Monday, August 31, 2009

Myths or Facts?

Much of the talk about healthcare reform recently has been about the so-called “myths.” The democrats say that the republicans have made them up just to try and start trouble. The republicans do seem to bring written proof from the proposed bills, but that does not stop the President from claiming they are ‘myths.’ (This could be a result of him not having read the proposed bills himself, but let’s not go there now.) I would like to address two of these ‘myths’: the ‘Death Panels,’ and the coverage for illegal aliens.

The President keeps saying that he has no idea where this idea of the ‘death panels’ has come from. The idea might have come from taking a peek just north of us, or across the Atlantic and witnessing the rationing of care that goes on in those countries with socialized medicine. Where older people find it extremely difficult to get procedures done, which are offered more readily to younger people. This can be called ‘death panels,’ for the older people who have been denied that certain procedure, might have really needed it, and only did not get it because the government has decided it is not worth it for older individuals to receive such care.

But, this is not the only place where the idea might have come from. The idea might have come from the President himself. During one of the first of the ‘town hall’ meetings the President has been hosting, the topic of end-of-life care was discussed. (For those of who are interested, this was the one that was aired on ABC on June 24th.) The topic was introduced by a physician from the Mayo clinic in Rochester who said this “I'm Dr. Michael Jenson at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. I see too many patients who have terminal illnesses or no hope of recovery who receive weeks or months of intensive care unit treatment, only to prolong their death. I find this approach very distressing and the waste of money is appalling. We just can't afford to provide all treatments to all people.”

This frightening introduction was followed by a woman who spoke about her mother, who was told that she was too old, and that it would not be worth it to do a certain procedure on her. But the woman and her mother felt that she really wanted it, and that after meeting with the physician, the physician decided that the lady had such a strong spirit, that he would go along with the surgery. The woman was 100 at the time of the surgery and she is now 105.

President Obama responded by saying this “I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.” How about we make judgments on what the patient and physician feel they want to do? The patient wanted to try the surgery, and the physician felt that he wanted to do it. The President responds by saying that he is not sure if under his system this woman would have been able to get the care. That there would have to be guidelines that deicide specifically who gets care and who does not. I ask you, is this not a ‘death panel?’ If, like Obama said, the panel would have decided if this lady would have been able to get her surgery or not, (and if not, let her die,) then the panel would be exactly what they are being called.

The president said, don’t worry no one is going to pull the plug on Grandma. Now, that is probably true, at first. But mainly because Grandma would not have even been plugged-in, to start with.

The next ‘myth’ I would like to address is the coverage of illegal immigrants. The President has denied this claim, but I am not sure how. Let us remember that the root of this healthcare reform is, as the late Ted Kennedy said, that all people have a natural right to healthcare. If this is truly what the call for reform is based on, then how can we deny a natural right to someone just because they have not filled out their papers yet? Just like we can not kill an illegal immigrant, it would be wrong to deny one of healthcare coverage (if healthcare is a natural right.) So, since this is the premise the democrats are working with, I do not see it feasible for them to not feel it necessary for illegal immigrants to be covered as well. Which is why I would be shocked if they did not make sure to include it in their bill (as many democrats have said they intended to.)

If the call for reform was more along the lines of, ‘as a whole our country is in good shape. Thus, it would be such a shame if we would have people who needed healthcare but could not receive it. Let us work out a system in which we could get healthcare to people who need it.’ Not based on them being entitled to it, but based on the fact that it we have devised a system that would give them the privilege of receiving healthcare in an economically sound way. If this was the case then, non-Americans who are not members of our society would not fall into the category of people, the Americans who are struggling, who we are seeking to help out. Help being the key word. For the reform would be based on physicians willing to generously give treatment to those who were not able to afford it.

This is sort of what Obama was claiming during the campaign when he said that as the richest country in the world, it is unacceptable that we have people without healthcare coverage. Well, I am not sure he can still make this argument. We are in debt, and the debt is growing. So, based on his own words, I think it would be a fair claim to say that until we fix the debt, any system that would increase debt, or hurt the economy is out of the window. The CBO has reported that all of the proposals so far have only shown increases in the national debt possibly reaching a trillion dollars.

So, if a system is proposed that would not cost any money and raise our debt, then maybe we can talk. When a system is suggested that is based on the generosity of physicians who are willing to participate, maybe we can have further discussions. When a system is thought of, that accepts the idea that being treated is a privilege and not a right, some progress is being made. But until then do not get fooled when Obama brushes aside republican attacks as ‘myths.’ For the only true myth is that a system that will not ‘damage our healthcare system or ruin us financially’ is being proposed.

Bumper Sticker of the Week: 'Annoy a liberal: Work hard and be happy.'

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Presidential Vacation

As I am sure you have all heard the Obamas are on vacation. Many people seem to be upset by this. People are saying things along the lines of ‘How can they be vacationing in that expensive place, while the economy is in such shambles?’ (I can not tell you who is saying this, but I am sure someone is.) I could not care less if they want to go on vacation. In fact, I prefer they go on vacation because it means we will have a break from all the town halls and press conferences. But none-the-less, being the widely read and relied upon writer that I am, I know that it is my duty to discuss the situation.

Let us address the complaint that most people seem to have: That it is wrong for him to vacation while a large number of people in America are barely able to make ends meet. I do not agree with this complaint. It is not his job to suffer alongside his constituents. While it might be a good leadership technique, and might work to raise his popularity, (which has been sinking, and for good reason,) he is not responsible to halt his leisure because others might not be able to vacation themselves (as long as he is doing his job.) However, with this particular president I do find myself a little upset to see him on vacation because of his attacks on the financial industry C.E.O.s. He said things along the lines of ‘they could see what the rest of America lives like for a while.’ If he is going to be knocking them living a wealthy lifestyle, he should be refraining from splurging himself.

To those who keep saying that George Bush also took many vacations, I want you to remember this: President Bush stopped playing golf in the middle of his first term in office, because he felt it was wrong to be out having fun while his troops were fighting overseas. Just want you to keep that in mind when you try to compare Obama to President Bush.

Another thing about this that upsets me is the principle of the government spending money on anything other than the country. It has been reported that the Obamas are picking up the tab for their accommodations in Martha’s Vineyard (about $35,000.00 a week.) But remember, when you are President you can not just go on vacation. You bring a very large entourage with you. The Obamas are not paying for them to come along. I do not think they are paying for their or the entourage’s airfare on Air Force One. So, in the end, this vacation is costing us money. True, in the big scale of things not very much, but it is the principle that matters. Why should we be paying for the President to go on vacation? The Constitution very clearly says that the politicians get a compensation for the time they spend away from their regular jobs in order to serve the country, but does not talk about getting money to go on vacation. But this is right in path with this administration’s slogan ‘spend spend and spend.’

His spokesperson said that since he had been working so hard he deserved this vacation. That is not our fault. Our government should not be putting in full time the way they do. If they were not putting in so many hours they would not be coming up with so much controlling legislation. If they did not have so much free time they would not be able to write 1500-page bills describing how they will control our lives. Not to mention the fact that even with being on a full time salary most of them do not even take the time to read those 1500 pages before voting on the bill.

And take this the right way Mr. President; we would have been a whole lot better off if you had not been working so hard.

PTP: Last week Obama said that the Republicans are only fighting the healthcare reform because they think it will lead to them winning back the house in the midterm elections (like they did in ’94.) Let me ask you, if the country does indeed want the reform, wouldn’t the Republicans fighting it hurt them? And if the country does not want it, then is it not good that the Republicans are fighting it? So if Obama is thinking that opposing the healthcare could win them elections, he should also realize it is because the country does not want the reform, and he should halt it himself. Well, if he cared what the country wants, that is.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Democrats: The Party of Mercy?

Last blog I posed to you a question, and as promised I will now answer it. For those of you who forgot, (I say forgot because I know it is not possible that there is anyone who did not read it,) the question was as follows: If Obama's goal in increasing welfare programs, and for pushing the healthcare reform was truly to help those with less, then why does he propose to remove the tax cuts the upper brackets receive when giving charity? If he really cared about getting aid to those in need, why would he try to do something that would surely reduce the amount of charity given?

[Excuse me, I am going to answer my phone..................Ok, I am back]

In order to answer this question we must dig deep into the mind of the liberal politician. The liberal party has strategically created an image for itself as the party who cares for the less fortunate. (If we look at much of what they do and say, it would be very clear that they are not the pious men and women they pretend to be, but continuing.) This was a very smart plan, and it has worked wonders for them. By posing as humanitarians, and protectors of the poor, the liberals have been able to tap into two voting groups: those who think they are doing a morally good deed by voting liberal, and those who are set to gain financially by liberal policies. I would like to analyze these two groups.

First we will look at those who think they are doing a morally good deed by voting liberal. I do not necessarily blame them. The liberal politicians do a pretty good job at performing their act. They speak about lowering taxes on poor people (who already do not pay taxes, so they are not really saying anything,) about increasing entitlements, about working towards healthcare for all, among other projects. To the untrained eye, these all seem like great deeds. But, one must look at what they are actually voting for. No matter how much one wishes to help the needy, the way to do it is not to take from others. When the story is told about Robin Hood, I do not think these 'morally compelled' liberal voters would feel he is doing a good deed as he steals from the wealthy. So, let me ask them, why is this any different? Why when it is called 'taxing,' does it change the situation? If we believe all people were created equal, why would one be entitled to something another earned? I am not questioning, that many of these voters are in truth under the impression that they are doing a good deed. I just think that they are blinded by the picture that is painted for them, without thinking about how the artist acquired the paint.

Now to those who are set to gain financially by liberal policies, I can not really speak for them. I understand why many of them are compelled to embrace that which they would be given, but how they really feel comfortable to take mystifies me. How the liberals were able to convince them that they are entitled to be given something taken from another I will never understand. How they were able to tell people, 'we will spread the wealth and take money from your neighbor to give to you,' and have the people take that money is amazing. But they were able to, and continue to do it more and more. This past campaign you had Obama telling millions, 'I will give you money, and healthcare, and college and this and that' it was no contest.

This is the playbook of the liberals. They have devised this strategy to make themselves the 'party of mercy' and it has worked. They have fooled millions into believing it. But it is not their real philosophy. Their philosophy is to have government involved in as much of our everyday lives as possible. Part of that includes having the power to manage a large percentage of our money. But even more than that, they use this illusion of mercy to gain the votes. They need votes to get power. It would be hard to say 'we are going to step in, and manage most of your everyday life.' But when they can say we are going to help the poor, it is a lot easier. They get the votes of those who think they are doing a good deed, and the votes of those who they are saying they will be giving to.

But, they have begun to go even further. They have been working to create a polarized country where you have rigid classes, and an envy of classes. Where you have people believing that they are entitled to that which another has earned. Where people are angry and despise those who have more than them. And it is all fueled by the fact that we have the entitlement programs. So wisely named to create this mindset: that 'I am entitled to another's money.' This is where the anger comes from. If one believes they are entitled to it, than the only reason they do not have it is because someone else does. So the anger, and hatred of the wealthy sprouts from the fact that they were led to believe that the wealthy is in possession of what is rightfully theirs. This enables the liberals to keep this bloc of voters for eternity, for it becomes part of their life, and frequently the lives of their children; that the government is there to make sure what is rightfully theirs gets given to them.

This is the same reason why the liberals are such strong supports of providing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and for making it so easy for immigrants to move here. They do not see poor underprivileged people, they see voters. That is what we all are to them: voters.

How do I know this, you might ask. How do I know that this is really what they are motivated by? To me it is simple. Just listen to them. F.D.R.,when he was trying to establish a single-payer system said that it was all about politics, not about getting healthcare for those who need it. And look at Obama now; seeking to remove the tax cuts the wealthy get when they give charity. This will reduce the amount of charity given. So why would it be something a man who cared about the poor would ever talk about? The reason is because he sees the poor as votes, not as people. This leaves him with one simple question: what will make the country think that the liberals being in power is directly resulting in more being done for the lower class? People giving charity, or the government providing healthcare? When they say 'look, I gave you healthcare,' they know they can count on votes from the recipients.

It's a numbers game: The last poll showed about 40% of Americans support the government having more control of the healthcare industry. The same percentage of Americans who don't pay taxes.

PTP: In one of the townhalls last week Obama said that the government will just be keeping an eye on the insurance companies and making sure they are being fair. But he made it clear that they would not be taking over the system. If, and he said this, the government will be regulating who the insurance companies must provide for (not allowing them to deny coverage because of a pre exsisiting condition,) and saying how much they can charge, and saying what they must cover, then I ask you, what part of the system is the government not controlling?

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Obama, Man of the People?

During the Iraq war there were many people who were expressing that they were not happy with its development. The media as well as various politicians were jumping all over this. They were constantly reporting about the 60, or so percent of Americans who did not approve of what was happening in Iraq. The media was using this number to try and make the President out to be distant from his people, and not caring about their desires. Politicians were using it to try and raise their personal approval ratings by stating that they were part of that 60%.

Then Senator Obama, was one of these politicians. During the campaign he told us so many times that he was one of the members of the government that were against the war in Iraq. That he was like the over 60% of Americans who were against it. Well, now he is the President (as he likes to tell us,) and now there are polls being taken about the approval of his policies. The candidate Obama seemed to care very much about public polls. He was always there to show that he was on the same side of the majority of Americans on various issues.

How is he handling the polls now? Well, he is seeing his overall approval rating drop, as well the approval of many of his policies. One such issue being the healthcare reform. The polls now are showing that 52% of Americans are against the government increasing their roll in the healthcare system. This time, however, the President does not find himself agreeing with the majority. So does he speak about the leaders not being in touch with the people? Does he begin to listen, and maybe back off his strong push for change?

Not that I have seen. All I have seen is Obama pushing his agenda even stronger. More press confrences, more townhalls. I do not think Bush was on T.V. this much during his whole 8 years. But there is Obama, day in and day out trying to convince us that we are wrong. Trying to tell us that we do want more government involvment in our lives. Because he knows better, right?

And what about the media? Are they jumping on this and saying how Obama has lost contact with the people? Are they using this to show that this administration does not really care about what the American people really want? That they are really radical idealogues seeking to push their agenda, and increase the control of the government? They are not. Why is this any different? In both cases you have the polls showing that the majority of Americans do not agree with what the President, and his administration are trying to do.

There is actually one difference. The polls taken that were showing most Americans to be against the war, were mostly taken after that war started. These polls, however, are being taken before the healthcare reform has taken place. So this time, there is an oppurtunity to listen to people. This time the President can say, 'look, I was wrong. This is not what the people want.' But will that happen? Do not count on it, for one simple reason. For that to happen, Obama would actually have to care about what we want.

PTP= Obama says he cares about the middle class. That he cares about helping the less fortuante in our country. If that were true, then try to explain this: His proposal for increasing government revenue has been to remove the tax cut wealthy people get when they give charity. If he really cared about helping people who have less, why would he want to decrease the amount of charity that would be given?
(Stay tuned..... This PTP will be given an expert answer from yours truly.)

Monday, August 10, 2009


During the campaign a big topic was bipartisanship. Barack Obama said over and over again that he wanted to end politics the way they were and create a Washington where both of the parties worked together. He said many things during his campaign, and this thing turned out to be no different. There is no bipartisanship going on here. Just look at the healthcare reform. Democratic memebers of the government have made it clear that they have the votes, and that they do not care if they get the legislation passed without the republicans being involved. The President himself has said that he would be willing to do so in order to force his healthcare reform through. Does this seem like bipartisanship? Does this look like the type of administration Obama was talking about during his campaign? I don't think so.

At a town hall in Virginia last week the President said that 'he does not mind being held responsible to fix the problems we are facing in our country now, because he is the president.' (How many times do you think we are going to hear him say that he is the President? He loves hearing those words. 'I am the President.' Do you think his children still call him daddy, or has he told them to call him President? But getting back to the subject at hand he continued to say) 'but I just want those who made the mess to get out of the way and not do the talking, so that we can fix their mess.'

Who do you think he was reffering to? Do you think he was reffering to Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi? After all they playted a huge part in creating the housing crises, which is at the heart of these economic problems. Was he telling them to be queit? Maybe Chris Dodd? Or maybe even himself. I mean he has seen the deficit rise nearly 200 billion dollars, under his leadership this past month alone. Could he possibly have been telling himself to stop asking for more spending and asking for permission to raise the deficit even more? I do not think so. If he would be quiet who would be there to remind us who the President is?

I think it is pretty clear that he could only have been talking to the republicans. This does not seem very bipartisan to me. But would you have realy expected anything different? If he would be listening at all to the other side how would he be able to go ahead with any of his radical left agendas?

I for one am not a big fan of bipartisanship anyway. If one party were to give in to the other party, would that not remove the purpose of having the other party? The point of having a party is to make sure your beliefs get carried out. So if your party gives into the other parties agenda, you having your party is almost pointless. But that is a discussion for a different time.

The only thing that the President has to do with bipartisanship is his phony call for bipartisanship. For some reason or another, a majority of Americans want to see bipartisanship in the government. Obama knows this and he plays with it. Whenever he is trying to get something forced through the government he will say something along the lines of 'I hope that party politics will not come into play here and keep the republicans from voting for this.' He makes it seem that the only reason someone would oppose him would be because of party loyalty. What he forgets to mention is that the reason the republicans would oppose him is because what he is trying to accomplish goes against their philosophy. He did this over and over again when he began introducing Sotomayor, and he has done it plenty of times when talking about healthcare.

He knows what he is doing. People get mad when they are told that the republicans are keeping the government divided. They hear him say that the republicans are playing party politics and ruining everything, and they fall for it. They fail to see that this is the essence of what they should be doing. As the republican party, their job is to make sure that the republican beliefs are addressed. When a judge is nominated for the supreme court, they are not going to oppose her because they want to fight with the democrats. They will oppose her if they do not agree with how they feel she would act on the bench. Same thing with the health care reform. They are not dissagreeing with the democrats for fun, they are diagreeing because they feel the democrats plans are wrong and would not result in posisitve outcomes.

The President will not stop doing this until it stops working. We need to stop just listening to what politicians say and taking it as fact. We need to think about what they say. Think about what they do, and hold them accountable for it. Remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.

NEWSFLASH: I reported last blog about a project to spend $200 million dollars on planes. I was wrong. I appoligize to you congress. You would not be so skimpy. The number is now $550 million dollars.

PTP*: During one of the presidential campaigns the nominees were asked if healthcare was a privaledge or a right. I was a little puzzled by this. Healthcare is not a magical thing that falls from the sky. It is a service provided by one person to another. So I ask (and here is the PTP for all of you keeping score at home,) how could one person have a right to be taken care of by another person?

*PTP= Point to Ponder^

^This is going to be the last time I define PTP. So you better learn it. Write it on your hand, paste it on your fridge. I do not care what you do. But remember what PTP means... trust me, you will be happy you did.

Friday, August 7, 2009

New Planes for the Government?!?!?!?!

The Pentagon's bugdet was just passed last week by the house. Hidden deep inside the 636 billion dollar budget is about 200 million dollars in order to buy three planes for members of the government to fly around in. Yes, you read it correctly, 2 followed by 8 zeros. The three planes are fancy private jets to be used to transport members of the government around the world. This is absurd. Where and when did the government get the ability to spend our money like this? Especially with the government deep in debt, and getting deeper with all of the new spending. Instead of talking of raising taxes, how about stop spending money!!!!

I think this is part of a trend in which the style of our government is changing. Let us look into the representaion system our country has set up. Obviously in a country where millions of people are living, not every single person can have the society run the way he or she chooses. Nor would anything be accomplished if we were to have all of the people in the country spend time, as the members of the house and the Senate do, as legislation is reviewed and passed. So, we have representatives, sent to represent the people of the country and speak on their behalf at these meetings of the house. The contstitution allows these representatives to receive compensation for the time they spend dealing with these matters. It is clear from the constitution that they did not view politics to be a career, but that is not a discussion for now.

The point I am trying to make is that congress, and the Senate should be very carefull when spending our money. It is clear from billis, such as this one to purchase these planes, that they are not. They forget that they are only supposed to be meeting in Washingotn to make sure that our voices are heard, not because they are the owners of this country. When one individual takes anothers money to buy himself a toy, there is a big problem. Congress has no power to spend money on planes for itself. It has power to tax the people in order to raise an army, and to make sure order is kept in the land, but not much more than that. As I said they can take some compensation for the time they spent away from their jobs and serving their districts by meeting in Washington. Our government is so far from this, that I am sure many of you think I am crazy as I speak of a politician's occupation being something other then being a politician. But at least I would hope you agree with me when I say that the House does not have the authority (or at least is not supposed to) to order themselves planes with money we earned.

Their argument for the passing of this bill was that it might not be safe for the government officials to fly on the regular planes with everyone else. I can hear that concern, but there are other things to do than buying planes for $200,000,000. They can charter small private jets, that only costs a few thousand dollars. Or they could sit in first class and get on the plane last and leave first; no one would even know they were on the flight. Or maybe, just maybe, the President could share his two huge planes with the rest of the government. Why don't they drive? What I am saying is that this is not a real reason for ordering the planes. They could have found many other cheaper ways to solve their problems of security concerns. But in order to make it seem okay, they say it is becaue of security. Am I suggesting they are lying to our faces in order to spend our money? Yes, yes I am. And unfortuanately it is not a surprise to me.

Especially since they were so mad at the CEOs who were flying in their company planes. Why was it wrong for the CEOs to use planes bought with money they earned, but okay for the government to buy planes with our money? And what about all of the polution? The government is trying to pass laws restricting our use of fossil fuels and here they are buying themsleves big new planes. They could fly on the plane with the rest of us, but instead they ae flying themselves, and using a whole flight of unnecessary polution.

But none of this surprises me. The members of our government now almost never include themselves in what they try to force us to do. Most of what they do is based on the fact that they think they are superior to us, and that we need them to run our lives for us. That is why they are constantly trying to pass bills restricting how we live our lives. Maybe if they were regular memebers of society, like they were supposed to be, instead of career politicians they would think differently. Maybe, if they would have to follow the rules of the new healthcare reform they are trying to pass, they might not want to pass it. Maybe if the payments for the planes would be out of their pockets they wouldn't buy them. And maybe if they would once again be represneting the town they come from, and not just doing a job miles away, bills like this would not even be thought of, let alone be passed.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Health care reform = economic recovery??

It seems that every time a government official is asked about the economy, no matter what the question is, the answer is always something along the lines of 'the economy is in a deep recession now, and the way to fix it is through health care reform.' Every time, without fail. The only time someone applies such great effort to get their point across is when they themsleves know that it is not really true. So, in order to make sure that they will be able to convince others that it is indeed true, they keep on repeating it with the hope that if you hear it enough times you will begin to believe it.

We are not that foolish, however. We will not fall for their tricks. (Unless we are libs of course.) Let us take a little time to think about this statement. If the economy is in trouble, and the government is in debt, how could the first step to recovery be spending more money? How will businesses start to see profits once again if they find new expenses ( such as mandatory coverage for employees)?

It in fact makes no sense (just like everything else this administration is doing.) The government is saying that it might need to even raise taxes on the middle class. [They of course tried to deny it, but they made it pretty clear Sunday morning, that it is really an option. This might be a shock for some, but did you really believe Obama when he kept saying 'no one who makes less than $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes?] If they are in such finacnial trouble, (which we know they are,) this health care reform will for sure make it worse. The CBO has stated that they have not even seen any attempts, in the government's discussions on the health care reform, to save money. This being the case, I think it is very clear that healthcare reform is not the first step to recovering our economy. (In fact, I do not even think it is the last step.)

Medicare is bankrupt, as is Medicaid. Part of the healthcare reform seeks to expand their coverage. This will only make things worse. For a few reasons. First of all, with the government in debt, obviously more spending is certainly not a good idea. Second, one of the ways Obama is saying he would like to generate some revenue for his health plans is to raise taxes on the "wealthy." (Do not even get me started on how wrong this is on so many levels. Let's just stick to our discussion here.) A large amount of these "welathy people" are job providers. As I have said many times in the past, if you take their money one way, they will find a different way to save money somewhere else. An easy way, fire people. With unemployment nearing 10% and rising, how is any part of the recovery a measure that will lead to more people loosing their jobs?

As usual, the questions do not have answers. As we have been seeing so frequently with this young administration, their claims do not add up. Obama might be right that health care reform is the first step to economic recovery, if the reform is to reduce the number of people covered by the government, and to lower taxes on those that provide jobs.

PTP*: Part of the reform calls for a law mandating people to purchase healthcare or see a fine. How does the government have the power to do this? How can they force me to purchase healthcare for myself? Is that not a personal choice for me to make on my own?

*PTP= Point to Ponder