"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt


One of Salem Oregon's Unofficial Top 1000 Conservative Political Bloggers!!!

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Obama on Repealing the Health Care Monstrosity: "Go For It"


What tiny cut-off world is Obama living in? Seriously. Maybe he believes that the sycophants and human props he surrounds himself with are real.


"President Barack Obama dared Republicans to try to repeal his new health care law, telling them Thursday to 'Go for it' and see how well they do with voters in November.

"'Be my guest,' Obama said in the first of many planned appearances to sell the revamp before fall congressional elections. 'If they want to have that fight, we can have it. Because I don't believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat.'

"With emotions raw around the nation over this week's Democrats-only vote to approve the nearly $1 trillion redesign of the health care system, Obama took the opposition to task for 'plenty of fear-mongering, plenty of overheated rhetoric.'"

Where to begin with this nonsense?

Well let's see... How about if we start with this CBS poll (chart above) in which 62% were in favor of the GOP fighting against the Health Bill. 62% in favor and 33% against. Of the overall 62% in favor 89% of Republicans approved (no surprise there), 41% of the Democrats, and 66% of independents approved of fighting the bill!

Go for it, indeed...

And I just can't let Obama's "plenty of fear-mongering, plenty of overheated rhetoric" remark go silently by. Is he kidding? Does he not remember the fear-mongering and apocalyptic predictions he himself used to pass the "stimulus" package? Does Obama believe that nobody else will remember?

Oh, and Obama doesn't believe we want our old insurance back. "I don't believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat." Too true. We want to be forced to buy private insurance in a federally administered market where Washington bureaucrats will determine what should be covered and what the prices for such coverage will be. Yeah. That's right. That's what Americans want. Exactly. Good job.

Oh, and by the way, this is sort of thinking is called fascist economic theory. I am not carelessly throwing the "fascist" word around. This link here will give you a quickie rundown of the differences between socialist economics and fascist (as defined by Mussolini's reign) economics.

From the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (I've posted this a few days ago but I'm repeating it because it is important):

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the 'national interest'—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. [emphasis mine]"

Does that sound familiar?

By the way, if the insurance industry isn't in the driver's seat, then who is? The American people? Nope, not even a little. Americans will be forced to buy insurance, under penalty of law, the coverage of which will be determined by a health benefits council of Washington appointees (not even elected positions mind you, but political appointees). That's not the American public being in the driver's seat. The American public isn't in control-- the feds are.

So what does that mean? Among other things, it means that the insurance companies will be lobbying Washington hard (political payoffs anyone?) to make what they want to be covered required by the federally mandated health plans. Our insurance will be determined by political wheelings and dealings between insurance companies and political appointees-- and the American people (whom this affects) will be left out of the loop. We will not, under penalty of law, be able to deviate from their decisions. It's that simple. Americans will lose their power to choose their own coverage. It will all be gone.

But then we're all just all a bunch of rubes, right? We hang about being bitter as we "cling to guns or religion" when we really should just be working for community and the common good-- like Annabel Park. What can we possibly know about our own health needs? What can we know about our own insurance requirements? What can we know about what we can afford?
Surprise Obama! We know enough that over 55% of Americans now want this bill to repealed outright (and I am sure that the percentage will increase as more people become aware of both the content and the implications of this 2600+ page monstrosity) and 62% want this bill fought. Obama's approval rating has dipped below 50% according to an Obama-friendly CNN poll (oh and by the way, the same poll gave a 58% disapproval rating for the health care bill). Congressional Democrats' approval numbers are in the tank-- Pelosi garnered an 11% favorable / 37% unfavorable, Reid received a 8% favorable / 23% unfavorable score in a poll of mostly independents and Democrats (Republicans accounted for only 26% of the unweighted respondents).

So, "Go for it," Obama chidingly declares? Really? Is he really so tone-deaf to the American public? Does Obama really believe that Americans want their liberty and choices taken away? Does Obama actually believe that we want our health coverage determined by lobbied Washington bureaucrats? Or is he just too caught up in beaming over Castro's recent endorsement?

1 comment:

  1. hi,

    besides his arrogance, he's got another little thing in his pocket, literally as well as figuratively, which makes for his smugness: the hundreds of millions of dollars he accrued through untracked (therefore illegal) campaign contributions during the last election cycle.

    Money that has already been used in that cycle to not just put him over the top, but greatly boosted other dem races during the '08 cycle.

    Money, therefore, that has been used to implant this tyrannical dhimmi majority upon us as they sprint the last 50 meters of their imagined and much desired social transformation of our Constitutional Republic into Cuba 2.0, the northern version.

    He will do it again, and as for the vermin who infest the dem party, they will easily follow suit.

    It's going to get bloody before it gets better, I'm afraid to say.

    JG

    ReplyDelete