Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The final gasp of Obamacare?


What the Democrats are doing this week shouldn't surprise us. After all, they pride themselves on being smarter than we and therefore know what's best for us. How else to explain the desperate and unconstitutional effort to get the monstronsity of a healthcare bill passed before Easter recess? By the way, the rush to get it done now is because Pelosi, Reid, et al don't want the 75% of Americans who hate this bill to have a chance to dissuade Congress members during the extended time off back in their home districts.

The Supreme Court has ruled that before a bill can become law, both houses of Congress must pass the exact version of the bill. The Democrats are playing fast and loose with the rules now, trying to get the House to pass a faux bill that can be altered later. Such is the level of their desperation and, dare I say it, immorality. Surely we can agree that Macchiavellianism is immoral and certainly, the Dems feel the end justifies the means at the moment.

Where is the outrage from the media about this? Oh, yeah. They're still in love with Obama, even though there are starting to be defections in the Anointed One's journalism army. One thing is for sure: the American public understands this mess. They have phoned the offices of fence-sitting representatives so much this week that some reps have had to disconnect their lines.

Hopefully, by Saturday, this healthcare bill will be dead...the bill that Obama hasn't read, he admits, and the bill that Pelosi wants us to pass and THEN find out what's enclosed. It will truly be a relief to finally stomp the last bit of life from this monstrosity and get started on a health bill that makes sense and doesn't hamstring our kids and grandkids financially. However, should it pass using the slimy, dirty trick process, I feel certain that the Supreme Court will quickly rule it unconstitutional. Mercy, would I love to write the majority opinion for that decision.

5 comments:

Jeff S. said...

I'm not asking for your own version of a 2000-page health bill, but what kind of health bill would "make sense" to you? What is bad about requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions? What is bad about requiring insurance companies to do away with lifetime-payment caps? What is bad about requiring insurance companies to keep insuring someone when he or she gets sick.

You speak of morality: is there anything remotely moral about someone in the richest country on Earth dying because he can't afford treatment? I'm just looking for the Republican perspective here.

Tim Perkins said...

I have nothing against covering people with pre-existing conditions. I have a grandson who will forever fall into that category.

What most Americans want, not just Republicans, is a bill that tweaks the current healthcare situation in America. Not one that lets the federal government be in charge of doctors, hospitals, and patients. Not one that will force doctors from their profession. Not one that raises taxes four years before being implemented.

Tim Perkins said...

Jeff: Also, how compassionate is it to cut Medicare and Medicaid and force our seniors to somehow make up the difference?

Also, how moral is abortion? Do we really want government-funded abortions?

This bill is an abomination...nearly 80% of the country doesn't want it. And yet Obama, Pelosi, et al are determined to turn a deaf ear to the people who put them in office and shove it down our throats anyway.

Jeff S. said...

I love how Republicans in Congress are all of the sudden the great defenders of Medicare and Medicaid, when they have loathed the programs since their inception. They screamed "socialism" back in the 1960s before the two became law. That is a perfect example of how the current Republican party will do anything to achieve its political ends.

Your reference to abortion and morality is precisely the reason I don't like to mix morality and politics. Putting those two topics together is like running on a treadmill: it gets us nowhere and accomplishes nothing. We can both bring up policies of each party that we each might consider immoral (abortion, equal rights for homosexuals, starting an unnecessary war, torture, etc. etc.). And when the argument is over--if it ever is--no one's mind has been changed. It's much more effective to talk strictly about policy without injecting morality into the discussion.

And I am curious about your 80%-opposition figure. That is nothing close to what I have seen. Here is a Pew poll conducted yesterday that puts opposition just below 50%.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1682

Carole said...

I thought as Christians, we combined morality with every facet of our lives. (?)

Quote:
"That is a perfect example of how the current Republican party will do anything to achieve its political ends."
With all the arm-twisting, bribes, lies, threats by the OTHER party the last few weeks, and it's the Republicans who will do anything to achieve its political ends?????