About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

WHO IS LYING?

Posted by Patrick Henry on Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:35:54 PM
 
   A response to my last post raises an interesting question. Just who is lying about healthcare reform?
The respondent took the hopelessly naive position that if the legislation doesn't specifically permit
those in the country illegally to enroll in the "public option," then they can't. Therefore, President
Obama was being truthful in his address to congress, despite Congressman Wilson calling him a
liar. The laws of logic tell us that a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time. So ether
Obama and his defenders or Wilson and his supporters must ve lying.
   To sort it out, one need look only at the bill itself, legal precedent and history. House Resolution
3200 does not say in plain language that illegal aliens may sign up for government run healthcare. But
in case after case, entitlement after entitlement, the courts have ruled that what is not specifically
prohibited is permitted. Those wishing to defraud the government have siphoned off billions of
taxpayer dollars, not because they were qualified to receive government benefitsbut because the law
upon which the entitlement was based provided no enforceable standard for excluding them. Those
loopholes have had to be closed one at a time by successor legislation, and the U.S. treasury continues
to bleed green because many are still wide open. the House resolution in effect places illegal aliens on
an honor system, trusting that they will not try to sign up for government funded healthcare. These
are people who entered the country illegally, who have falsified documentation in order to work and
who continue to live here in defiance of the law and are professional cheaters of the system.. Are
Obama and the Democrats really so stupid that they believe this group of lawbreakers will not
seek to exploit such an easy target as free government healthcare with no mechanism to keep them
out? Do they think the rest of America is that stupid? No, they don't. It is therefore clear that he, and
they are disingenuous in their claim that healthcare reform, as they have proposed it, will not
cover illegal aliens.
   More dishonesty surfaces regarding the use of public funds for abortion. The public option,
along with many of the other plans that might be included in any insurance exchange under
Obamacare will provide "reproductive healthcare," a favorite Democrat euphemism for abortion,
and one Obama himself has used time and again. If the public option includes "reproductive
healthcare," and that includes abortion, by what possible stretch of credulity can Obama say that
no public funds will go to pay for abortions? Democrats have struck down nine different measures
attempting to specifically exclude abortion from coverage. The bill doesn't say abortions are
covered. But it also doesn't say that they aren't. The logical maxim that a thing cannot at the same
time be true and untrue, and the time-honored legal principle that what is not specifically forbidden
is permitted, along with decades of unchecked welfare fraud tell us all we need to know. Obama
and Democrats fully intend to fund backdoor abortions and to do so with public funds. And he,
and they are lying to the American people by saying otherwise.
   Then there is the matter of cost control and deficit spending. Obama argued again in his speech that
his healthcare reform will "bring down costs" and add nothing to the deficit. Yet the non-partisan says
that the plan will likely not bring down costs and, in some cases, may increase them, and that over ten
years an beyond will add to and create unsustainable deficits. Is it more likely that a partisan political
group pushing their agenda is playing fast and loose with numbers, or that a non-partisan, highly credible
watchdog agency has gotten it completely wrong? It seems to many a classic proof of the adage that
while figures don't lie, liars figure. Both of these positions cannot, at the same time, be true. The one
pushing the untruth is lying.
   The Democrats are rabidly pursuing policies contrary to the wishes of the American people. The
polls make it crystal clear. The closure of Guantanamo Bay, the investigation of CIA interrogators, the
public funding of abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, cap-and-trade energy tax, unending bailouts
the blockage of offshore drilling and card check forced unionism are all minority positions. Yet Democrats
believe they know better than other Americans and have made it clear that they intend to use the
bully pulpit of the presidency and their cngressional majorities to ram their agenda down America's
throat. They have apparently forgotten the lesson of 1994 and are oblivious to the principle that fools
who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ORWELL LIVES!

Posted by Patrick Henry on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:17:30 PM
 
 
   If you want to participate in an experiment in terror, go to the "reality check" website
 
and check out the videobytes intended to "combat myths about healthcare reform." What
 
you'll see is a series of vignettes by White House minions that set up straw men (things
 
no one in their right mind is actually saying) and then proceed to blow them out of
 
the imaginary water. It gave me a strange sense of Orwellian foreboding, and I could
 
almost see the zombie-like face of Barack Obama hovering in giant relief over the
 
free-flowing doublespeak.
 
   But the site, along with Obama's New Hampshire town hall meeting and tactics
 
employed by various lawmakers in similar settings make the Democratic strategy
 
to pass healthcare reform crystal clear. Discredit dissenters. Call them un-American,
 
Nazis, a mob, holligans and thugs. Seize on arguments no serious critics are making
 
and paint all dissent with the same brush as misinformed extremism. What sticks in
 
the craw is that Obama and his people think Americans are really that dumb.
 
   But their strategy will work UNLESS those who oppose Draconian government
 
control of the quality-of-life issue that affects every one of us takes action now. It
 
is clear that a part of the Democratic strategy is to flood the town halls with union
 
thugs like the ones who assaulted someone for distributing American flags in St.
 
Louis. We must not be intimidated, show up in force and give them a fight, verbally
 
if we can and otherwise if they want it that way. The New Black Panthers bullied
 
voters successfully in Philadelphia and the politicians that benefited from their
 
intimidation let them go unpunished. If they think we're afraid and that they can
 
keep us away then they will win. Find a town hall meeting near you and by all
 
means, go.
 
   But the big thing we have to do is make the Democratic politicians answer the
 
real questions: the ones they weasel, twist on, dodge and avoid. Those questions
 
are not the straw men on Obama's phony website. They are as follows:
 
   1. Does the bill currently before the House of Representatives allow the funding
 
of abortion with public money? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
 
   2. Does the bill provide healthcare for illegal aliens with taxpare money? Yes or no?
 
It's not rocket science.
 
   3. Does the bill specifically and unambiguously debar the National Health Board
 
being created from ever rationing or limiting care based on age, chronic disease or
 
cost? Yes or no? 'Fess up!
 
   4. Does this bill or does it not impose a sirtax on businesses with payrolls of $250,000
 
or more that do not provide "acceptable" health insurance for their employees? Yes nor no?
 
      a. If yes, is the government saying businesses that cannot provide health
 
benefits and still make a profit should just go out of business? And who decides what's
 
acceptable? What are the criteria?
 
      b. Consider this scenario: Joe and Molly own a flower shop. In addition to themselves
 
they have two clerk/order takers, one delivery man and one bookkeeper who handles
 
the bills, the taxes, billing and receivables. The payroll is a modest $256,000. Is this
 
bill saying that Joe and Molly must provide full health benefits for everyone who
 
works for them or pay a surtax? If so, why not just close them down?
 
   5. What provision is built into this legislation to guarantee that private insurance
 
options will continue to exist and not be closed down by trying to compete with
 
the same entity (the government) that also makes the rules? What guarantees that
 
this bill will not, over time, force  a "single payer" scenariio by default?
 
   6. Is it true that this bill authorizes the government to look into our checking and
 
savings accounts without our specific knowledge and permission? Yes or no?
 
Spit it out.
 
   There are many more such questions that can be asked. But by the time you've
 
finished these they will either have shouted you into silence or forced you to leave
 
hall. They won't answer them because they're partisan cowards and because they
 
know that if they answer them truthfully they will ignite a storm of protest from
 
which they can never recover politically.
 
   Doublespeak, threats, intimidation and namecalling can never silence us as long
 
as we refuse to be silenced. Let's call these people out for what they are and MAKE
 
them wear what they're shoveling.  Let's MAKE them write bills, as one Pennsylvania
 
educator suggested to Senator Spector in a town hall meetung, that can be read and
 
understood by a junior high school student. Or let's, as another gentleman requested,
 
see a list of the people who actually write the bills, find out about their political
 
affiliation and agenda. Or as the best suggestion of all would have it, let's have a
 
national referendum on healthcare reform. Then, Mr. President, we'll be glad to
 
tell you what we think of your program. But, then, you're probably too big a
 
coward to that either. George Orwell is alive and well in Obamerica!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHO IS "Un-AMERICAN?"

Posted by Patrick Henry on Monday, August 10, 2009 4:40:20 PM
 
   In a new op-ed the Democratic leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives have
 
labeled as "un-American" those flocking to town hall meetings across the nation to
 
protest the proposed sweeping healthcare reforms of Barack Obama. So who is really
 
"un-American?"
 
   Maybe the place to start is by defining what is "American." Presumably we're talking
 
about a code of behaviors and values here, rather than a simple accident of birth.
 
Historically, it has been classified as patriotic to express dissent, confront elected
 
officials and demand that they be accounatble to those who elected them and that
 
public policies they make be temperate, well-grounded in fact, fiscally defensible
 
and a fair represntation of all the people.
 
   But it seems that in Nancy Pdlosi' twisted mind we've all suddenly been catapulted
 
back through Alice's Rabbit Hole, and in this new reality all the things that once
 
typified Americans are now shameful, the actions that once comprised duty are now
 
forbidden and the demands for accountability are classified as the maniacal howling
 
of "Nazis," organized hooligans and thugs. What  happened?
 
   What happened is that in January 2009 Barack Obama took the presidential oath of
 
of office and began immediately imposing his neo-socialistic agenda on Americans,
 
spending the country into oblivion and paying off his union supporters and community
 
organizing pals whose money put him there. When Democrats rode his coattails to
 
full control of both houses of the legislature, he simply declared "I won," implying
 
that no dissent to his agenda would be tolereated.
 
   Both houses began ramming through legislation and questionable cabinet and other
 
nominees while allowing the opposition little or no input. In a classic abuse of power
 
scenario the freight train was rolling. Then came the infamous healthcare reform bill
 
and some red lights began coming on. Republicans hated it. Blue Dog Democrats
 
didn't like it much either. It cost too much, took away care from those who needed
 
it to give to those who wanted it (so long as it was free), set in place a government
 
bureaucracy that could soon ration care, threatened to run existing health insurance
 
companies out of business because they could not compete with a so-called "public
 
option," provided care for illegal aliens, made taxpayer money available to fund
 
abortions and peanlized small businesses whose benefits do not currently include
 
health insurance. Democrats speak only about near term costs, and shun all
 
projections of long-range deficits. And to this day no one can state coherently
 
exactly how it will be paid for, although in a rare moment of candor two of
 
Obama's advisors, Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers recently admitted on
 
national television that it was not a matter of "if" but of "when" taxes would
 
have to be raised on the middle class (something Obama swore he would not do)
 
in order to pay for it. Anyone still wonder why Americans are exercised about
 
the matter?
 
   Watching the polls and realizing that the tide of public opinion was turning
 
against them on the issue, Obama and the Democrats schemed to use town hall
 
meetings during the congressional recess to regain momentum. Only a funny
 
thing happened on the way to the town hall. A whole bunch of Americans, fed
 
up with force fed socialism and satisfied with their current healthcare (84%)
 
showed up and, with varying degrees of panache, shouted "NO WAY!"
 
   Their panties now completely in a wad, the White House has put out a call
 
for information on "fishy" e-mails opposed to Obamacare. "Fishy" in this case
 
clearly means "dissenting." Elected politicians have started calling everyday
 
citizens "Nazis," labeled their confrontational tactics un-American and charged
 
them with inciting violence. (Although, humorously enough, the most notorious
 
incidence of violence was perpetrated by Democrat SEIU thigs against a black
 
man passing out American flags at a St. Louis rally. Isn't rank hypocrisy a
 
beautiful thing)?
 
   So, who's un-American? Is it people demanding the chance to criticize a wacky
 
plan congress' own budget office says will cost more than it saves? Is it those
 
who have definite ideas about the clumsy, bumbling bureaucry of government
 
messing with a healthcare system which, for all its shortcomings, is still the finest
 
in the world? Is it those who are under the assumption that a constitution is still
 
in force that guarantees citizens the right to freely speak their minds? Or is it
 
those who use their platforms of power to intrude, threaten, intimidate, call
 
names and impose their own agenda without regard to public opinion? You decide
 
who's trying to kill the America I know and love? I know that I have.
 
   And on the off chance that some Obamaton reads this and wants to forward it
 
to the "fish department" at the White House, knock yourself out. The United
 
States Constitution is and will always be bigger than Barack Obama and his
 
disingenuous coterie who have long since forgotten that only "the truth will
 
set you free." Real Ameicans just aren't "afraid of the big, bad wolf."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SANE HEALTHCARE REFORM

Posted by Patrick Henry on Monday, April 20, 2009 11:26:03 AM
 
   Healthcare reform is the next congressional "hot potato." President Barack Obama
 
wants to Institute universal healthcare, much like that of Sweden, France, Norway
 
and the U.K. so that no American will be uninsured. While covering every citizen
 
is a noble goal, the costs associated with it create the mothre of all entitlement
 
programs and increase the national debt to unsustainable proportions. If it follows
 
the aforementioned European models it is also likely to lead to a greatly reduced
 
quality of care for all but the most wealthy and, unavoidably, a rationing of
 
care that will throw the elderly and the chronically ill under the bus. A way must
 
be found to place an umbrella of care over most Americans, while maintaining
 
the nation's undisputed leadership in quality of medical care. Let;s not throw
 
out the baby with the bathwater.
 
   Instead of offering blanket universal coverage that must inevitably lead to a
 
healthcare tax, there are some other steps that can and should be taken. A basic
 
Medicare-like policy might be created for those living at or below the poverty
 
level, with the stipulation that they waive the "tax rebate" (refund of taxes they
 
never paid) which would go to help defray the cost of their premium. When their
 
earnings climb to a certain level above poverty, they would phase into contributing
 
to their own premium based on their earnings, Prioritizing healthcare is a choice
 
for most of us, and even a government supported policy should not relieve those
 
covered by it of some responsibility for prioritizng their health over luxuries and
 
other discretionary spending. Private insurers could be engaged to bid on the right
 
to provide such government subsidized policies, much like the Medicare Advantage
 
plans. This would ensure that private insurers willing to cooperate with the new
 
system could stay in business, although at a reduced level of profit.
 
   If the government wishes to involve itself in subsidizing healthcare, then it can
 
look into assisting businesses, especially smaller businesses in providing health
 
plans for their employees. By bundling these businesses and using government
 
clout, substantially lower rates for coverage can be negotiated. although employee
 
choice of coverage may be curtailed to some extent.
 
   Another thing government can do is begin subsidizing physicians by renegotiating
 
and then paying their malpractice insurance premiums. Combined with national
 
tort reform capping payments for malpractice awards, the cost of coverage could
 
be significantly reduced. Government could also become the universal purchasing
 
agent for medical supplies and equipment, thereby cutting physicians' costs in
 
adequately equipping their practices. Full fare government scholarships could be
 
offered to qualified med students, which would alleviate their need for repayment
 
income when they open a practice. Physicians could repay this government
 
assistance by lowering their fees for service proportionately to the savings they
 
realize or. alternative, chipping in proportionately to a government fund that
 
would help to pay the premiums for the poor.
 
   The already scheduled computerization of medical records should, once in place,
 
also provide more efficiency and cost effectiveness. Drug companies and pharmacies
 
should also be given incentives to further engage in cost-reduction of prescriiption
 
drugs needed to treat the poor and the elderly. Similar provisions could encompass
 
extended care facilities, physical therapists and proven forms of alternative medical
 
providers. Everyone will make a little less, but the costs of doing business will also
 
decline, with a result that the tax burden necessary to provide basic coverage to the
 
uninsured can be lightened.
 
   This seems like a common sense proposal that can minimize additional tax burdens,
 
provide basic medical care for almost everyone and yet not tear down our present
 
system of medical care fir a system that has already proven both ineffectual and
 
exclusionary in Europe. Every day people come to this country from other places
 
to receive the finest care money can buy. You don't see those same people flocking
 
to the European socialist democracies where people routinely die awaiting needed
 
care. Let's show some common sense and find a middle ground for our healthcare
 
system. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »