Tag Archives: Obamacare

MISSOURI vs. WASHINGTON

Posted on August 4, 2010 | Leave a comment

Proposition C voters said YES to the tune of 71% in favor of the Proposition which says NO to mandated insurance for health care. Missouri thus joins with Arizona in entering into a serious conflict between a sovereign State and the Federal government, AZ over illegal immigration, MO over Obamacare. What State will be next? What issue will be next?

This case is almost certain to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Court upholds Missouri’s Proposition C, Missouri residents will be exempt from the Federal mandate to buy this insurance. An avalanche of states will follow. Obamacare will be in trouble. Kagan, if appointed, will be the leftmost judge on the court. The direction in which she would vote is not in doubt.

One of the reasons America surpassed Europe to become a superpower is that Europe is comprised of nation states that repeatedly make war with each other while our states remain united, even following a civil war.

We were a nation that had grown harshly divided along political lines in recent years. Obama promised to bring unity. Instead, we have seen only a widening of the gap and a hardening of the hostility along political lines.

We have quoted Lincoln before and we will quote him again, “A house divided cannot stand.”

Bob B

Leave a comment

Posted in News, Opinion, Political polemics

Tagged , , ,

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE FOR JO DOWLING R.I.P.

Posted on August 2, 2010 | Leave a comment

When there is only one provider of a service, the quality of the service is sure to decline. When the provider is deeply in debt, some of the services will surely be curtailed. When the service is health care, some people will die. When the provider of the service is the government there is nothing you can do about it but wait until Election Day and cast your one vote.

Obama has promised competition and choice will remain. He lies. That’s a bold assertion but how else can you phrase it when you have seen and heard him tell selected audiences that single payer is the goal, but it needs to be achieved gradually because of the opposition to it? The bill just passed is but the intended first step in Obamacare.

The British people have lived with a single provider system for many years. Here is a link to a news item of how “free health care” failed one young woman in England. Be forewarned, you will need a strong stomach to read it.

Each of us has but one precious vote. Cast yours in memory of Jo Dowling.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged , , , ,

STUDENT LOANS OUTLAWED BY OBAMACARE

Posted on July 13, 2010 | Leave a comment

LIBERTY LOST, ONE BILL AT A TIME

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, includes a provision that eliminates private sector student-loan programs. Preposterous? Nothing is preposterous in Washington.

In a letter to supporters, Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, writes:

[Hillsdale’s resolution to remain independent of government funding] comes at a time when the federal government is increasing its unconstitutional grip on higher education. In the most recent example, sweeping legislation was passed that takes the student-loan business away from private lenders and hands it over to the Department of Education. This measure was tacked onto the health-care bill at the zero hour, and with false and laughable claims of saving billions of taxpayer dollars.

He who controls the purse strings controls absolutely. We are losing our liberty one increment at a time. We are losing it in subtle, almost clandestine ways. Did you know this provision was in the health-care bill? I would venture to say that many, perhaps even most of our representatives who voted for the bill were unaware of it.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in News, Opinion, Political philosophy

Tagged , , ,

OBAMACARE AND THE SUPREME COURT

Posted on March 30, 2010 | Leave a comment

As of March 29th thirteen states have joined in a legal challenge to the law known as Obamacare. According to the New York Times their case rests on two arguments, (A) the Constitution does not permit the Federal government to mandate the purchase of goods or services from the private sector, and (B) the provisions of Obamacare overstep states rights as provided in the Constitution. The Times predicts failure because “the law was carefully drafted to withstand just this kind of challenge.”

For the government to asses a penalty for a citizen’s failure to make a specified purchase in the private sector would undoubtedly be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Therefore the new law calls it a tax. In a court of law names do not prevail, attributes do. You cannot avoid licensing your dog by calling it a cat. This argument is weak.

The second argument is very interesting indeed. States rights have been Fabianized away over many years. A favorable ruling on this issue could stop the slide and maybe even reverse the trend. A hearing on this issue could have impact well beyond Obamacare.

I fear the stir among the states is but a scream in reaction to sudden pain that will subside with time, and along with it, the determination to pursue the SOTUS course. If the November elections offer hope of legislative appeal it would further lessen the incentive to go with the Supreme Court option. That would be unfortunate for we would miss an opportunity to watch a landmark case.
Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

AT RANDOM

Posted on March 8, 2010 | 1 comment

Topsy turvy
The dictionary says, in a democracy the majority rules. In a republic
the people choose representatives to rule for them.

Every poll shows a clear majority do not want any of the proposed health care bills. Democrats named their party after the concept of democracy. Therefore, it should follow, that in as much as a majority of the people oppose Obamacare, the party of democracy should be bound by their creed to oppose Obamacare also.

Republicans, on the other hand, named their party after the concept of representatives who are authorized to make decisions for the citizens. Once elected, they are not bound by their creed to follow the will of the people on any particular issue.  It follows then, that if one of the parties is taking a stance of its own, apart from the expressed will of the majority, it should be the party of republicanism.

Could it be that the names got mixed up at the hospital?

Some aphorisms
You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage, by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
William J. H. Boetcker (1873 – 1962)

I don’t know who Boetcker was but he obviously was not a Democrat.

From Thomas Jefferson
[If you are thinking Congress is a lot of talk without action,] how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?  That 150 lawyers should do business together ought not to be expected.

Let us pray
The Bible exhorts us to pray. Let us pray for President Obama according to the dictates of Psalm 109 verse 8 (108:8 in the New Catholic version)

1 Comment

Posted in Political philosophy, Randoms

Tagged , ,