Merry Christmas America!!!

From Political Cartoons

Click on the picture to view it in full screen.

Health Care Reform, Slavery, Civil Rights and Women’s Suffrage

Are you for slavery? Are you against a woman's right to vote? Are you against Civil Rights? Well, if you do not support Harry Reid and his efforts to change health insurance he thinks you are. Here's what he said:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today

Let's get this right, if you do not agree that government should take over health care in this country with a 2,000+ page bill that limits your choices, raises insurance premiums and does very little to actually help those that need it most, you are a racist or a misogynist or both. According to Harry you are on the wrong side of history, which is something that the Democrats know plenty about. Just ask Al Gore Sr. about his vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I guess he was one of those enlightened Senators that resorted to threats of filibusters. But that's Republicans for you. Oh wait, Al Gore Sr. was a Democrat. Now that adds a new dimension to Harry's accusations, but that's another discussion.

The difference here is that we're not talking about "guaranteeing equal civil rights" to people "regardless of the color of their skin". We're talking about government taking over health care. We're talking about forcing people to buy health insurance and fining them if they don't. We're talking about having to buy your insurance from a government exchange. We're talking about a health commissioner who will decide what coverage can be offered through that exchange, what premiums you will have to pay and how much the evil insurance companies can make, their greedy executives and shareholders. This isn't about the great injustices of slavery and excluding women from the right to vote. This is about health insurance, how much it will cost, who will pay for it and how much the government will be involved.

It should also be about what the people want. Do they want this reform? The most recent polls (even in Nevada) say "No" but the politicians are deciding to forge ahead so they can be "on the right side of history". It's a very emotional pretext; like telling everyone about the 47 million people without insurance or the tens of thousands of people that die each year without health insurance. But what about the merits of the bill? If you were trying to sell someone a car would you tell them they were racist for not buying the car or would you tell them about all of the great features on the car? Instead of the immature name calling, why can't Harry tell the American people about what his bill will do to help them? Instead of platitudes about making history and winning one for the American people, tell them what the right side of history is, tell them what you've won for them. Or is Harry afraid that the American people are smart enough to realize they've won a booby prize? Even in Harry's home state there is a "growing belief … that Obama's reform package will raise taxes, result in rationing of health care, and cause major cuts to Medicare programs." Only "39 percent of the [Nevadans] approve of Reid's efforts to get a bill through the U.S. Senate." And he talks about being on the right side of history?

Harry will tell us that the Republicans are the party of "No", that they have no ideas and can just say "slow down" or "let's start over". Of course Harry will not tell us about the many alternatives that Republicans have offered like: leveling the tax system for individuals who buy their own insurance, reducing (not increasing) coverage mandates, real competition by removing the barrier to buying insurance across state lines (not an insurance exchange run by the government), vouchers for the working poor, expanding health savings accounts and tort reform. Unfortunately, his bill does not include any of these common sense approaches to real health insurance reform. Harry's bill doesn't include them because they give power and choice to the people and take government out of the process. We can't have that now can we? Since Harry does not like what the Republicans offer he just pretends that their ideas do not exist. No wonder he reverts to name calling and emotional appeals, he has nothing else.

Instead of extolling the virtues of his plan, Harry blathers on about slavery, women's voting rights, Civil Rights and the right side of history. Meanwhile the interests of the American people are ending up on the wrong side of history.

Obamacare and Public Housing – Can We Expect the Same?

Which Would You Choose?
The Public Option	The Private Option
Grove Parc Plaza	Obama's House in Hyde Park

Liberals tell us that health care, like food, clothing and housing, is a basic human right. And that in a country as rich the United States no one should go without these basic human rights. This is the driving force behind the push for health care reform – there are 46 million people without insurance and that's just not fair (see Myth #3 below). We are one of the most compassionate, caring and giving nations in the world so we listen to the politicians and allow them to pass laws that legislate our compassion. We allow them to take our money and decide how best to give it to those that are less fortunate, while taking a good percentage off the top to pay for the administrative bureaucracy. If we complain we're labeled selfish and greedy.

So to take care of all of those poor uninsured people, Harry Reid has introduced a 2,000+ page health care "reform" bill that is now being debated in the Senate (the house has already passed their version of this debacle). There is plenty about this bill that should scare people, from the major "reforms" not taking effect until 2014 to the creation of a "Health Choices Commissioner" who will decide what benefits you must have in your insurance plan to young people being forced to buy health insurance (so much for no new taxes on people making under $250,000), but the biggest is the government's involvement and their ability to provide for the people who really need help.

The Federal government is not known for providing efficient and effective services (think Katrina, the Post Office, Welfare, the DMV). But what about the promises of "hope" and "change" made by President Obama? Where others have failed before he can certainly do better. Can't he? After all, he has a lot of experience providing the basic human right of housing for his constituents in the past. Surely, the man that wants to bring health care to 46 million uninsured people and make it more affordable for the rest of us would have a stellar record when it comes to housing for the poor. The man who promises hope and change for the country and a total revamp of our insurance industry and one-sixth of our economy must have brought similar hope and change to the poor people he represented in Chicago.

As it turns out, there was not so much hope but definitely change. One needs only to read a Boston Globe article from June 2008 entitle Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy to see Obama's poor record on providing the basic human right of housing to his lower-income constituents. It provides an insight into the "health care" that might be provided by Obama and the Democrats in Congress. The article describes a public housing complex of 504 apartments called Grove Parc Plaza, a neighborhood represented by Barack Obama when he was a state senator. This complex is home to "people who can't afford to live anywhere else" – sounds a bit like those 47 million uninsured Americans we keep hearing about. However, in the opening paragraphs the article states:

But it's not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks.

Sewage in the kitchen sink!!! This is what Obama was able to deliver as a basic human right to his constituents – sewage in their kitchen sinks. Can you imagine what his version of health care will be like?

The article goes on to describe various relationships Obama had with developers that were responsible for public housing throughout his district and the poor conditions that their properties eventually wound up in. The Obama camp said that he knew nothing about the poor conditions but the article states that:

Obama sometimes worked on their cases. In at least one instance, he represented the nonprofit company that owned Grove Parc, Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., when it was sued by the city for failing to adequately heat one of its apartment complexes.

I guess housing is a basic human right but heat in the winter is not. Again, can you imagine what his version of health care will be like?

Highlighted in the article is the millions of dollars that people made by providing a "basic human right". Our tax dollars (yes, much of it was federally funded) enriched many of Obama's associates in the name of being compassionate, caring and giving. It also enriched his campaign coffers as these developers donated money to him in return for his support. The most disturbing part of it is that this is the man that is promising to fundamentally change our health insurance. He wants to provide a "public option" for all of those poor people that cannot afford health insurance. A public option that many companies will "choose" for their employees. A public option that you may end up on. Think about it, do you really want health insurance provided by the government? Would you willingly give up your current coverage and take Medicaid?

Do you still think you have a choice? Once this health care bill is passed you will not have a choice. Once the government exchange is implemented in 4 years the Health Choices Commissioner will choose for you. The government will decide what minimum coverage you must have and you will either get that coverage or pay a fine. Your employer will choose to provide that coverage or pay a fine and force you to take the public option. The Health Choices Commissioner will decide what procedures will be covered. Remember the most recent guidelines for breast cancer screenings? Which one of your sisters, mothers, wives or daughters will not have this life-saving screening because the government has decided it is not necessary and it is no longer covered? Which cancer drug will the government deny because it is too costly? Keep in mind that the rich who will be supposedly be taxed to pay for all of this wonderful stuff will still have money to get private care while we're left with the public option.

After reading about Barack Obama's record on providing the basic human right of housing with sewage backing up into people's kitchen sinks and apartments with no heat in the winter (in Chicago!!!), do you trust him to provide your health insurance? Do you even want him involved in your health insurance? The article closes with a very prophetic quote from a housing activist in Chicago with regards to Obama. He says "I hope there is not much predictive value in his history and in his involvement with that community." I couldn't have said it better. Let's hope that the change Obama brings to our health care and insurance is not the same change he brought to the people in Grove Parc Plaza.