Friday, November 13, 2009

Pelosi's House of Horror

While many people were at the movies this past Saturday night being scared by Paranormal Activity, Nancy Pelosi was putting on her own scary movie in Washington D.C. Those of you who have seen Paranormal Activity know how scary it was, (and for those of you who have not yet seen it, I highly recommend you do,) and also know that the House passing this bill is much, much scarier. These two frightening ‘bills’ (yes, going to the movies does indeed rack-up a bill these days [I think it is Bush’s fault, but I digress]) are not so different.

Paranormal Activity is about a demon who is taking over the lives of a young couple. The demon makes their lives difficult, and uncomfortable. What a coincidence. The Nancy Pelosi House of Horror is not very different. As I have pointed out before, not only would the government having a big stake in the healthcare industry obviously have a large effect on the healthcare we receive, it would also result in the government having a say in every aspect of our lives. What we eat, how much we do, can we smoke (I am not saying smoking is good, as a premed student I really do understand how bad it is, but that does not make it the power of the government to stop me from doing so,) and so on. They will have their hands in all parts of our lives, and it will not be pleasant. All with the claim of ‘we are responsible to make sure you live this way based on how we feel it will effect the costs of healthcare, which we are responsible to keep down.’

They will change how our physicians and insurance companies deal with us. It is not possible that they will be cutting Medicare and Medicaid payments to physicians, and regulating to a higher level the types of procedures that they are able to do, without it having an effect on the way the doctor manages his whole practice. [On that note, are physicians going to be able to opt out of accepting Medicaid once they see the new low payment system? Would you be surprised if they would not be?]

They will be regulating who the insurance companies must cover (pre-existing condition, extending the age one will be covered by the parent plans, to name a few.) This will most definitely have an effect on us. Obama is claiming that the reform and the public option will lower costs? If you are forcing the Insurance companies to take more risks, and cover more people, how could it possibly result in costing less? Because of the increased competition you say? Not everyone will be eligible for the public option, so the insurance companies will be able to continue to charge those clients the same as before. Especially since those who do not want insurance will be forced to purchase a plan anyway and if they are not eligible for the public option this will actually give the insurance companies a free hand to charge them what they please since they will now be forced to have coverage. Bottom line, it is not the job of the government to regulate the healthcare industry, nor do they have a constitutional right to do so.

There is however one very big difference between the Paranormal Activity and the House bill. Paranormal Activity cost less than $15,000.00 to produce, but yet as made around $100,000,000.00 so far! I know! The House bill is a little different in this respect. There is no profit to speak of here. In fact, it will cost approximately ten times more than Paranormal Activity made. This is not exactly what I would call a good idea for a country with a national debt of over 1 trillion dollars and growing. The government is not supposed to be spending money on things like this. Yes, I know that they do, and have been for a long time, but that does not make it correct. However, so many people (mostly liberals,) base what they believe the government was set up with the power to do, on what it has done in the past.

This is one of the reasons I am so nervous about the government passing a bill of this size. Specifically, since it will be containing the mandate forcing the uninsured to purchase health insurance. It will open up the door for so many other bills of such proportion to be passed, on the grounds that ‘this is what the government does, just look at the healthcare bill.’ And with the mandate, just imagine what that could lead to. Related to healthcare you could see things such as ‘vitamins are good for you, you must purchase them,’ [I should not give them any ideas.] stemming from, ‘look, they did it with healthcare reform.’ Or maybe we will all have to buy Barack Obama’s book? I mean if we do not all buy his book; the government will have to buy it for us, right?

Of course, let’s not forget how wrong it is in its own right for the government to have such a big hand in our healthcare system. As I have said before, there is no reference to this in the Constitution, (although I fear that no longer matters). We can not afford this right now, and even if we could there is no reason for it to be done in a way that will affect the whole country. If we had a large surplus, and taxes were at a nice low rate for all, and the government chose to set up some clinics for low income families I would have no problem with that. But when it is a system that will affect the level of everyone in the country’s healthcare, and put mandates on individuals and businesses, all while putting the country deeper in debt.

Paranormal Activity does not have a pleasant ending. I will not spoil it for you, but trust me when I say this is not a ‘feel good’ movie. If this bill gets through the Senate I am fearful that its ending will not be any more pleasant than the ending was in the movie. Oh yea, there is one more big difference: This is real life!

Friday, November 6, 2009

A New Jersey (and Virgina)

On Monday, the day before this week's elections, the White House wanted to make sure we all knew that the results of the elections were in no way a reflection on Obama. In fact, on election day the press secretary even said that the President would not be watching the results. [I am trying to figure out how it would be good for Obama’s image to say that he was not concerned with what was happening around the country, specifically in races for which he had spent so much time campaigning. But then again why am I assuming that they actually thought this through and some how concluded that it would be good for his image. And you know what they say about what happens when one assumes. (It kind of feels like Obama is assuming all day long.)]

This indicated to me how fearful Obama was that the Governors he spent hours campaigning for would lose. Also, he is not a stupid man and he knew that it most certainly did have to do with him. What amazes me is how he could not let himself be associated with a loss. Like a small child who needs his parents to remind him that it was not his fault that the team lost, for he pitched great. I think it is his oversized ego that was the motivation for this disclaimer. He needed to make sure that everyone would be saying (and he knew that his media pets would be saying whatever their master told them to,) that it was not him who lost.

They were trying to say that people were voting here based on the economy. Well Mr. Obama, the economy is you. You have made this very clear. With your stimulus, your banks, and your car companies. I mean after all you are the President, you are responsible, right? In fact, you won your election, in a big part because of how you promised you were going to fix the economy. Evidently people are not happy with how you are following up on this promise, which can be seen with Christie's win in New Jersey, and McDonald's in Virginia. These are both states that are usually blue, yet now they are red. If people were satisfied with how you were doing your job, would they not have listened to your phone calls and voted for your candidates? If they liked what were doing would they not have made sure to elect Governors who were claiming that they would be doing the same? Specifically now with healthcare reform, since there is talk of individual states being able to opt out. If people really wanted your healthcare reform would they not have made sure not to risk that (even if you do somehow take over the lives of many Americans) their state would not be included?

I think what is really happening here is that you have properly shown people what democrats really are, and they don't like it. There are many people who vote democrat with the (unfortunately false) belief that they are performing a good deed by doing so, and you are losing their support for your party. I personally have heard lifelong democrats say that 'they want to be a democrat, but that they are now finding it so difficult to do so.' You are showing them what the left truly is, and they are running right back home. I know these results are a direct reflection on you; those who voted know this, and so do you. Are you going to blame this on Bush? (Of course that would make it worse, but habits are hard to break.)

America was founded as a Conservative country, and it has, and will always be one. You prove that statement as well as anyone could. True we might get caught up in a historical campaign and make a foolish mistake (also proven by you.) But the fact that the most liberal President ever can make the country as conservative as ever, guarantees that we will be forever, no matter how hard you try to change it, a conservative nation.

PTP: One of the recent health care bills includes a provision that will penalize physicians who give their patients too much care (no rationing, right?) This is done to ensure costs will be kept down. This practice used to be done by insurance companies until it was ruled a risk for the well being of the patients. Really? Why is it then not risky now? Maybe this was banned from the insurance companies solely to harm their business? Or is this just proof that the government does not really care about you, and that the push for healthcare reform is not about making sure that Americans are well cared for?