Great Danger in “Guidelines”
Nov 17, 2009 Governmental Reach, Health Care, Obama Administration
Today’s news that the U.S. Preventative Task Force has changed its advice that women should start regular mammograms at 50 rather than 40 will surely anger cancer organizations and medical doctors worldwide. The anger should not stop there, however. As we are in the midst of a debate on nationalized health care this has staggering ramifications on the health care that Americans could come to expect under government-controlled health care. Consider two points:
- The “numbers” show that a 40-year-old woman has a .19 percent chance of dying of cancer before she turns 50, so it’s quite reasonable that government-controlled health care will not cover mammograms before the age of 50.
- Groups of people – death panels – will decide what kind of health status of people (including age, likelihood of success, etc.) get treatment and what kind of treatment
When you put these two factors together, you get a health care system that is both deciding you cannot be screened for an illness before a certain age, and then determining whether or not you can be treated if you do get the disease anyway. Your only recourse is to pay for this screening out of your own pocket.
Now this is a true women’s issue, and one that should have all women in this great land very, very afraid of government-controlled health care. Call your Senators now and oppose the public option!
Tags: Health Care, mammogram, public option
Working on your own demise
Nov 3, 2009 Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
Today’s elections point out something very interesting. That something is not new, and in fact it seems to be the rule more than the exception, but it’s brought to light again today. That something is the idea that the country chooses its representation based on the motivation and interests of the electorate, the elected (including those who won on a recount or several recounts) think that it extends to their entire agenda, and then the elected begin to work on their demise in full force. In fact, when it comes to the presidency, they call this effort “The First 100 Days.”
Today we will see this referendum on governmental reach in all of the key races. There are places where conservatives should have no chance at winning, considering the results of just a year ago. There is even a place where a 3rd party candidate is going to win just to spite the president AND the liberalization of the so-called conservative party.
Mary Kate Cary of U.S. News and World Report points out that it is no other than fiscal conservatism that is winning out.
Maybe it’s because they can see what’s happening. Democrats can read the polls: Independent swing voters are moving toward the right, and the Republican base. The wide American mainstream is broadening to include fiscal conservatives—yes, some of whom have all sorts of opinions on social issues—but they are united in their concern about the growing size and scope of government. Wasn’t that the lesson of August’s tea parties—that people of all stripes are concerned about massive government growth? Isn’t that what’s really threatening the left?
This is something that happens on both sides of the aisle, though tonight will be a referendum on the one year of government overreach by the Obama Administration. It will be spun as something entirely different, but there’s simply no other reason why fiscal conservatives would be winning in these areas that were so largely won by Obama just one year ago.
Tags: elections, fiscal conservatism, Health Care, Obama
Thursday round-up on health care
Sep 10, 2009 Blogging's Best, Governmental Reach, Health Care, Obama Administration
There are some great pieces that have come out this morning regarding the health care debate, and particularly as President Obama’s speech last night affects it.
We start with Fred Barnes, where he was looking for the answers to five basic questions to see if the president had gotten back on track in the debate. Among them:
4) Did he demonize the health care providers he’s actually made deals with? Well, not all of them, but the health insurers took their usual beating.
5) Did he repeat the false claims he’s made repeatedly in earlier speeches? Yes indeed. He brought up nearly all of them, including the ones on no abortion coverage, no loss of one’s current health insurance, and the “savings” that would come from more preventive care.
Terry Madonna and Michael Young write, today, that not only is the conservative right gaining some momentum, but the left is becoming increasingly impatient with him.
The subtext of these and dozens of similar stories is crystal clear-Obama is in early trouble and the fate of his presidency may be at stake. The presidency that many thought might resemble FDR’s is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter’s. The aspirations of last November are becoming the trepidations of this September.
Madonna and young state that it’s not even out of the question that, among challenges from the conservative right, Obama could even be in store for a challenge from the liberal left come 2012.
The San Diego Union-Tribune, calling the speech a “missed opportunity,” sums up the problem with the president’s claims nicely:
We need to have a full and open debate about these concerns. But based on his speech last night, Obama would have us believe that he has a blueprint for a health care system that miraculously would be both much cheaper and much bigger — and the only thing that those who doubt him can offer is “misinformation.”
Sorry, Mr. President. That’s just not true.
In the end, keep in mind that even Congress “cackled” at the comment Obama made that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.”
If you enjoyed this post, please use the “Tweet this!” button to share with your Twitter followers.
Tags: Health Care, Obama
Today is the day you have let us down
May 26, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Governmental Reach, Obama Administration, Supreme Court
As President Obama prepares to announce his first Supreme Court nominee in a little over a hundred minutes, we are finally seeing the true consequences of the irresponsible voter. When tasked with a decision between two men who could win, some chose the wrong one to be a part of history. Some chose a third party on some impractical principle. Others chose simply not to vote, because the better option wasn’t “better enough.” Today, it finally comes to fruition. All three of those groups have let us down, and the Constitution of this great nation takes another knife in the back. Ironic, isn’t it, falling the day after we remembered the fallen soldiers who fought for this great land? A Supreme Court nominee is the longest lasting, in certain terms, consequence of any presidency. Selfishness at the polls will last long, long into the night and cost many their freedom and many more their lives.
There will be plenty of wailing when this announcement is made. Unless you voted for the only option better than the reality that we have, I don’t want to hear it from you. At least not today.
Update: It looks like it is going to be Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Why should we reduce the need for abortion?
May 23, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Obama Administration
It’s always a fascinating practice to take a look at the public relations job politicians do on the campaign trail. It’s always a challenge in a job where living in the gray might give you a chance on issues that are black and white, if only because it appears that you are both sides. When it comes to abortion it seems that there are two positions:
- Pro-life: mostly or completely against abortion. (I lump in mostly because there are politicians who want to make exceptions for rape/incest, which I believe is wrong, but they are otherwise on target.)
- Those that believe that abortion is a personal choice, but they want to reduce the need for abortion.
This begs the question: if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why would we waste our time and effort to reduce the need for it? Clearly the politician does find something wrong with abortion or they would simply throw the issue out with the trash. Next time you get the opportunity to confront one of these abortion reductionist politicians, ask them why they are even bothering. The answer could be quite interesting.
Where is the tipping point?
May 20, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
By now, most everyone has heard the story of the 13-year-old from Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. Daniel Hauser’s parents claim that is against their religious beliefs to undergo a chemotherapy treatment for the disease that has a relatively successful treatment. Daniel backs up his parents’ claim, and says he wishes to forego that treatment. A court has since ruled that he should receive treatment and Daniel’s mom has taken him and fled their hometown, also missing a court appearance.
This is a terribly sad situation. First off, I want to state that if I were in the place of the Hauser parents (oh, God, please forbid) I would want treatment for my child. I think medicinal remedies are a gift from God when used in truthful and moral ways. The Hausers, though, do not believe in using anything that “attacks” the body. Now, due to their fear of having government and court decisions imposed upon them and their religion, there is a widening search for them as they have gone on the run.
From a Christian’s standpoint, this is a very troubling situation. As our nation has taken a turn for the worse under the Obama Administration in terms of life issues, I have had several discussions with friends and family about the very real possibility that Christians are going to have to, as obligated by what is most important to them – Christ, fight against government in order to preserve Truth. I think there is roughly one non-violent solution, and that is what is currently being employed: make a run for it. Upon the police or FBI showing up at your doorstep, though, what would you do? At what point would you be able justify an action under the umbrella of self-defense in order to prevent government from infringing on your religious beliefs?
Government no longer has any regard for religion, and there is only such a thing as a separation of church from state (the state feels no need to keep out of the business of church). Government has been slowly but steadily picking a fight with Christians and, while many Christians have simply given way to government and pop culture, there is a large contingent of Christians who simply will not give in. These are Christians who will even go to martyrdom in order to save their own souls. These are Christians who realize that giving in to government in this life could endanger their eternal life, the life that is truly important to them.
Here’s rooting for Daniel Hauser and his family. I pray for the healing hand of God to touch Daniel, and I pray that his family’s wishes are kept at the forefront of what is important. Government only lives in this finite, earthly world. Our souls live on forever.
Tags: Daniel Hauser, Government, religion
Today’s Editorials
May 19, 2009 Obama Administration
A quick glance at RealClearPolitics.com and the list of newspaper editorials:
- Major Problems with U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposal – Financial Times
- ‘Cost-Control’ Means Rationing Health Care – Wall Street Journal
- Premature Optimism About the Economy – The Nation
- Despite Success, Obama & Dems Close School Choice Program – USA Today
Regardless of what Jesse Ventura thinks, this does not seem to indicate progress from our President and his administration.
“Straw men” arguments
Feb 25, 2009 Obama Administration
Karl Rove’s recent article in the WSJ pin-points one of the major stumbling blocks for Americans in their desire to truly want to believe what Obama is feeding us: we don’t know who “they” are. It’s one of my pet peeves, and when I catch myself doing it I try to stop and spell out who I am talking about, but it does not further your argument to throw out a generic “they” when citing support for your side of an argument. It seems with Obama at the helm that Michael Steele, Rush, Hannity, and other conservative leaders are going to have to continually press Obama to tell us who “they” are, so that “they” can defend themselves. It is only when he either cites specific people or forgets that tactic and gets down to having some ideas of his own that we will either start to believe him, or finally determine that he is the fraud that many of us think he is. We know the media isn’t going to do the work, and instead will use terms like “general consensus” and “widely believed” to try to represent the collective American idea. Truth is, the current picture has Obama looking like the ultimate straw man.
They aren’t your ordinary Republicans
Feb 10, 2009 Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
There has been quite a bit of talk from disgusted conservatives over the votes of Senators Specter, Collins, and Snowe. I’m disgusted, too, but there are a few considerations to be made.
1. These aren’t your ordinary Republicans, and that might just be part of the territory, literally. Consider that both Snowe and Collins are from Maine and that this is likely the only form of “Republican” that can be elected in these areas, at least at this time. Specter has been around a while and for whatever reason keeps getting re-elected. Again, there is nothing to suggest we are going to go from him to an ultra-conservative replacement. Sometimes we get jipped in the deal, and this is one of those times.
2. We need these people on other issues. Regardless of what anyone says, a guy like Arlen Specter was likely to go along with this joke of a stimulus bill. I didn’t know tons about Collins or Snowe, but Specter has routinely pulled these kinds of stunts out of his hat at big moments. Perhaps it’s so that when running for election he can boast of “reaching across the aisle” (as if one’s true constituents really want to hear that — how about “doing what’s right and best” as an option?). Still, there are other things that come up including, yes, bigger things like Supreme Court nominations. Specter will soon “owe us one” when it comes to the (very likely) situation where we are going to have to filibuster some joker that Obama nominates for the highest court. You win some, you lose some, and pro-lifers and libertarians alike will see greater results from a less-damaging Supreme Court nomination than they will this joke of a stimulus bill. We are less than four years away from choosing a President who can get us out of this economic mess that is likely to get worse under Obama, but we would be, perhaps, 50 years or more from having recourse to a bad SCOTUS nominee.
3. These three people may have done the conservative/libertarian movement a service in a couple of different ways. First, they were elected (and with a name that generally represents conservatism). Second, they botched their chance at being such, and when this plan crumbles into little pieces in the coming years, they will be exposed and the search will be on to find a true conservative to fill the roles.
There are a lot of people who said that things needed to bottom out to get better. I disagree with the idea that I should help that kind of a thing happen — those who supported this notion have hurt the current situation for themselves and me, alike — but right now we are at a spot where we have nothing else to do but oppose this crazy socialism we are getting going on and root for it’s ultimate failure. As long as there isn’t a whole lot we can do but threaten our representatives with our vote (and some of us asked for this more than others), we might as well just hope this thing bottoms out as quickly as possible and leads to a swift change starting in 2010. I doubt I will ever see the wisdom in rooting for this before election day, but we simply have no choice after it.
When it comes time, be sure to call in the favor owed to you by Senators Specter, Collins, and Snowe. As much as they have hurt us, they can also help us in the future.
“Savior-based economy”
Feb 9, 2009 Blogging's Best, Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford thinks that we are better off taking the band-aid off and letting our economy heal rather than lessening the pain (and prolonging it).
We’re moving precipitously close to what I would call a savior-based economy,” Sanford also said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
The South Carolina Republican said such an economy is “what you see in Russia or Venezuela or Zimbabwe or places like that where it matters not how good your product is to the consumer but what your political connection is to those in power.”
It’s scary to think, but this is exactly the description that fits right now. For instance, the original stimulus package had some unreal amount of money for the D.C. sewer system. Are they the only ones with a sewer problem? I doubt it. But it’s close enough to home for a lot of the people spending our money, and so it goes.
This is precisely the problem with universal health care. I know it sounds nice and fuzzy in a perfect world, but wait until providers that are less-qualified start getting the good gigs because of political connections to high-ranking politicians.
Tags: mark sanford, savior-based economy, Stimulus
