were arrested for felonies.

Believe the anger, John

Anger Is Crowd's Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally


"...McCain advisers dismissed the crowd's angry tone as an exception and not representative of most of the campaign's events."

Senator McCain, You should heed that anger and dismiss those advisers who downplay it. Anger and a desire for justice are profound and widespread, and are focused especially upon those in the Congress and executive branch who brought about this economic collapse. I don't think this flash of anger is a fleeting thing that can or should be glossed over. It signals something of greater significance, something that will not dissipate without being addressed.

A sleeping giant has awakened to find his house in shambles, plundered by pirates. He's not likely to be appeased by some token tax cuts while chaos reigns. His fury will drive him neither to rest nor relent until he halts the rape of the nation's wealth, prosecutes the pirates, and restores order to his home.

Talking points for President Bush's State of the Union Address

President Bush, here are the points You need to make tonight:

The most basic function of a just government is the protection of basic human rights. Elective abortion denies these basic rights to our nation's posterity. Mr. President, deliver a bold, passionate moral argument to inspire and motivate the decent citizens of this country to bar elective abortions in all but the most extreme cases. C'mon, George, this is Your last term. Show us some guts.

Our national borders need to be protected. Terrorists are trying to destroy this country, and our borders are not secure. No more illegal immigration. Use the military if necessary to secure the borders. Revise immigration laws where needed. Enforce them aggressively.

End the war in Iraq by escalating the war. Escalate the intensity of military force to crush the terrorists in Iraq. Then declare victory and pull out.

Recover the passion for limited government. Drop harebrained, expensive, and unnecessary programs such as the manned mission to Mars. Cut taxes while slashing federal spending on notoriously wasteful programs such as welfare and education. Let the states and private charities fill the gap.

Kill Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons. With or without the cooperation of Euorpe. President Ahmadinejad appears to be a psycopath on par with Adolf Hitler. Stop him. If necessary, use force to prevent his creating international havoc, or else we will all pay dearly.

Contain North Korea. Neutralize its nuclear program. Isolate and neutralize its murderous dictator Kim Jong Il.

We are vulnerable to hostile foreign sources of energy. Open the Arctic National Wildlike Refuge and other natural resouces to resposible drilling for oil and gas. Encourage coal production and expand nuclear power generation.

Isolate and neutralize Hamas. Not a dime to the terrorists.

More to come, if I get a few minutes...