• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Obamacare

WSJ_POLLjmp090729.gif



Elected by the People, for the People......to excercise the Will of the People. Someone needs to remind Pres. Obama of his job description.....he's not a Jr. Senator on the dole and Community Organizer anymore.
 
OK, you are saying to yourself.......self, this XJEEPER cat is nuts, Obama told us he wouldn't raise our taxes one dime, which is one reason why many middle class wage earners voted for him.

Wonder what Obama's real plan is to pay for healthcare reform? Here it is folks............(those that made it out of Jr. High have likely figured this out already)........INCREASED TAXES ON THE MIDDLE-CLASS WAGE EARNER!

Why would he lie? I don't have the answer to that, but look where he's headed........

From the Wall St Journal.......

Few of President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime” if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It’s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.........

Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. “It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said........

In an editorial on February 26, “The 2% Illusion,” we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.

Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.

Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion. They’re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they’re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don’t purchase health insurance. But this won’t raise enough money either.

So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.

The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328552267381152.html
 
Obama's top advisor assigned to run the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is John P. Holdren, director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Obama expressed admiration for Holdren’s work and said, “I look forward to his wise counsel in the years ahead.”

So let's look at Holdren's work and what he believes in......and how this will apply to Obama's Healthcare policy.


“The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

“We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

“Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

“The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.”

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.” This doomsday formula is: “Damage = population x economic activity per person (affluence) x resource use per economic activity (resources) x stress on the environment per resource use (technology) x damage per stress (susceptibility).”

Their application of this formula rejects the notion that man, through his wit, can not only increase individual productivity and technological efficiency but also find new resources to fuel them.

For example, how much potential water lingers in the universe? Well, how much hydrogen and oxygen did God create? Holdren and co-authors claim to “know for certain” such thinking is folly.

“We know for certain, for example, that: No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable,” they say. “Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are unsustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.

“This is enough,” they write, “to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person).”

By the time Holdren and his co-authors wrote those words, he had been sounding the same alarm for more than two decades.

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

“A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

Within this apocalyptic vision, curbing economic growth and redistributing wealth become duties.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote in the conclusion of “Human Ecology.” “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge.

They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

Those are the words of a man who now serves in the White House, providing “wise counsel” to a president seeking to restructure the entire U.S. health care system.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52051


Control the healthcare system, control the economy, control the People.

Sounds far fetched......but the truth is stranger that fiction.

Obama promised Change....and he's put the people in place to deliver.
 
Last edited:
Wonder what's included in HB3200, but don't have time to read it? Here's a bullet-point version for your education purposes. Feel free to forward this to your Congressman, in case they haven't read it either.

Oh, and CC President Obama.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319

Here's a few tidbits that are not only un-Constitutional, but deeply disturbing.

  • Sec. 1401, Pg. 503, Lines 13-19 - The government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records. “The Center may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out this section.”
  • Sec. 1501 (beginning), Pg. 659-670 - Doctors in Residency – government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.
  • Sec. 1162, Pg. 335-339, Lines 16-25 - The government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. Rationing.
  • Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life. END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED RATIONING HEALTH CARE FOR THE ELDERLY.
  • Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 17-19 - Government WILL instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney. Mandatory end-of-life planning!
  • Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 - Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
  • Sec. 1233, Pg. 427, Lines 15-24 - Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends.
 
Here's what I would like to know. If Health care the way it is today is the gravest threat to our economy then why will we supposedly be able to keep our private health care? This doesn't make sense. If health care is really the gravest threat then there is no way he will have a provision for us to keep out private health care. He's just saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear.
 
From my Senator;

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...GFlNjU=&w=MA==

Ten Questions Politicians Won’t Answer
Evasive politicians, not concerned citizens, are dividing America over health-care reform.

By Tom Coburn

The past week’s debate about health care has shown that in Washington the only things more stubborn than facts are politicians who evade them. In spite of a torrent of independent analyses showing that the so-called health-care “reform” bills moving through Congress will dramatically increase the deficit and cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance, the politicians leading the effort have steadfastly refused to consider that their ideas and policies, rather than the character of their critics, may be flawed. At the same time, the politicians writing the bill still refuse to answer basic questions about how it will be paid for and how it will affect patients.

The American people have good reason to be concerned. The fact is that President Obama and the vast majority of members who support the reform bills would set up a single-payer health-care system if they could start from scratch. In the meantime, according to their own explanations, they will settle for creating a public, government-run option in the context of our current employer-based health-insurance system. The American people know this because the president and many other Democrats have made this argument many times publicly.

Yet, what matters more than their past statements or current rhetoric is the likely effect of their legislation. According to independent sources, the health-care bills under consideration will dramatically increase the deficit, take away patient choice, and set the stage for a total government takeover of health care — the single-payer model many Democrats have long dreamed of. As the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, recently said, the bills moving through Congress did not contain “the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.” Meanwhile, the independent Lewin Group estimates that 114 million Americans will be forced to give up their current health-care plans as the government-run plan puts everyone else out of business.

Congressional leaders and partisan operatives have responded to these policy indictments by inventing a bizarre conspiracy theory that involves right-wing extremists, the CBO, moderate Democrats, and insurance companies — all of whom are somehow dreaming up “scare tactics” while plotting to disrupt town-hall meetings. This line of attack is troubling because it goes far beyond traditional partisanship and instead indicts millions of hardworking taxpayers who have honest concerns.

For instance, according to a new DNC ad, individual Americans who oppose a government takeover of health care are not acting out of good faith, sound reasoning, and independent judgment, but rather are part of an “angry mob” that lacks the intelligence to think critically and independently. The condescension underlying this claim is breathtaking, particularly when the entire strategy of public-option proponents depends on misdirection and subterfuge. Public-option advocates want the American people to believe — in spite of their past statements — that they aren’t trying to lay the groundwork for a total government takeover of health care, but instead are trying to create new choices. Fortunately, the American people aren’t buying it, and public-option proponents are now attacking the skeptics.

The backers of the public option are concerned because they know that their greatest obstacle is not the small minority of Republicans in Congress but the millions of Americans who will make members of their own party think twice about enacting a government takeover of health care. The budget-reconciliation fallback option — a way to potentially steamroll reform through Congress this fall — is an important clue to their intent. This option wasn’t established because of the Republican minority, which lacks the votes to mount a sustained defense, but because of the likely dissent of moderate Democrats. Public-option advocates know that many Democrats aren’t eager to sacrifice themselves on the altar of single-payer health care.

Individual Americans should view the month of August as their best, and perhaps final, opportunity to alter the health-care bills before Congress reconvenes in September. Citizens should ask hard questions without having their motives questioned. I expect such questions at my town-hall meetings. After all, the greater threat to freedom and liberty is not an informed citizenry but an irresponsible, elitist, and evasive political class that refuses to answer hard questions and make tough choices.


While I have confidence in the American people to come up with their own probing questions, let me suggest a few questions that my own colleagues have been loath to answer:

1. Why do we need to increase spending on health care by at least $1.6 trillion and steal prosperity from our children and grandchildren when we spend nearly twice per person what other industrialized nations spend on health care?

In my view, any bill that increases spending is a failure and not serious reform. The problem is not that we don’t spend enough on health care, but that we don’t allocate resources efficiently and get value for what we pay.

2. What programs will you cut and whose taxes will you raise to pay for health-care reform?

Any politician — Republican or Democrat — who refuses to answer this question or avoids the topic by deferring to the committees of jurisdiction doesn’t deserve to be in office.

3. What earmarks or pet projects that you have sponsored will you sacrifice to help finance the cost of health-care reform?

It is immoral, in my view, to ask taxpayers to make more sacrifices while politicians practice business-as-usual pork-barrel politics.

4. Will you vote for a public option that requires taxpayer-funded abortion?

The current version of the so-called reform bill requires taxpayer-funded abortion. In the House, this fact prompted 19 pro-life Democrats to send a letter of protest to Speaker Pelosi. In the Senate, an amendment by Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.) that would require taxpayer-funded abortion passed in committee. Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) objected and voted no, saying, “The way it [the Mikulski amendment] is written could be interpreted down the road to include something like abortion.” Are these Democrats also part of the right-wing scare-tactic conspiracy?

5. If the public option is so wonderful, will you lead by example and vote for a plan to enroll you and your family in the public option?

I offered an amendment in committee to force members of Congress to enroll in the public option. Nine out of eleven Democrats on the health committee who back the public option refused. If the politicians creating the public option don’t have confidence in it, neither should the American people.

6. Will you vote for a plan that will allow a board of politicians and bureaucrats to override decisions made by you and your doctor?

Both the Senate and House bills set up a government-run “comparative effectiveness” board that will make final decisions about treatment and care. In committee, I gave senators several opportunities to accept language that would forbid this board from denying care. All of my amendments were rejected, which suggests that the intent is to set up a board that will ration care, as is done in the United Kingdom.

7. If you support a “comparative effectiveness” board, what qualifies you, as a politician, to practice medicine? Have you delivered health care to a single person, much less entire classes of people you claim to represent, such as the poor, the uninsured, or children?

I’m one of two physicians in the Senate, along with John Barrasso of Wyoming. I know for a fact that very few leaders in this debate have any firsthand experience or knowledge of health care, which is disturbing.

8. How will a government-run public option perform better than other failing government programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Indian Health Care?

Forty percent of doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients because the program is broken. Access to a government program — such as the public option — does not guarantee access to health care.

9. If increasing spending on health care was the solution, why hasn’t it worked yet?

The public-option “reform” is not new at all but an extension of 1960s-era public policies that say a little more government spending and intervention is always the answer.

10. Are you more committed to doing reform right or quickly? Would you consider backing a thoughtful alternative to the public option? If so, which one?

I’ve introduced a bill along with Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and Reps. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) called the Patient’s Choice Act that guarantees coverage and choice for every American without raising taxes or increasing spending. In fact, our bill will save taxpayers at least $70 billion. Many other members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are working on alternatives that don’t herd the American people into a government-run program.

The choice is not between the public option and nothing. The choice is between the public option and an option that can win the support of the public. The future of health care truly is up to you.

— Dr. Tom Coburn (R.) is a United States senator from Oklahoma.
 
I have a simple question - if we're supposed to be seeing transparency in government operations, why is there such a rush to pass a bill with over one thousand pages?

Kinda like the "Stimulus" bill - the fourteen-hundred-page one? That isn't working, and was passed in such a damned hurry as well?

Has anyone in Washington actually read the whole damned thing before they vote on it - in either case?
 
Bottom line, if they want to make us swallow it, they, both houses and those in the white one too need to be the first ones covered by it. Once they start drinking the koolaid I may consider giving it a sip or two. Oh, and fix it so it's non reversible, once on it they can't duck back to their Cadillac policies. If it's soooooo gooood for us it's gotta be good for them too, right ?
 
XJEEPER said:
So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.

The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328552267381152.html
Click to expand...

We already have a VAT, it's called a corporate tax and it's currently at 35% here in the US, GB is 25% and Ireland just dropped theirs to 12%.
 
RichP said:
We already have a VAT, it's called a corporate tax and it's currently at 35% here in the US, GB is 25% and Ireland just dropped theirs to 12%.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so is the reference to a 10% VA, an increase of the already 35%, bumping it up to 45%?
 
XJEEPER said:
Hmmm, so is the reference to a 10% VA, an increase of the already 35%, bumping it up to 45%?
Click to expand...

Pretty much but it will be a true vat not a hidden one like the corp tax. Consider that on a $2000 flat panel TV there is already $750 in corp tax, another $100 or so on import tax and thats even before you buy it. Add a 10% vat and not only will you pay that tax but that you will be paying a vat tax on the corporate tax and the import tax.
Like I said before, we're already over 50% tax wise, I fully expect to be at 75% in 4 years.
The smart countries are reducing or eliminating the corporate taxes, resulting in many companies moving to those companies. What they don't pay in corporate taxes goes to the stock holders in the form of dividends. When corporate taxes are increased that increase is passed directly to the people who buy their products.
Now using that 35%, while sitting down and holding on to your seat, figure out how much you're going to pay in corp taxes on a $25,000 wrangler before you even buy it.....
In 73 the corp tax was ~12% and a new dodge challenger with 360 v8 and loaded out was $3,500.

I need to modify that first part a bit, if the company has a headquarters here they pay the 35%, if not they pay less, thats one of the reasons american companies cannot compete here, they are at a tax disadvantage for the final price.
 
RichP said:
Bottom line, if they want to make us swallow it, they, both houses and those in the white one too need to be the first ones covered by it. Once they start drinking the koolaid I may consider giving it a sip or two. Oh, and fix it so it's non reversible, once on it they can't duck back to their Cadillac policies. If it's soooooo gooood for us it's gotta be good for them too, right ?
Click to expand...

You know, Rich, we're agreeing altogether too much of late.

I've been saying this for a number of years as well. Our elected "servants" have misremembered their role, and have become our elected "masters" as a result.

Problem is, the "deer peepul" have forgotten this as well - and swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker. I keep trying to educated people, but it's uphill work (fortunately, I have just enough success to keep trying.)
 
(1961) My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. It must seem presumptuous to some of you that a member of my profession would stand here and attempt to talk to anyone on serious problems that face the nation and the world. It would be strange if it were otherwise.
Most of us in Hollywood are very well aware of the concept or the misconception that many people, our fellow citizens, have about people in show business. It was only a generation ago that people of my profession couldn't be buried in the churchyard. Of course the world has improved since then, we can be buried now. As a matter of fact, the eagerness of somebody to perform that service gets frightening at times.
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent of owing more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way, because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Furan introduced the Furan Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance.
Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled. This would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.
Now Congressman Furan brought the program out on that idea of just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Furan was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy because he said, "If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that."
Walter Ruether said, "It's no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance." And by national health insurance he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well let's see what the Socialists themselves had to say about it. They say, "Once the Furan Bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population." Well, we can't say that we haven't been warned.
Now Congressman Furan is no longer a Congressman of the United States Government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California.
It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade 127 million of our citizens, in just ten years, have come under the protection of some kind of privately owned or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis, they say what would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?
That's ridiculous, and of course no one has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works they have introduced this King Bill, which is really the Furan Bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of our senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it has provided from the federal government money to the states and local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone, regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they're protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing, that as ex-Congressman Furan said, "This was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine."
James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said, "Since the general civilization of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
They want to attach this bill to Social Security, and they say here is a great insurance program now instituted now working.
Let's take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let's also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it's like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren't equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. I know how I'd feel if you fellow citizens decided that to be an actor I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater.
Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in worlds history, the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.
But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man's relation to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards.
We talk democracy today, and strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Now you may think that when I say write to the Congressman or Senator that this is like writing fan mail to a television program, it isn't. In Washington today 40,000 letters, less than one hundred per Congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, "When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want."
So write, it's as simple as finding just the name of your Congressman, or your Senator. Then you address your letter to that individuals name, if he's a Congressman, to the House Office Building, Washington D.C. If he's a Senator, to the Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.
And if this man writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don't let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know that governments don't tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say "I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want."
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Source: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum
audio version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfreedompost%2Ecom%2F2009%2F08%2Fronald%2Dreagan%2Dspeaks%2Dout%2Dagainst%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
 
Latest Rassmussen poll numbers on Obamacare.......time to stop wasting our tax dollars on press junkets and town meetings and get to work on fixing the economy.

Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action.

However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view.

Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action.

From the beginning of the debate, voters have indicated support for the concept of health care reform and for some of the specific ideas that have been suggested. However, they are skeptical about what has been presented thus far in Congress. One reason is skepticism about Congress itself. By a two-to-one margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress could always make it worse.
There are also concerns about the timing. While Democrats consider health care reform the top priority for the President, Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as more important.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/ob...inions-columnists-public-option-medicare.html
 
The latest cry for help comes from Nevada’s University Medical Center, via the Las Vegas Review Journal:
“Our people are really torn,” said Brian Brannman, UMC’s chief operating officer. “We want to take care of people who are ill. We’re proud that we can save lives. But our employees are also worried about the survival of UMC. They know that the appetite of taxpayers for helping undocumented immigrants is limited.”
Since April, UMC has been spending about $2 million per month providing emergency dialysis services to 80 illegal immigrants, Brannman said.
He projects that these services at UMC could run more than $24 million in the current fiscal year.
In each of the five prior years, the hospital provided the same emergency services to half as many illegal immigrants for a little more than $1 million per month.
Brannman said the hospital receives no reimbursement from federal, state or local sources to provide this life-saving treatment for people who have entered the country illegally.
But under federal law, any patient who shows up at an emergency department requesting an examination or treatment for a medical condition must be given an appropriate medical screening to determine whether there is an emergency. If there is, treatment must be provided.
“When we’re projecting a budget deficit of $70 million for fiscal year 2010, you can see that $24 million in dialysis treatment that’s not reimbursed is an awfully big chunk,” Brannman said.
UMC health care professionals say discussion of how to reform the nation’s health care system must include how to shore up taxpayer-supported hospitals, strained to the breaking point by following the law to care for those who are breaking it…
…”The federal government kicked the can down the road on the immigration issue and gave the bill to us,” Brannman said. “This is a federal policy failure that is driving huge health care costs to our citizens.”
​
The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.

The hospital has reached out to Mexican government officials to try and convince illegal aliens to return home. But “I can’t make them go back,” the Mexican consul in Las Vegas told the Review-Journal.
And the government officials in the United States who do have the power to deport them…won’t.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/17/time-to-ration-health-care-for-illegal-aliens/


Obama seems like a smart guy, but my question is this......is he willing to promote his Marxist agenda at all costs....including his Presidency? He's having a hard time keeping up with his campaign promises and the American people have been awakened.......a flashy smile and a well-written speech isn't enough, we want action on the real issues that are affecting our economy and our Freedoms.
 
Last edited:
I just watched Obama's speech and he said it flat out. Everyone will be forced to purchase health insurance under his plan. Hello machine, goodbye personal freedom.

Well, now we know how he plans to pay for it. Just force all the people who don't have health insurance to join in. That should drop premiums. The individual will sacrifice for the collective good., what a concept. I have been foolishly squandering all my money on food & shelter anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
99 XJ Heat Question.. Sorry I'm new
Replies
12
Views
1K
asymptonic
A
J
Misfire codes, P0171, fouled plugs
Replies
10
Views
2K
Heavyopp
H
Anak
Anybody have any actual facts about the new Mojave Trails Natl. Monument?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Cottontail
Cottontail
sdspearo
Ham Radio Workshop, San Diego 5/14
Replies
8
Views
804
Anak
Anak
in4aride
  • Locked
Bad local vendor.
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Kittrell
Kittrell
Back
Top