Slaves to Health Care

Today's blog-fodder comes from the following article at Foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/

If you're a Republican, you'll be out-raged by what is said in that article. If you're anyone else, I hope you will be, at the very least, incredulous and unsupportive.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried continues to prove that he is unfit for America, let alone American politics and Congress. We can only hope that the good people of Nevada will do all they can to get him out of office in the upcoming elections, if not before.

In his most recent statements on the floor of the senate Ried likened those who oppose the health care reform bill to those who wished to continue with slavery, keep women from voting, and keep the civil rights movement from victory. He has looked at some of the tactics used by the GOP to oppose health care reform and found similiarities that he feels give him the right to make such wild accusations and insults. I had to come here and rant for awhile.

So let me make a few points that immediately came to mind. First, these tactics are used all the time in Congress and will continue to be used in the future. They are lawful so that senators who truly believe Congress is going the wrong way have some recourse. These tactics have been used by Republican and Democrat alike for many many years. I suspect Harry Ried has even used these tactics at one time or another. Second, We're not in the 19th century or even the 20th century any more. Third, in the big scale of societal evils perpetuated by the laws of our nation the issue of health care reform is nowhere near slavery, women voting, or civil rights. It's not even close. If you want a more honest parallel to slavery I would gladly submit the trampling over the rights of the unborn in abortion. And, finally, the fourth point is in regards to name-calling. Has the Senate floor become nothing more than an elementary school playground filled with bullies and name-calling? It sure seems like it. If this is the way we're going to treat this issue, at least leave some dignity for the hallowed halls of the laws of this land and move the venue to a place more suitable for the kind of antics being employed by the democratic party. A place more suitable like the nearest elementary school playground.

The democrats are taking a high moral stance on a health care reform bill that is based on lies and deceit. See previous blog entries for truer costs for this bill and the impact it will have on our economy. What is far worse is the impact on a country that is wandering further and further from its founding fathers and the amazing document they shed their blood for.

Health Care reform is much simpler than this. Tort Reform and opening up the state lines for health care companies would go a long way towards reducing health care costs and making it more affordable.

Come on guys, let's stop the insanity. Somebody put a gag on Reid and let's kill the health care bill. Let's get back to a government for the people and by the people.

From South Dakota Senator John Thune on Health Care

Received on 11/21/09

Click on the image for a nicer view.

Disappointment

It's so painful to watch my freedoms slip away one by one. What will it take to stop it? When will my government understand how little I want them in my life?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/27/lieberman-announces-opposition-health-care-government-plan/

The Heavy Hand

My blog-fodder for this rant comes from the following news article at foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/20/white-house-cites-opinion-shows-basis-fox-news-complaints/

There has been a lot of complaining coming out of the White House lately with regards to Fox News that could be seen as laughingly childish if it wasn't so serious with deadly consequences.

It all boils down to Obama and his administration not being able to handle media that disagrees with him and wants to call him on the carpet for those he associates with and the beliefs he espouses. I think probably every president in the history of this country has had to deal with unfriendly media and opinions. Some have even lashed out. I seem to recall Bush Sr. ready to throw a punch at a disrespectful reporter.

So let me get a few preliminaries out of the way. First of all, I do watch FoxNews regularly so go ahead and brand me now. I used to watch more of CNN and MSNBC until I began to notice the rediculously left-leaning slant on their opinion shows and News that wasn't always covering things fairly. Does FoxNews do this all perfectly? Of course not. But I will say, in general, they lean the same way I do. I'll also say I think their coverage is more thorough and fair. Statistics seem to show this to be true as well.

With all that said, we can all admit that the Fox News Opinion shows very much lean to the right and the Opinion shows of all the rest seem to lean very much to the left. The fact that Fox News is as loud as they are only brings some semblance of balance to the overall picture. So all this talk about them not being a legitimate news channel is pure bologney. Even if you lean way to the left you will have to allow for Freedom of Speech which is a foundation of this country.

And now we get to the heart of the issue: Freedom of Speech. I have no problem with the president disputing the opinions of Fox News. But the current tactic falls perfectly in line with what we've been seeing from the big names in the Democratic Party over the past year. That tactic is to do everything possible to marginalize and silence critics. We are dangerously close to losing the freedom to debate opinions and ideas in this country. The health care debate is a prime example. At every turn we hear about the so-called nuclear option the Democrats are hanging over the heads of the Republicans. Do what we want or we'll do it for you.

Now we see an attempt by the Obama administration to silence the loudest conservative voices on television. Rather than battle with words, the administration resorts to heavy-handed attempts to marginalize and silence the opposition. The problem is Freedom of Speech and the attempt not only to silence an opposing voice but perhaps the loudest outlet for the American People to speak. Obama is attempting to silence FoxNews, he's attempting to silence EVERYONE who opposes him.

The Heavy Hand is dropping. I still remember the interview a Fox News affiliate in Florida did with Joe Biden during the campaign. "Marxism" was the term being thrown around to describe the beliefs of the campaign. Biden acted like he couldn't believe anyone would dare accuse the campaign of such an unAmerican thing like that. The black pot isn't black but really more of a gray. It may look black but it isn't so stop saying it is. And if you keep calling that black pot black, then we're going to call you a fool and anything else we can come up with until the world has pushed you aside. And then, when all the voices saying the black pot is black are silenced or marginalized, the world can finally live in peace and harmony knowing and believing what we tell them.

No more freedom of thought, idea, or opinion. Freedom of Speech will still be there. You can say whatever you want as long as it's what we want. If you don't agree with us, we'll treat you like an idiot.

I no longer believe Barack Obama is a marxist. I now believe he is a communist. His desire is to be dictator of America. His ideology is shown in his actions and words. It's obvious now that he's taken to attacking Freedom of Speech, one of the bastions of America. A pillar. A foundation.

All this starts with a war of words backed by ideologies. If the words win, the ideologies win.

America is being tested right now. We are on the brink of leaving our foundations. We've been heading there for years. Which way will America choose to go? Will we turn away from the edge of freedom and travel back to our founding fathers? Or will we go over the edge and start down a long path and handing control of our lives over to this government and every government that follows?

The Big Speech - Part 4

This is a lot of blog-fodder. I'm still ranting about Obama's health care speech and there's a whole lot of things happening. Max Baucus trotted out his groups efforts today and the nation is trying to digest what he said.

What frustrates me about all these efforts so far is that there is always a penalty of some sort for not buying health insurance. We're spending all this effort to force every American to dedicate 8% to 9% of their hard-earned income to their health insurance. So if I was one of those who simply couldn't afford health insurance how am I supposed to continue to live on 8% less income? Now let's consider if my employer is forced to pay for my health insurance. Maybe my company now has to downsize in order to pay the extra costs and, if I'm lucky enough not to be laid off, my company takes part of my salary to pay for my insurance and I still get taxed on the rest that they pay for me. No matter how this ends, I have less money in my pocket. That's less money I can use to buy all those frivilous things like bread, milk, and eggs.

When will our politicians learn that they can't force me to spend my money. If I am forced to spend my money then I'm missing freedoms. Taxes are a necessary evil to keep our government running and I still have a bone to pick with the percentage. I say we're paying way too much for a government that only knows how to bloat. Give me leadership, protect my freedoms, protect our lands, what more do we need to pay for? Our country went off the trail of greatness when politicians realized the government was a potential gold mine if we only figured out how to get the people to pay for it.

By the way, what kind of trouble do you suppose I would get in if I refused to pay taxes because I disagreed with the way those taxes were being spent? It drives me nuts that my tax money goes to pay for abortions, prostitution, and the support of every sin known to man. What's worse, those taxes also go to pay for the same things in other countries. That's MY MONEY!!! I would never walk into an abortion clinic and offer to pay for the next fifty abortions. I would never do a lot of things my government does with my money. It disgusts me. When does my government stop being my government? They say I don't have to agree, I just have to pay for it whether I do or don't.

Yes, I'm unhappy and I've lost faith in my government. Am I going to start stockpiling ammunition? Of course not. I still love life. When the government takes that away, then I'll fight.

Okay, on to a couple of Obama's quotes.

Quote #11: " We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick."

This is a nice sentiment. Of course most insurance plans already have a way of covering this issue. This is nothing new. The idea of limiting the amount will just fix the costs and limit the plans. The general rule is: the more you pay each month, the less you pay when you're sick. So I'm not sure how limits are going to help. Besides, losing a few thousand dollars is much better than losing a few hundred thousand dollars and forfeiting any chance you have of the future.

By the way, where do non-profit hospitals fit into all this? As we begin to fix all these things are we going to kill the system of donations to non-profit hospitals that helps pay for those who can't cover the costs? My own father can testify to having a very large hospital bill forgiven because he couldn't pay after a heart attack. Much of that money to pay those bills happened because of a non-profit hospital with private donors. I haven't heard anyone bring this issue up and I think the non-profit hospitals are going to get hard by all this. Why donate to a hospital if the government is guaranteeing it instead? We're going to give up health care to our government just like we gave up education.

Quote #12: "And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies."

That would be nice but everything Obama says adds more cost on the insurance company. That cost has to be passed on at some point. What we keep hearing are hints that the government is going to essentially fix the profit levels for insurance companies. They're going to be taxed more and they're going to have to pay more. The company will have to make less money. This will have an impact on stocks and there will be a lot of negative changes happening in the companies. Top executives will be in lower number as the insurance companies go to younger and less-experienced executives that will command lesser salaries just to keep some semblance of a profit margin. Some companies will simply sell out of the business and we'll see a consolidation of big companies that are big enough to still make a profit. Or, perhaps, we'll get a new Mae or Mac added into the government holdings as it becomes increasingly necessary for the government to begin guaranteeing health insurance policies.

Currently most insurance plans are going to cover these procedures with a small co-pay. It's out of pocket but it's not usually going to break the bank or cause long-term financial distress. Complete cost coverage is a nice idea for the policy-holder but not so nice on the policy-writer. Is the government going to fix the cost of these procedures so hospitals and clinics don't take advantage of the insurance companies? Is there going to be some provision for cost increases? How many hospitals and clinics will choose not to offer these services because there's no money in them?

We are a capitalist country. If there is no profit, there is no service. Who's going to pour $100 million into research for new equipment when it will take them 100 years to make that money back? I'm a small business owner. I want to give my customers great products with great service. But I'm not going to pay them for me to provide that service. I've got to charge what the service is worth. If the government is allowed to come in and fix my prices, the better fix it high enough that I won't complain and low enough that my customers don't complain. Either way, I'm going to throw it back in their face and close down my business. I like being my own boss and I refuse to allow the government to take over my company and force me to accept a new boss.

Regulate. Make it fair for the consumer as well as the company. Other than that, STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS!!!

The Big Speech - Part 3

I hope we're getting through to the President. In a recent article based on an interview with CBS, Foxnews reported the President seems to be opening up on a few key ideas with regards to reforming health care. The two biggest areas of compromise seem to be opening the possibility of tort reform and removal of the public option. Neither of these have made it into writing yet but we'll see what happens.

You can read the whole article here.

I'm choosing to ignore the dumber comments in that article for now.

Tort reform deals with handling all the frivilous malpractice lawsuits that plague the medical community. This is a vital step in reducing unnecessary testing aimed at reducing lawsuits as well as lowering the overall cost of practicing medicine. Republicans have been trying to accomplish this reform for many years now but efforts have traditionally been blocked by Democrats. So if Obama truly pushes his colleagues for serious tort reform then I think he will be met in the middle with a little more serious compromise on the part of Republicans. Don't expect a public option but you could see more votes for reform.

I still have to point towards the smugness of several key Democrat politicians as a major roadblock. As long as Pelosi, Reid, and other Democrats continue to hold reconciliation over the heads of Republicans, they will find the vast majority of Republicans (and probably a great deal of the American people) opposing everything they do, not just the issues they want to make a big deal about. Holding out reconciliation as the ultimate option is the ultimate in partisan politics, which is the exact political game the Democrats have been playing since they gained such a large majority in Congress. By now I'm certain a majority of Americans realize the mistake they've made in giving them that majority after seeing the childish way they've handled their "great power" without "great responsibility."

If Democrats are serious about health care reform the people can support, they will drop the nuclear option of reconciliation and get serious about hammering out differences. It seems you can't get a Democratic leader on camera without hearing about how they'll only deal with Republicans for so long and then they'll go it alone. Do it and we'll see what happens in the 2010 congressional elections.

I'd be surprised is Pelosi and Reid are reelected next year. I think their political careers are over already. The question is how many more Democrats will fall? The Bible says "Pride comes before a fall." The pride has come. Soon we'll see the fall.

Well, I should handle another quote or two from Obama's epic speech to Congress.

Quote #9: " First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the V.A., nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."

The problem with this quote is that Obama really doesn't have any control over this. It's a pipe dream. Most options on the table now include a penalty for not giving health coverage to employees. If the penalty is cheaper than the cost of insurance, you can be sure employers will leave their employees to whatever other option they can come up with. If the penalty is more expensive then insurance companies will have more room to play with costs and we all could be paying more anyway. So it's easy for Obama to make this statement but it isn't very probably that he could back it up with reality.

Quote #10: "What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition."

First of all, we don't have a plan yet so it's useless to talk about what it will do. Obama would be better off setting goals rather than making promises he can't keep. As for preexisting conditions I have put forth the idea in a previous blog that we should consider pushing the insurance companies to offer high risk health insurance. This allows the companies to protect their risk investment while keeping those in lower risk categories at lower rates. I don't like the idea of higher rates due to a preexisting condition but at least I would have the option of coverage. Obviously some conditions are a higher risk for greater monetary outflow than others and the rates should correspond.

Now there are some conditions that insurance companies are going to have a hard time being on the hook for. I understand the reoccurance of cancer, for example, can be a back-breaker for insurance companies if their forced to cover it, even with high risk rates. In those special cases I think there can be government options to consider. This is no easy matter and there are a great many places to look for solutions. In the case of cancers due to smoking we should consider making tobacco companies cover the costs. I don't take responsibility away from the smoker but neither do I take it way from companies that profit from such an obviously deadly substance. This is an example and there may well be other industries we need to look at as well. Most "sin" taxes wind up going to help with education or other more noble quests. I'd rather see them cover the real damage they cause.

I'll handle more later.

The Big Speech - Part 2

Before I get started this blog, check out John Thune's new website offering fact checks, good blogs, and other info on healthcare reform that we can support.

I looked at five quotes from President Obama's speech in the last blog and I'd like to look at a few more here.

Quote #6: "Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."

I agree. Unfortunately that's not what's going on. What we're getting is a complete overhall and possible governement takeover of health care. Rather than focusing on fixing the causes of our health care system problems we are on track to replace our current system with a whole set of new problems. Instead of fixing what we know is wrong, we're throwing it all out and creating new problems we can barely define. So, if Obama really means what he said, let's get to work and fix the problems. Let's not create new problems while leaving the old ones in place.

Quote #7: "Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past."

This is a difficult statement to make as well as talk about. My take is that there are a few groups who have gotten on board because they know they'll get preferential treatment when the government gets in charge. They're just being financially smart to position themselves to still be around in 10 years. I wouldn't take all this support to mean they are ideologically on board with Obama. AARP is counted as one of those senior groups offering support and they are being hammered by their own membership as a result. I can't imagine the cries we'll be hearing from those Doctors and Nurses when they have to struggle agains their own government when trying to help their patients. Drug companies will get their money no matter what and most hospitals are already non-profit in their status anyway. Besides all this, it's the support of the American people that Obama doesn't have and that's the whole problem.

Quote #8: "But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
"Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
"Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do."

I noticed a lot of smug looks from the democrats along with great cheers. I understand there are partisan politics at work but you can't pull this argument out for a couple of reasons: first, the democrats have full charge of Congress and, as they have pointed out over and over again, they can pass this thing on their own. That's as partisan as it gets. The reality is probably that they couldn't get it through even on that basis but there are some democrats with unusually large egos who want to lord it over the Republicans, and every American, that they hold all the keys, have all the power, and have a mandate to do whatever they see fit. This tactic is backfiring in dramatic fashion with the American people right now and an appropriate response will be to send the majority of these democrat senators and representatives packing. Now before you call that a partisan statement, I'll even admit that I would prefer a different democrat in their place if that was the only way to get them out. You can't run rough-shod over the American people. We're the ones that hold the real power in this country and every politician will do well to never forget that. Unfortunately some already have.

So the time for bickering is indeed over. The time for action indeed is at hand. It is indeed time for Congress to do what the American people have sent them to Washington to do. The American people are speaking loudly right now about what that is but I'm not sure our President, let alone a great deal of Congress, is even listening. So I would add to the end of this statement from Obama that it's time for this countries politicians to become more concerned with what the American people are saying and lead in that way.

I'll handle some more quotes in my next blog and I want to end this blog by saying this: We've been seeing a lot of our democrat politicians act like they think they know what's best for our country even if the people don't agree. There are times for leaders to do the right thing no matter what the people are saying and they often will suffer the consequence of being sent home in the next election. I realize that there are many democrats who honestly believe a governement-run health care system is the best thing for America. And, even though America has been speaking loudly against it, they are still going to push for it. I can respect the kind of honesty and integrity it takes to stick by your beliefs even though I respectfully disagree with their beliefs. I believe George Bush stood by this beliefs and, despite a lot of criticism, stuck by his guns and pushed to declare war on Terrorism. In the end it cost a lot Republicans their seat in Congress. That's a trend that is sure to swing back sooner rather than later given the current trends in politics. I am certain George Bush was sticking by his belief that he was doing what was best for our country. He was being honest with us.

I'm still trying to get a read on Barack Obama and I am uncertain about his honesty. Time will tell but I hope he honestly believes he is doing the best for our country. I don't agree with his beliefs and politics but I will respect him if shows honesty and integrity through all this. So far he's been using a lot of fuzzy logic, fuzzy math, and fuzzy politics to get his way. I'm very concerned about his association with radicals and his continual effort to get them into his cabinet and other positions of power.

In the end, we may determine that President Barack Obama did everything he could to change America in ways he thought was best for America. But I'm afraid that his idea of what America should look like is considerably different than what our founding fathers thought America should look like. I'm also afraid his idea is far different than my idea as well as the ideas of the vast majority of Americans. All Americans may disagree about what that picture really looks like but I don't believe there a great many who want to trade in capitalist democracy for socialism, fascism, or communism. All three of those, I believe, are to be found somewhere in President Obama's ideological picture of what America should look like.

The Big Speech, Part 1

So President Obama delivered a major speech to encourage Congress to pass health care reform earlier this evening and I want to take the time to look at a few quotes from that speech. He said a lot of the same things he's been saying all along and he made a few statements I think we need to hold him to. I've pulled together a lot of quotes from the speech. In fact, I copied 5 pages worth of quotes so it is impossible for me to put this all in one blog. So I plan on using it as blog-fodder for the next several days.

You can find the complete text of President Obama's speech here. This will help others to look up my quotes and hold me accountable if I have taken them out of context. That's not my desire. The President is sincere, I think, but I think he has failed to think critically about the debate and some of the things that are coming forth from Congress.

So, let's begin. All the quotes, by the way, will be taken in the order in which they were spoken. I won't jump around in the speech.

Quote #1: "But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink."

Very early on we see a strange view from the President. By saying that "we have pulled this economy back from the brink" I assume the President believes we've stopped the slide and the economy can now improve. This seems a bit hopeful since unemployment rates continue to rise. I'd say we're still sliding and most economists put our recovery from 2 to 10 years out. So I think this statement is a bit premature.

Quote #2: "Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

Okay, first of all, the self-employed are their own employers. Coverage provided by employers is subsidized by your employer. So the self-employed are usually fully aware that they are responsible for the entire cost of health insurance. That is the choice they make and the risk they take when they step out into the business world like that. I know, I'm a self-employed small business owner. The reason health insurance is difficult to afford is because profit margins are far to thin when you're trying to build you business. Forcing me to pay for coverage, no matter how cheap, will directly affect my ability to grow my business. Small business owners often do much at their own expense. They could move back into working for others if they can't take the heat. There's no shame in working for someone else.

Quote #3: "Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover."

This is mostly true, I'm sure. I would think that, just like in the auto insurance industry, that there could be provisions made to provide high risk insurance at a higher rate. Anyone who seeks coverage should be able to find it. I agree. The solution is where we're likely to disagree. This might be a good place for co-ops or exchanges.

Quote #4: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."

Well, we're getting closer. We've taken out the illegal immigrants from the ranks of the uninsured that we're talking about. I still say the actual number of those who want health care but can't afford it is considerably smaller. We'll discuss that matter more with other quotes from the President.

Quote #5: "Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one- and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it."

I think the statistics tell a different story. We've been bombarded with commercials and statements that say exactly the opposite of what the President states here. I've included links in past blogs that support the claim that our health is much better than those in other countries, specifically those in countries with socialized medicine.

Well, in order to break this up and keep these blogs short and readable, I'll stop here. We'll pick up with Quote #6 in the next blog.

Fines??? I've got better ideas

I'm trying to figure out the logic behind all these crazy health care reform options that include taxing or finding Americans for not getting mandatory health insurance. Why is there all this focus on making Americans pay money for Health Care no matter what?

It is my right to NOT buy health insurance if I can't afford or just don't want it. I regard any governmental intrusion on that right to be unconstitutional and an offense against my freedoms. It is nothing more than the government forcing something on me. That is an elimination of some more of my freedom.

The problem with all these options being put forward by democrats right now is that they are aimed at the American people, not the health insurance companies. Any increase in expense to the Health Insurance industry will eventually be passed along directly to the insured or to the government and, by proxy, all Americans. It may not happen right away but it will happen. The reason this will happen is because private health insurors are just that - private. They are trying to make money. If they can't make money, they will adjust things until they do. The more the government gets involved, the more likely the health insurors will be pushed out and we'll be forced into a government system.

I'm looking for health care reform like everyone else. But my idea of health care reform involves regulations that keep insurance companies from exploiting their clients and an end to the frauds and ridiculous litigations that plague the industry right now. Fix the insurance companies but know full well that there are other causes to sky-rocketing rates. The government already knows this but they won't put forth any options to fix those. The health insurance companies are far easier targets. And even easier targets are average Americans.

I'm tired of the rush to get this job done. Let's take it in parts so we can be sure to get each part right. I suggest we start by dealing with fraud and litigation. How do we do that? I don't really know. I'm not an expert. But I suggest we start thinking about setting up a special fraud unit within the Department of Justice to look into Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, state run fraud units to investigate and handle state and local fraud, and let's consider a number of checks to insurance and malpractice litigation. I'm thinking of state or even county level committees that have the power to allow or block litigation in cases where they do not find enough compelling evidence that it should go on to a court. We already do this with grand jury investigations for criminal cases. I don't know who should be on these boards but it should be a mix of appointments, elected officials, doctors, and hospital representation.

Do you have any thoughts?

John Thune Town Hall Meeting

John Thune recently sent me an email with a link to video for his town hall meeting in Aberdeen, SD on August 20, 2009. Here is the link to watch his response to questions asked.

http://johnthune.com/townhall?utm_source=main+update+list&utm_campaign=1d0a39be66-sd_townhall_follow_up8_27_2009&utm_medium=email

I appreciate John Thune and I hope I'm watching a future president. He thinks like I do.

The Wedge

It appears the abortion debate is starting to heat up in the issue of Health Care reform and I feel the need to speak. So let me start by stating some of my basic positions for all who care. First of all, I am against any health care reform that places the federal government in the position of providing health insurance or making any decisions in health care. I am okay with the government providing rules that help protect its citizens. That's what they're there for. I believe that if the government gets too involved there will be domino effect not only for health care but many more rights and basic freedoms as well. Some could argue health care is not the first domino to fall by a long shot. Second of all, I am against abortion. Period. I do not support it. And I do not want my government legitimizing it, let alone paying for it with my tax dollars.

I strongly believe that any goverment that begins to pass laws that devalue life, and specifically the lives of those who are weakest and least able to fight back, is a government that has numbered its days. So you can put me on the record as saying that unless our goverment changes its ways, its days are numbered. Furthermore, it's been a while now since this happened with regards to abortion and we may now be seeing the end of our government. It won't fall to violence and no enemy from the outside will have had any affect. Instead the enemy came from within. It reared its ugly head and, in the names of intellectualism, atheism and emotionalism, succeeded in eroding the most basic and fundamental of all rights our constitution was meant to protect: life.

I'm not happy about this. I can't even climb to the mountain-tops and cry "I Told You So!" Truthfully these decisions were made before I ever had a voice and an opinion. I know this is harsh but I have to say it: a government that refuses to protect the lives (in principle at the very least) of the least in its care, is no better than the worst governments history has seen. There, I said it.

I desire to see our nation reformed from the people up. That's the nature of being a pastor. And as a pastor you hope that your government, tasked with the creating and enforcing the very laws that protect its citizens, will be a secular aid in that reform rather than a force that legitimizes the most sinful practices of its people. The moral fiber of our nation has been deteriorating for many years and there's not much left to erode.

Now let me get to my most major concerns for our nation. I've titled this blog "The Wedge" because I believe it describes President Obama and our current governmental change. When splitting a very large log a woodsmen often will use a wedge. I've split a few logs in my life for firewood and I've found placing a wedge into split on the wood is a good way to force that split to continue until the log is separated into two pieces. I believe President Obama has become a wedge in a nation that can already be represented by a log with a big split in it. He seems intent on ramming that wedge through the split so that what will be left behind is two or more pieces.

I'm not really certain he realizes that he is doing this but I'm not certain he doesn't realize it either. His selection of leaders around him is dubious at best and one has to wonder where his real allegience really lies. Even Hitler believed he was a patriot trying to save Germany from ruin. I'm not trying to compare Obama to Hitler and I'm certainly not calling him a Hitler. That would be a tremendous afront to Obama and I have no desire to disrespect my president and especially not the office of president. I am, however, looking a lot of strange facts, people, and mysterious changes that point towards possibilities I'm afraid to even think about. I'll leave it at that, for now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I will call a spade a spade.

So where is our nation heading? To put it bluntly, I believe that what our President is doing has every possibility of leading to a re-formation of America. Our federal government is going further than it ever has in ignoring the constitution by which it was formed and is governed. It is well outside of the original boundaries set up by our founding fathers. With all this in mind we need to be careful not to under-estimate the power of the people to create change. If pushed far enough I believe the average American is well capable of taking to the streets to affect change and there are plenty who would use violence to do so. (I'm not advocating violence, please read the first blog on this site to understand my foundations.)

We've been seeing a lot of people speaking out across our nation against health care. The part that frightens me is not the shouting and sometimes inappropriate behavior of protestors but rather the reaction by those who are pushing all these changes in government. The reaction is to marginalize the voices of passionate Americans. They offer no legitimacy to their opinions no matter how great the opposition. Even polls that show a majority of Americans are against the changes they are pushing are dismissed as wrong and the result of immoral tactics by their opposition.

Even in a time when the Republican party is in such disarray they are still blamed for something requiring a tremendous amount of organisation and influence. This isn't coming from the Republican party, it's coming from the people. Not democrats and republicans but rather Americans. Our governmental leaders are doing their best to ignore their own constituents. This is not a tactic often used by American politicians because it leads to them losing their jobs. And it likely will in 2010 as well. What frightens me, however, is that these politicians are fighting so hard to marginalize the American people who have given them the power they have. These tactics, if allowed to be carried to their logical end, will result in something much different than a government based on the liberty of its people.

We may well be experiencing the takeover of America as we speak. It's a movement from within and only the American people can stop it. If left to go far enough it will indeed descend into violence and end of America as we know it. I would not be surprised to see America split into many smaller countries. What really concerns me is how fast we are moving towards it. The political makeup of our government is likely to change drastically in the elections of 2010. This offers me hope if we can hang on that long. I have to admit to having some doubt, however. Things are moving so quickly right now that our country could split before then.

Last year I heard the predictions of some Russian professors that our nation would split by 2012. When I heard those predictions I thought they were crazy, not about the splitting of our nation so much as the time line. I figured it would take much longer and we would have many opportunities to keep it from happening. Now, I think they may have been too generous in offering a four year timeline. We've degenerated so quickly I now believe it could happen within the next year.

I hope not. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm writing blogs next year in which I am eating crow. I want to be wrong. So please, America, prove me wrong. Make me wrong. Let's fix our country now while there's still time. Before there is divorce the likes of which haven't been seen in our country since the Civil War. Before we see violence that splits America in a way much more final way than the current leaders have idealogically.

The President is Upset

So I was watching FoxNews earlier and I saw a tirade by the President about all this misinformation out there about government health care reform. The president was upset and what he was saying made me upset. So here I am ranting again.

At issue are these Death Panels those idiots that oppose health care reform keep talking about. The president states as a matter of fact that the people perpetuating this claim are the ones who have the most to gain by killing reform. He also states as a matter of fact that any honest read of the health care bill will show that there are no death panels being set up.

So let me tell you why this upsets me. I'm upset because my president doesn't see what I see and has closed himself off to seeing what I see. So let me put it this way: any scenario where the government offers plans (public option) will lead to pushing private health care providers out of the market so that more of the burden will fall upon the government until, eventually, the entire burden of health care is upon the government's shoulders. The money we spend on government health care has to come at someone's expense and, eventually, that expense will be shouldered by the tax-payer. Even then, health care rationing will eventually come into play. I don't care if it's tomorrow, five years from now, or fifty years from now, we are opening the door to that inevitable future. Rationing equals death panel. Rationing eventually leads to asking the question "who is most worthy of the limited dollars we have to put towards health care?" This leads to a devaluing of the lives of those considered to have less to offer society (elderly, handicapped, smokers, obese, etc.). Inevitably this leads to only a few who receive care, healthy persons who have the most to offer society.

It's like the movie "Lifeboat" by Alfred Hitchcock. In this movie an ocean liner is destroyed by a Nazi U-Boat and then the U-Boat is destroyed. There are survivors floating around from both ships in one small lifeboat. What ensues is a battle over who is worthy to lead and who should be thrown overboard because they offer the least value to the ultimate survival of those involved.

Where does it stop? I don't know the answer to that question but I do know where it begins. It begins with a government-run health care system where a third and disinterested party becomes involved in the ultimate decision making process about my health.

I'm an overweight 37 year old minister. How long until they toss me overboard? I may not be the first to go but I assure you I won't be around to the end in the Lifeboat scenario.

But here's what concerns me the most about what the president is saying. I am left to draw one of two conclusions about how he sees this issue: first, he is failing to see the logical end of the road this health care bill is on or, second, he does see it and he's lying to the American people because that's exactly what he wants. If I take the first option I'm left with the conclusion that my president does not have the cognitive faculties required of a president and perhaps it's time we throw him overboard. If I take the second option I'm left with the conclusion that my president is a liar who will say whatever he has to in order to get his way and our only hope is that the American people will see through the facade and deny him his want. Why would he want the American people to become totally dependant on the government? Good question. I don't like the answer and neither should you.

I guess there is a third option: the answer is both one and two.

So, Mr. President, stop calling me an idiot. Stop trying to shove this plan down my throat. I will oppose any option in health care where the government has too much vested interest. The Public Option is not the answer. The government should not be involved in my health care.

Misinformation

Today in the mail I got the gift of blog-fodder from Senator Tim Johnson. It was under the guise of clearing up all the misinformation regarding health care reform. So I'd like to offer some quotes from the addendum to his previous party-line release on health care reform along with a few comments about what's wrong with this picture.

In response to the question about why we should want reform when we already have the best care in the world Johnson says we do indeed have the best health care in the world "if you can afford it." He refers to an increasingly large number of people discover they are under-insured and makes the case this is a reason for reform.

Okay. I agree that the current course we are on in the financial side of health care is unsustainable. But is this a problem the governments needs to solve? In a free market health insurance providers will have to compete for the dollars of the average American. If the average American can't afford their rates, guess who doesn't get paid? That's right, the health insurance provider doesn't make much when nobody buys their insurance. That's what a competitive and free market is all about. So what's going to happen if we toss the government into this mix? Well, the government has no reason to keep costs down since they don't have to worry about competing or making money. So, eventually, the price goes up. Unfortunately that gets paid by raising taxes. So maybe it starts out reasonable but where will it be in ten years? Besides, if a person is under-insured, how is that the government's problem? It's my responsibility to make sure I have insurance I need.

On to the second issue in the letter. "I like the coverage I have now. How will I benefit from health care reform?" Johnson's response to this is a rich one. Here's his response: "Reform efforts will build upon the strengths of our health care system while fixing the parts that prevent so many from accessing affordable, quality health care. Health care reform will ensure that you and your family will have the secure and meaningful health care coverage you deserve."

Where do I begin? This is a sales pitch. What is health care reform? Why it's whatever you want it to be! Is a senator speaking or Willy Wonka? Raise your hand if you really believe this. Unfortunately, even if it was true, we still have a whole new set of problems sure to arise from the solution.

Third: "What is the difference between a public insurance option and a government takeover of health care?" Good question. Johnson's response: "A public option would simply be a government insurance plan that people could choose if they liked it better than the private insurance plans available to them. . . . This public option would exist side-by-side with the health insurance plans offered by a private plan that best suits their needs."

Right. Of course that's only until the government plan runs the private companies out of business and forces a more complete government takeover. This is the frustrating part about this debate on the democrat side of the aisle. I believe they know full well what this will do and that end-result is exactly what they want. They're just not man enough to admit it. Instead they desire a back-door approach. Force the crisis and then the country will cry out for us to take it over. Sounds like the housing crisis to me. An awful lot of that appears contrived as well. So maybe this tactic isn't so new. Don't worry, they'll blame it on the republicans when it happens anyway.

Fourth: "With our economy struggling, how can we afford health care reform?" Another real good question. His response: "Reform will undoubtedly be costly - but it is even more costly to do nothing." Oh, and I like this part: "In 30 years, one third of our nation's wealth will be spent on health care."

Wow. In 30 years? How can we solve this problem??? I know, let's commit one third of our wealth to it now! That way it won't be such a shock 30 years from now. After all, there's no possible way the free market system could possibly work well enough to fix this problem before then.

Well, all I can say is this: we can't solve a problem that comes in 30 years by the destruction of our nation today. If we commit these resources (unnecessarily) now, we may not have a nation to save in 30 years. And by saying "may" I think I'm being generous.

Fifth: "In an effort to cust costs, will the government begin rationing health care?" His response: "No, but we can cut costs by making smart choices about what works and avoiding unnecessary and ineffective treatments." Now that's a dim response. If you like that one, you're sure to enjoy this one: "The payments we make to providers have surprisingly little to do with patient outcomes. By paying better for good patient outcomes, we encourage providers to share test results with one another instead of repeating tests unnecessarily."

Where do I begin? Well, first of all, Johnson makes some good points in this section about how to reduce health care costs. But, really, does it take all that is on the table right now to accomplish these reductions? I don't think so. The Health Insurance industry could solve this issue tomorrow it was fully true. I've seen enough doctors who didn't share information and tests were repeated unnecessarily. Of course, if the patient stays on top of things, they can help the doctors get the information they need. At the same time, we might be leading to a situation where nobody tests because last month's tests didn't have the answer. Isn't it possible that multiple tests may be the doctor's idea of looking for something that didn't show up the first time but he believes is there? If we cut him off at the pass, isn't it the patient that suffers?

Rationing will happen with a government option. When the system becomes so bloated with bureaucrats and inefficiency that the government is forced to cut costs by denying care to the patient, rationing will have occurred. The problem is that the government is far far from the model of an efficient and incorruptible company. The current reality makes this all a pipe dream. Johnson, along with many of his cohorts, seems to honestly believe that if they say it won't happen, then surely it won't. I wish I could believe that but I've never seen anything to make me think it's even possible with our government.

Finally: "Medicare offers stable, affordable coverage to millions of Americans 65 and over. How will reform affect this program?" His response: "Health reform efforts will strengthen Medicare" by "reining in spiraling health costs that threaten teh long-term stability of the program." He believes all this "preventative care" due to better coverage will result in better care in our old age and less stress on Medicare costs.

Well, if you believe the rest, then that is marginably possible. The real issue comes from his next statement, however. He says, "Recently, outrageous accusations have claimed that health reform will 'kill seniors' and that panels will decide who is healthy enough to merit care. There is no truth to these claims. Unfortunately, scare tactics such as these only mislead the public and prevent a constructive discussion of the issues."

This is the democrat way of getting rid of those who oppose them. They claim we're all using nothing more than scare tactics, as if there is no validity to this. As if there isn't even the remotest possibility that some form of this could happen. The idea of "death panels" is really just an issue of cause and effect. The near-certainty of rationing necessarily leads to someone, somewhere, sometime making the decision of who gets care and who doesn't. This is where the real crazy thoughts happen. Who is the most expendable? Who is the least important?

There is another possibility in all this. We could wind up with a universal system based on how well the government has handled health care on Indian Reservations. We see plenty of this in South Dakota and Tim Johnson should know that. He's been honored enough on the reservations. "Don't get sick after June." Why? Because all the money available for health care has already been spent by then. Don't expect adequate care after June. Check out the following link at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzihyQz0ovE .

I don't want that. I don't want the government meddling in health care. I can handle some regulation but leave the real reform to the American people. We will handle the insurance companies. It is our dollars that keep the around and it a lack of our dollars that push them to change.

Smug

From FoxNews.com

"The Republican leadership," Emanuel said, "has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/19/dems-difficulty-getting-health-care/

What's amazing to me is the absolute snobbishness I've seen in the democrat side of the political aisle. This statement really points that out.

Okay, so I know that not all democrats are snobs and not all of them agree with statements like that of Rom Emanuel. So let me just get that out of the way. I'm also certain there have been plenty of republicans who I could say the same thing about.

So let me tell you what's wrong with this statement by Emanuel. He honestly believes that, first, he's right and all intelligent Americans are with him and, second, that all this opposition is nothing more than republicans playing politics. And oh, those poor Americans will suffer through their horrible health insurance problems because republicans don't want to play ball and replace the health care system with something different.

Why is it that if anyone disagrees with their opinion, it must be contrived? How come you must not be a thinking human being if you disagree? Wouldn't a more likely conclusion be that Rom Emanuel may have an opinion that a lot of Americans, maybe even the majority of Americans might disagree with? And maybe, just maybe, Rom Emanuel and many other smug and snobby politicians are either wrong or in the minority.

I don't care if you're a republican or a democrat politician, if the words coming out of your mouth are constantly dripping with snobbery, it's time for you to go home and learn to work with your hands again.

The Public Option

So FoxNews is reporting that the Obama administration is starting to open up to the idea of taking the public option for Health Insurance off the table in order to compromise.

"On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the so-called public option -- a government-run health care plan that would be just one component of a broader health care overhaul -- is "not the essential element."
She suggested the White House could settle for a system of insurance cooperatives instead, something the Senate Finance Committee is considering."

This is at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/town-halls-having-impact-white-house-bends-health-care-provision-face/

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not against government oversight (done properly), I just don't want to see the government offer and provide competitive insurance. It's not their business and they need to a more governmentally appropriate role in this system.

Let's fix it, not replace it.

Health Insurance Subsidies

Today's blog-fodder comes from President Obama in regards to how to pay for health insurance reform. This quote comes from foxnews at:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/14/obamas-health-care-quest-heads-west/

"Obama agreed that he couldn't insure the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans for free. But he told the man there are steps that he would take to avoid raising taxes on 95 percent of Americans, as he has pledged. One option, he said, is to eliminate subsidies to insurance companies and instead shift the subsidies to low-income Americans to help them buy insurance."

So here's my thought: if the insurance companies are already receiving subsidies, aren't those subsidies helping our insurance costs to stay lower? And, if not, why is the government subsidizing in the first place?

With all this in mind, if the subsidies are indeed helping to keep our costs lower, then it would follow that removing those subsidies would cause my rates to go up and make it harder for the Health Insurance industry to compete with whatever government options become available. And if the industry isn't allowed to compete, then we're going to see the government options grow more and more over the years until they've pushed private healthcare out of the market.

The president is not just using fuzzy math, he's using fuzzy logic.

The smart insurance company right now is Aetna, held out by Obama as an example to follow. Here's another quote from that same article above: "The president says his intent was not to target all big companies. He said some, like Aetna, are working with the administration on overhaul. But he said others are spending money to oppose his efforts to remake the system."

Aetna is positioning themself to be the channel for government health insurance. They'll get the biggest piece of the pie. I guess I should be investing in Aetna. Unfortunately I believe in fighting against this new system and so I find myself allied with the other insurance company, including my own.

I still believe in reforming - not remaking. The system needs fixing, maybe even overhauling, but throwing the system out, which is what we're doing, is going to create a fully government-run insurance industry eventually. It may not begin that way but it will end up that way and future presidents will be forced into placing the whole bill onto the American taxpayer. We will see our taxes reach that 50% to 60% level (at least) just to pay for it. And when that happens our transformation to socialism will be nearly complete. With the governement reaching that deep into the pockets of the average American, what will we be left with to pay for everything else in life? How many more private industries will fall to the government to subsidize and takeover?

We are on the slippery slope away from democracy and freedom. Private Health Insurance is a freedom (not a basic right - see earlier blogs) we now have and we are in the process of handing that freedom over to the government. And I thought the presidents influence on the auto industry was a gross abuse of presidential and governmental power. As the government takes much more control over the insurance industry, it will begin calling more of the shots.

My primary concern is giving away the freedoms we have. The more we allow those freedoms to slip away, the sooner we're going to see the loss of our basic human rights. This health care debate is about more than health care and this is where the president and congress are missing the point. This debate is about giving away (taking away, losing) the very foundations of our country. The government should not be running anything that could be handled in the private sector. Government is a necessary evil. It can be a good presence in the lives of it's ciitizens if stays where government should stay.

Wake up, America! We're giving away the rights and freedoms of our children on a much greater scale than anything we will experience ourselves.

47 Million Uninsured

There has been a lot of talk lately about all these uninsured Americans when it comes to Health Insurance. I watched an interesting episode of Huckabee last night in which Mike Huckabee suggests that number is actually quite different. You see, you have to take away the number of people in that figure that are illegal immigrants (10 to 12 million), those who make more than $50,000 a year and choose not to pay for health insurance (17 million), those currently qualify for government programs but do not enroll, and those who are merely in transition and will likely have health insurance again within the next 4 months.

Huckabee's numbers come down to about 5 million who want health insurance but can't afford it. I've seen other estimates from 8.2 million to 13.9 million and there's an interesting article on all this at http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx.

So do we really need universal health care to reach those who want it but can't afford it? The numbers suggest there could be much cheaper and easier ways to simply fix the problems we have and extend coverage to those people.

Being in the under $50,000 a year class, but with health insurance, I submit to everyone that a little education could go along way for those who want it but don't feel they could afford it. It may not be as expensive as they think.

Either way, our current track for reform is not the way to go. Huckabee also suggests the problem is more an issue with the state of health in America rather than just the health insurance industry. Check out his take on this issue at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPS0GE6ZsBw.

Let's stop playing with the numbers and get on the right track. I'm tired of the lies and truth-stretching.

My Representatives

I've been pleased to find that it's easy for me to tell my representatives how I feel about things. I just go to http://www.senate.gov/ and http://www.house.gov/ and look up my representatives by state. I can then send out an email expressing my opinion.

Then I wait for responses. I desire responses that are thoughtful and show me that my representative actually has an opinion on the subject. They may disagree with me but I want to know they've thought about it and that they want to hear my voice.

I am in South Dakota and I've recently sent messages to my representatives about the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor (I'm still opposed) and about healthcare reform. So here are my results:

John Thune: I voted for you and you keep voting the way I would vote. Obviously I like that. You opposed the confirmation of Sotomayor and you have provided well-thought responses to my emails. Thank you Senator Thune for listening and for caring enough about what you do to have your own opinion and to value mine.

Tim Johnson: I didn't vote for you and never will. I have unpopular opinions regarding your health and fitness for congressional duty. I recently received a well-written letter from you regarding your position on health are reform. An email would have been better (and cheaper) but I appreciate the response. In your letter you said, "We have a moral obligation to fix the problems that plague health care in America . . . ." I disagree with that. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Perhaps we've believed healthcare is a right for too long to understand that concept anymore. So when I couldn't afford health insurance, I just went without. Those results are mine to live with and if it was important enough to me to make sure I had it, I'd find a way to get the resources to pay for it. By the way, I have health insurance and that insurance is cheaper today than it was 9 years ago. I accomplished that because I have a choice in who my insurance provider is and I took the time to find a plan that suits my needs. So, in my view, I am not dealing with the "skyrocketing cost of health insurance." Now, consider the current hospital system. Certainly the majority, if not all, Americans have access to a non-profit hospital. These hospitals typically do a fine job of finding a way for writing off medical expenses or finding alternative funding for those who need there services. The more the government becomes involved, the less the American people do. Donations will decrease and more of the burden will be placed upon the government. Costs will go up as well as problems with the system.

You wrote in your letter, "While the wealthiest Americans receive generous tax breaks, the number of average citizens who cannot obtain access to basic medical services and struggle to pay health insurance costs continues to grow." First of all, this is another way of saying, "Let's make the wealthy pay more to cover the costs of those less fortunate." That's redistribution of wealth and that's socialism. We are a democracy, for now. Second, that statement does not take into account that the wealthiest Americans are employing the less fortunate Americans and, in a great many cases, are offering health insurance to their employees in ways that already absorb much, if not all, of that cost.

You also wrote in your letter, "There has been a great deal of misinformation swelling around reform, lately, and I want to be clear in stating this is not a 'government takeover' of our health care system, nor a means of rationing care." First, President Obama has consistently talked about universal health care and most of the talk from the plans being put forward say this is just that, a government takeover of our health care system. You can say it isn't but I still call a spade a spade. Second, this reform may not see immediate rationing of care but it has an almost certain potential of reaching that state within a number of years. You have to consider what other politicians will do with this in the future as we open the door to ideas that offer a greater devaluing of life than we already have. Just listen to the ideas of Rom Emmanuel and see where his ideas are taking us.

Recent news reports say we now have a $1.3 Trillion deficit in the last 10 months. You mention in your letter that Obama has already created a $694 billion reserve fund for health care. Perhaps we would be better off applying that towards the deficit. I can't carry a deficit in my business and I don't think my government should be allowed to either.

Your letter was silent on the issue of abortion in the health care debate. The AP has confirmed that current health care reform options on the table absorb the cost of abortion. I am significantly displeased with the fact that my tax dollars already get sent to facilitate this terrible injustice all over the world. You've made your position on this issue very clear over the years and I sincerely pray for a change of heart in you that will help you to see this travesty for what it is. Regardless, I should never be forced to pay for that which I disagree with on such a passionate scale. In over 95% of abortion cases it is nothing more than an elective procedure. In that sense it is no different than a face-lift. In a moral sense, it is something far far worse. I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSES KILLING OF AN INNOCENT CHILD!

All disagreements aside, I wish to state that I appreciate a much longer letter in response to this issue. Although it's well-written, it is still nothing more than the party line on this issue. I'd like to hear about where you may disagree with the president and your colleagues in Congress. Talk about what you see that we reall need to do to fix health care. Be inciteful and not just another outlet for the party voice. That voice represents very little, if any, of my own beliefs.

You also voted in favor of Sotomayor and your response to that issue was a short form letter that shows me you don't have an opinion of your own, rather just the party line. Please prove me wrong about that last statement. I want to know that you care about my voice and not just the party voice that shouts from somewhere other than South Dakota.

Stephanie Herseth: I didn't vote for you and I disagree with you often. But, your responses to me on these two issues show that you have thought about your position. I respect that. I was even pleasantly surprised to find we were not that far apart on Healthcare Reform. Thank you for having your own voice, even if I disagree. It is important to me that you are a Blue Dog Democrat. Our country cannot survive with the size of deficits are taking on. Soon no one will be willing to lend us the money we need because the amount we are borrowing is unpayable. I have hope that conservative values with regards to fiscal responsibility will keep health care reform from becoming exactly what the majority of Americans do not want - universal and government-run and controlled.

Enemies

"Top White House officials counseled Democratic senators Thursday on coping with disruptions at public events on health care this summer, officials said, and promised the party and allies would respond with twice the force if any individual lawmaker is criticized in television advertising." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/health-punch-back/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.238416:b27004044:z0)

Is this how we treat those with opposing opinions in America? I read this quote earlier this evening and my feathers were rankled. If I was on a comedy show I would have done a spit-take. I couldn't believe my eyes. These kinds of statements only prove that the Democrats see those with opposing opinions as enemies that must be defeated rather than valid opinions and voices that should be allowed to be heard.

These tactics are increasingly un-American. I won't make any other comparisons, as others are doing. I don't need to. Calling these actions un-American should cause us to shudder.

By all means, respond to those who oppose you. But do it in open and honest debate. These are not voices to be silenced. These are voices that represent many in America. Criticism is a part of being in politics. It comes with the territory. I have the right to criticize and offer my opinions and you have the right to respond as you see fit.

I am a conservative. If you disagree with me, you are not my enemy. I desire that you would agree with me. If you don't, I will not dismiss your opinion as unimportant and needing to be silenced.

Health Care

I've been reading the news today and I see lots of talk about Town Hall meetings getting violent and I want to make a few observations and share my opinion on somethings.

First of all, violence is not the way for either side. Open and honest debate, without the fear of reprise, is the American way.

Second, lawmakers have to stop forcing this issue down the throats of the American people. Sane people resort to violence only if they feel their opinions are not being listened to and their lifestyle is in danger. So what we are seeing should be a message to Congress that America is not be, and may not ever be, ready for what they are hearing regarding Healthcare Reform from Congress. You cannot force something that a significant percentage of the country is against. I won't even say it's the majority, all though more recent polls suggest it is. Even if it's the minority, that minority has too much of a voice to just roll over and let it happen. So take the passion you see on this debate as a sign that the country is not ready for what you are attempting to do.

Third, now the rhetoric about passing partisan bills and blaming the oppositions for refusing to compromise is coming from our President. He has identified himself as cut from the cloth. Make no mistake, compromise is a two way street. What you are asking for is not compromise, it's capitulation. It's surrender. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're on the high road.

Finally, here's my opinion and, yes, I've shared it with all three of my state's representatives in the House and Senate. I will never be in favor of universal health care and especially health care run by the federal government. I think that Medicare and Medicaid are full of problems and I would like to see them fixed. I agree that we need our healthcare system reformed but I do not think government control is the answer. Government control is never the answer. Oversight is one thing, control is another. We cannot keep healthcare competitive and effective without the private sector being in charge. At the same time, it seems that the private sector cannot be trusted without oversight.

Now, the other problem is that there are too many Americans uninsured. That's what I keep hearing and it's probably true. The real questions is "why?" Is it a desire to take care of oneself without relying on others? Is it a lack of resources to pay for insurance? Is it young adults who see themselves as bullet-proof and not in need of insurance? Probably all these and many more. So the question should be this: Will universal government-run healthcare solve all these isues? Well, yes, if it's forced on people. But forcing something like this on the American people infringes on their basic freedoms. I may find that drinking a glass of grapefruit juice every day would improve my health and be, in general, good for me. But let's face it, even if I liked grapefruit juice I would rebel against it if someone came along and said I "had" to drink it. If I was threatened with jail for not following that order, I'd submit to the handcuffs first. That's not just part of the American spirit, it's part of the human spirit. Don't force health insurance on me. Even if it's perfect and actually performs far better than every other socialized system out there, I don't want it. I will not accept it. If it's my choice, my way, I'll accept it. And if I don't want it, then leave me to die if you must. Good healthcare in our country is not a right, it's a privilege. I'd hate not to have it, but it should never be taken for granted either.

The system isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It needs reform. It needs to be fixed. It needs oversight. Let's do that. Don't throw away what we already have in order to create something that is based on ego, misinformation, and pure politics. Take an honest look and fix the system, don't throw it all way.

Stop Shutting Me Out

This blog is dedicated to all the Democrats in Congress who keep saying they want bi-partisan support but that they won't wait forever and that they will pass bills without Republican support if they have to.

This is one of the statements I am most tired of hearing. It represents collective up-turning of the Democrat nose to the American people and nobody should stand for it. There is this sense that these people honestly believe that the election of all these Democrats to Congress is a mandate that they should get everything they want and that the opinions of others simply no longer matter, especially those of their Republican counterparts. I've heard President Obama repeat this over and over again. And every time I hear it, I want to scream at the television.

In the past, Americans have voted in their representatives to represent all the people. If they have specific political leanings and that helps them to get elected, that's fine. People should vote for those who will represent their opinions and beliefs the best. Even so, all of our representatives have the basic task of protecting the basic (inalienable) freedoms and rights we enjoy in this country. So when a senator or a party takes steps to silence the opinions of those who disagree, we have a problem. Those freedoms and rights are taken away by those who have been given the mandate and the power to maintain them.

Everytime the Democrats in Congress threaten to pass legislation without the support of those Republican dissidents (who are obviously out of touch and don't represent the opinions of anyone in this country) they are forcing their will on the process and stifling my voice. This results in an unwinnable situation for the opposition and signals to them that the Democrats are not willing to compromise, let alone seriously debate the issues. And, so far, that's what we've seen.

The tactics we are seeing on the Democrat side of the aisle are meant to silence the opposition. But we live in America where the opposition has always been free to disagree openly and without fear of reprisal or marginalization by those in power.

I accept that America has voted in more Democrats than Republicans. I don't like it, but I accept it. It's the will of the people. I also accept that it's harder for my ideals and values to be maintained given this current situation. I do not accept that these ideals and values are out-moded or out-of-step with what America needs. And as for the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in Congress, I'd be surprised if this doesn't change dramatically in 2010. I say this because, regardless of our differing political views, the tactics of this current set of Democrats that run rough-shod over their opposition stifles free speech and promises to erode the freedoms of our once-fine country. In America, when you politically run rough-shod over your opposition, you run rough-shod over every American, whether they agree with you or not.

So I say this to the Democrats in Congress: Stop shutting me out! There are representatives in Congress who represent me and my voice. I want them to be heard. When you shut them out of the process, you eliminate the voices of a great many of the people of your country. You act as if you have 100% support of the American people and the actual figure is much closer to 50% than you're willing to admit. You're actions are further dividing the people of your country and they are setting this country up for a major political transition. I can only hope that the next elections restore some balance to the voice in our Nation's capital. If not, our country may be lost before 2012.

Clearing the Air

I'm getting more and more frustrated with my government every day. I'm getting so frustrated that I feel like I am in a sinking ship, locked in a cabin with no way out. The ship is not only sinking, it was already taking me somewhere I didn't want to go. With this in mind I have created this blog. I want to rant. I don't want to bottle all this up inside. I need to speak. I need to make my voice heard somewhere, somehow.

So, in this first blog, I want to clear the air about things. First of all, I am a pastor and I want everyone to know that I have far better things to talk about from the pulpit than political issues. So you wont hear any of this on Sunday morning. This blog is personal and doesn't represent my church or my denomination. With that said, I will hereby assume that no one will take it that way. The fact that I am a pastor also means you can expect my blogs to be respectful and clean. What I mean by "rant" is probably not what most people mean. I just want to speak my peace. I want my voice to be heard, even if it doesn't stand a chance to make a difference in where my country is going.

Secondly, I do not and will not ever advocate violence when it comes to the debate of ideas. Every person has the right to be heard. We can respectfully disagree if it comes to that but we all have the right to be heard, even those who disagree with me. This means that if you come along and respond to my blogs, there is a greater than average chance I will allow your comments to be posted. I will block them, however, if they are disrespectful and/or coarse. I won't curse in my blogs and I expect others to respect my desire to keep my eyes and ears clear of words that have no reason to exist in the English language.

So I'm going to express my opinions and everyone can agree or disagree. Now, on to the ranting.