Now We Are Political Terrorists
Aug 7, 2009 Political
First they published a memo calling all people who have conservative values Right Wing Extremists. The chilling report labeled people with single issues like opposition to abortion, as extremists. It was distributed to police agencies so they could be on the look out for us. Though that met stiff opposition and was reportedly quashed, I would not be surprised if those sentiments were still held and we are all being observed under the radar.
Then came the snitch campaign where the Obama White House wants people to report anyone who says something about the health care plan that might be “fishy.” There is an email address that people can forward such things to. This means if you send an email to a friend and it gets passed on to the White House, you will be in a database of opponents. This is reminiscent of the Nazi campaign to snitch on neighbors, particularly to rat out Jews. Is it any wonder that someone would feel compelled to carry a swastika to a protest event. Yes, it appears that two were seen at different events. All the other signs were ignored and the swastika was the focus of attention. I challenged Pelosi to find one and one of her lap dogs did. I am willing to bet there were more of them at one anti Bush rally than have been at all the protests combined. Why would they feign indignation now when they were not bothered then. It is because they are trying to paint all protesters as right wing radicals rather than the diverse group that includes Democrats, liberals, Republicans and conservatives. They want you to believe that only Republicans and conservatives are involved and they are radicals who have, gasp, a swastika. How dare they insult Herr Obama?
Now we have a columnist at the Washington Post chiming in. He has labeled those who are voicing opposition to the plan as political terrorists. Steven Pearlstein says:
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems. [emphasis mine]
So Steven, what were the Democrats and Obamadinejad when they opposed more than a half a dozen bills that would have reformed health care? If they were concerned about this serious domestic problem then why did they all oppose items that would have provided reform without a complete overhaul in order to cover a small percentage who have no insurance?
The claim by Mr. Pearlstein is that Republicans are making claims that this will result in a government takeover of health care and he contends that there is no way to read what has been proposed and conclude that. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, the words of Obama saying that he wanted a single payer system and of Barney Frank saying the way to get there was by first passing a government run plan are clear indications of what they want and what they have in mind. The claims that the opposition is being misleading or disingenuous are funny considering that those who are pushing the plan are misleading and disingenuous.
This is another example of someone presenting two options. Obama has said it a number of times. People who oppose this want to keep things they way they are. This straw man argument is designed to make people believe there are only two options. The reality is that many members of Congress have introduced legislation to reform and those items did not involve the complete overhaul of our system. Democrats opposed these because they want to control it all.
There are plenty of options as I have discussed in the past. We can drop the mandates in coverage. States require a number of things to be in a plan before it can be offered. Some companies do not want to put those plans out so only a few are allowed to offer. This means less competition. Insurance should be like a cable plan. There are items that are essential such as catastrophic care, emergency care, dental care, vision care, surgical care and any preventive care that involves more than a routine office visit. Then other items can be offered if the consumer desires them. It makes no sense to force a single male to pay for a plan that includes abortion services or OB/GYN. It is nonsensical to force people who do not drink or do drugs to pay for substance abuse treatment. Some people might like aroma therapy but others see no benefit. Allow those who want it to add it on and pay for it and those who do not to pass on it. Just like cable TV, you have a basic package and you add on the extras that you want. People should also pay for wellness visits. We have car insurance but that does not pay for routine maintenance. Why should people not pay for their routine care?
We should also remove restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. If a person likes a plan offered in another state then he should be able to buy it. Restricting to in state companies stifles competition and drives costs up.
I also think Doctors should be given tax credits for seeing people with no health insurance. I heard Congressman Ron Paul’s son discuss this and I think it is a great idea. Rand Paul is a doctor (Ophthalmologist) and he is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He believes that doctors should see those without insurance and receive a tax credit for doing so. This will provide care to those who need it and compensate the doctors providing the care. Of course there will need to be oversight or some will abuse the system but I think it will provide incentive for doctors to see those who truly cannot pay.
These are but a few ideas that would help to reform the system and they would make health care more affordable. People will still have to pay but it will not cost as much. I am sure if they can afford a cell phone, two cars, high speed internet and cable TV with the premium channels they can squeeze in health insurance.
For the absolute destitute among us, we still have government plans that will cover them.
No, I am not a political terrorist for opposing the health care scheme and wanting less government regardless of what any reporter says. I do wonder though, where this guy was when the left was using similar tactics to oppose Bush? Has he called the Code Pink morons who harassed Marines in Berkeley political terrorists?
The First Amendment protects our right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Opposing health care or any other plan in a peaceful fashion is not political terrorism, it is an exercise of our Constitutional rights.
Those who cannot see that or would work to oppose it, are the real political terrorists.
Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, debate, health care, political terrorist, rand paul, rights, Steven Pearlstein