Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Health Care--Here is the scoop as I see it.

The health care bill has passed, in spite of the majority of America being against it and in spite of my letters, emails and prayers to the contrary. There are some of you out there who can't understand why I would be against this bill. Don't I want to help the poor and the needy as the Savior would have me do? Of course I do, but I want it done in the right way and I do not want to be forced to do it. If I am coerced into serving others, then it isn't service.

Here is the truth in a nutshell, before I get down to giving examples of why this health care plan is wrong...This plan is counterfeit. There will not be a government plan in which we can care for those in need without corruption until the Savior comes again.

Okay, so lets begin, shall we? First of all, this bill is going to bankrupt our country. It will bankrupt states, then it will bankrupt the country. Hawaii's universal health care program has gone broke. It has lost money for the last 8 years. Massachusettes' health care plan is also going broke. Congress has already spent Social Security money for other things besides Social Security, do you really think the money we start paying in higher taxes now is going to be there in 2014? Let's not forget all of the special fixes that the house added to this reconciliation package in order to secure votes. The President recently said that we need to cut back some of the funding to Nasa, but guess what! Florida Rep Suzanne Kosmas, whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center mentioned to the Pres. when she met with him about health care that Nasa needed funding. She changed her vote on Friday. $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee helped flip Bart Gordon's vote. On Saturday, 17 states cut a deal to get additional Medicare money. As I see it, this is the problem with Democrats. They think they have money to spend left and right however they want. They have these grand ideals, but no practicality. Do you see why the CBO findings really mean nothing because they could not have known how much more money was going to be added to the mix in order to get the votes. No one has said where this money is going to come from, (besides taxpayer pockets!) The reconciliation package was supposed to do away with these special earmarks that were making everyone angry. They may have gotten rid of the Senate ones, but they added more of their own.

By the way, did you hear about the Canandian Prime Minister who came here to Florida to get heart surgery? He said that when he entered political life, he didn't give up the right to make his own decisions about health care. He didn't want to jump ahead of the line to get treatment in Canada just because he was the Prime Minister. Also, the treatment he got here was not available in Canada. What does this tell us? 1-He felt the need to make his own choices about health care, which he does not have in his own country. 2-There are lines and waiting lists in Canada. 3-We have better health care with newer, cutting edge procedures. I wonder how long that last item will last when this new health care reform takes place.

There are some who believe that it is Mr. Obama's plan to bankrupt the country and to gain more control so that he can actually change the constitution and keep himself in charge of our newly socialist or if you will , faciest country. He talks about leveling the playing field and spreading the wealth. Unfortunately, he doesn't want to bring everyone to a higher plain, he wants to keep everyone down on a lower one beneath him and his cohorts. Let me give you some examples:
A couple works for years and has enough money that they do not use health insurance or medicare. They use their own money and pay their own bills. Wow! They should be applauded for their self-sufficiency, hard work and integrity. But, instead under this new bill, they will be forced to have insurance or medicare or pay a fine. They need to be dependent on the system like everyone else.
Or, consider the middle-class poor. In most states, there is already a program for the poor and indigent to get free health care, food stamps and even housing, free of charge. But, there are those who make too much to qualify for these things, yet do not buy health care because they cannot afford it. Under this new bill, this will not be fixed. These people will still not qualify for free health care, even though they are living paycheck to paycheck. Because they have a paycheck, they will have to pay for health care anyway or pay a fine. I personally know a school teacher in this predicament. She has 3 sons, she cannot put them on her health insurance because it would be too expensive, so she just hopes that they don't get sick. Now, you may think this is fool hardy and that you would find a way to put them on no matter what, but this is her choice and the way that she has to deal with her life. Now, that choice is being taken away from her and she is being pushed to a lower standard of living because of it.

The Constitution of the United States does not grant the Federal Government the power to force American Citizens to buy anything. There is nothing in there about providing people with health care. The 10th amendment specifically says that any powers not granted to the Federal Government shall fall under the jurisdiction of the States. Therefore, this bill is unconstitutional. I have heard that as many as 30 states are considering enacting laws that exclude them from participating in this Federal System. Also, atleast 13 state attorney generals are bringing suit against this law.

Now, here are some personal notes from what I believe and the comfort I can take because of my beliefs. I believe that the more we allow the government to get into our pockets and do things for us that we can do for ourselves, we are giving up our freedoms. That is why I do not believe in living on a government dole system. I know that sometimes people have no alternative and I do not begrudge them the help when they really need it and not because they know how to work "the system". But, throughout my life, we have strived not to live on the dole. I know that this has been taught by the prophets of our church for many years.
Also, I believe that the Constitution is an inspired document and that we have religious freedom here in this land for a purpose. That purpose is so that God's purposes may come to pass. So, my hope is in Him and in knowing that His purposes will come to pass and I have to make sure that I am on His side. Separation of Church and State? I do not want religion taught in school because I don't want anyone to force their religion on my children, nor would I force mine on anyone elses. But when it comes how I personnally decide how to vote or what to support, my religious beliefs play a large role in my decisions.
In the Book of Mormon, there is a passage that talks about the fact that when the people in this land are righteous, they will make good choices as to their leaders and we will have righteous leaders. But, when the more part or the people become wicked, the leaders will be wicked. I believe that we have about reached that point. I think that there a few politicians up there who are good and have integrity, but very few. I am talking about both sides of the aisle. Our decisions about who to vote for must be made prayerfully and in a very informed way. Watch C-
Span and see for yourself the workings of our government without commentary. You will see who is intelligent and who is inarticulate, rude and downright stupid and you will wonder how they ever got elected. Listen to the speeches that are made and you will be able to decide for yourself who is correct. You will get frustrated, as I have at how these politicians make up their minds in a partisan way and vote that way no matter how much sense the other side may make. They don't even listen to one another. They talk to each other and leave the room and then come back and vote. It is nothing like Mr. Smith goes to Washington. I wish it were.




5 comments:

Ace Rey said...

This is a well written post and I am going to link to it from my blog.. However, I think you should hire me as an editor because you have bad grammar.

On a personal note, I am going to continue to refuse to purchase health insurance because I can't afford it and lets get real, I'm 27 and in good health, barring some huge unexpected emergency I don't particularly need health insurance. And I am intelligent enough to be cautious and avoid huge emergencies.

The Federal Government already does a "wonderful" job of keeping our nation secure and safe and keeping "value" in our beloved dollar. Why on earth do people think they would do a good job of running anything else. I hate it when people tell me what I need and think they know better than me, I'll tell you what Pelosi needs: a bullet between the eyes. And that goes for all her friends on capital hill as well.

Unknown said...

1. Aaron, don't say anyone needs a bullet between the eyes. That isn't nice. Or Christlike.
2. Mom, you spelled fascist wrong.
3. I'm interested to see what the Supreme Court (the TRUE power in this nation) does. Its my guess Congress enacted this under the Commerce Clause. But health care is a state's rights issue, the court has ruled that time and again.
So it might come down to deference, its hard to say. However, I think if the state attorney generals rely on "Mass. v. EPA" then they'll have a strong argument going for them.
I think one thing going for those opposed to the bill right now is that Obama just called the Supreme Court out on the corporations ruling. While I do think that was a bad decision on their part, I think it was bad timing on Obama's part to do that, cause now you've just basically said to nine people who have the power to declare something you sign unconstitutional, "I think you're dumb." So... we'll see how well that works out for him. Especially since Scalia and Stevens are still on the court. I'm not sure how Ginsburg will go, and Sotomayor hasn't been on long enough for anyone to know if she is a state's rights woman or not. I think Thomas will vote with Scalia and Stevens, if they get two more justices on their side the bill will be declared unconstitutional, and Congress will probably reconvene to do this all over again.
And that my friends, is the American system.

Docface said...

Stop picking on my spelling and grammar. I am a bad editor. Also, remmember that getting cases to and through the Supreme Court can be a lengthy process. And yes Aaron, I agree with Lindsey, shooting threats are unacceptable. I really appreciate you for saying my blog was well written. I always think faster than I can talk, so I leave some of my points out. Lindsy, I love your legal input.

Docface said...

Stop picking on my spelling and grammar. I am a bad editor. Also, remmember that getting cases to and through the Supreme Court can be a lengthy process. And yes Aaron, I agree with Lindsey, shooting threats are unacceptable. I really appreciate you for saying my blog was well written. I always think faster than I can talk, so I leave some of my points out. Lindsy, I love your legal input.

Unknown said...

It really depends on the case mom. If in their complaint they state a federal issue forthright then it is something that federal courts have jurisdiction over. If it is a constitutional issue, and its between the federal government and states then only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and they don't have to wait for an appeal to take it up on cert.
That will get it there much faster than if they tried to go through the federal district courts first, which they couldn't do in the first place since, as I said, its a case that is states v. fed. gov.
We're not talking several years here as we would be with a typical federal question case. Probably several months or one year at the most. One year might SOUND like a long time, but if you consider how long it takes to get a bill to become law that we have to follow in the first place, and how long some cases can take to get resolved (e.g. "Exxon- Valdez") a year is nothing.
And I'm pretty certain this is one case the Supreme Court would agree to take up on cert the first time.