House of Eratosthenes

A government takeover of our health care system will do more than the Islamic terrorists to cause permanent damage to our Republic. The amounts of money we will have to borrow from China and Europe to fund this takeover will be a burden on generations of Americans to come. You can’t say that about the Islamic terrorist attacks. The terrorists didn’t rob tens of millions of Americans of their sense of independence. ObamaCare will. The Islamic terrorist attacks did not permanently reduce the quality of health care in the United States. ObamaCare will. The Islamic terrorist attacks did not destroy health care innovation in the United States. ObamaCare will.

Me, I’m just sick of the blatant lying. Lying about just basic concepts…like…when you’re out of money and neck-deep in debt, what you need to do is spend some money. If you’re worried about not being able to make informed choices about your healthcare, what you need is some laws that say you’re not allowed to make any choices and that’ll fix everything.

There are forty million uninsured. No wait, 35. No wait…43. No wait…30. No wait…50. Look if you’re so worried about it, make a new program that will cover them and leave the rest of us alone. Or how’s this. A lot of them are illegal aliens who broke into our country, right? Make a deal with some other countries to have some form of socialized medicine, so that the illegal aliens who are really worried about gaining full access to health care, can go break into those countries instead.

Oh — wait — what am I talking about. We’re supposed to be living under this big disgrace because we’re the only “civilized” country that doesn’t have socialized medicine. So it already works that way! It’s just like the “recovery” we got from last year’s “stimulus” plan, bound to end with the same lament: “Gee, we coulda got nuthin’ for a whole lot cheaper than that.”

Except this is not “nuthin.” It is a fundamental transformation of the relationship between the governors and the governed. Pass this turkey, and your lives are in the hands of government bureaucrats. You are worthy — maybe — of a new liver, even if you’ve been drinking more than the bureaucrat thinks you should have been. Or maybe not. Maybe you can get the surgery to have a cancerous lung removed, even though way back in your twenties you had a smoking habit. Maybe not. Maybe your daughter can get the chemotherapy she needs…if you’ve been doing your part to support a controversial abortion-rights bill. If you didn’t vote like you were supposed to, when you were supposed to, then who knows maybe some paperwork will get lost.

It's About Power Seem far fetched? Well look at it this way — why sweat the particulars of how far this control will or might extend into our lives. Isn’t that all just an academic exercise? It is known…provable…that the whole point to the process is to extend the control wielded by those who work in government, into the lives of those who do not. Past the magnitude to which that power extends today. We know this. Beyond any doubt.

So when we discuss how far the power is to extend, we are really discussing the willingness with which government might voluntarily restrain itself. Not today, but in generations to come.

Well, governments don’t restrain themselves. They are like a George Patton Army. They are always advancing, never retreating, never holding ground, always looking for a weak spot in the defense of the “enemy” — that’s you and me, if we believe in limited government — and if they don’t find a weak spot, they’ll attack a strong spot. Scratch the analogy about Patton. They’re like sharks. It’s contrary to their mode of existence to remain static. That line that separates what they can do from what they cannot do, has to be in motion all the time…and generation to generation, it always has to move in the same direction. Our government, that other country’s government…government in general. It’s how they roll.

It’s not their job to restrain themselves. Sure you can say it’s in their job description — the United States Constitution. But does the U.S. Constitution work on the honor-system? No…it does not. That’s why the Second Amendment is in there. It’s there to put the people in charge, so our government doesn’t see the kind of opportunity in this creeping fascism that our government so obviously does see.

The Second Amendment really has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with duty…duty of the people to hold our government in check. And we’re failing that duty big-time right now.

“The Second Amendment really has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with duty…duty of the people to hold our government in check. And we’re failing that duty big-time right now.”

“We” are? What exactly do you propose Morgan, short of an armed march on DC?

Some of us attended Town Hall meetings, some of us marched on Washington on 9/12, some of us voted yesterday, and some of us sent money to the Republican Party. I realize these are not examples of the Second Amendment but what else is a brother do to?

I’ve got my weapon, plenty of ammo, just set the date, I’m there dude. Like yesterday. Let’s party like it’s 1773.
- tim | 11/04/2009 @ 07:41
Pass this turkey, and your lives are in the hands of government bureaucrats. You are worthy — maybe — of a new liver, even if you’ve been drinking more than the bureaucrat thinks you should have been. Or maybe not. Maybe you can get the surgery to have a cancerous lung removed, even though way back in your twenties you had a smoking habit. Maybe not. Maybe your daughter can get the chemotherapy she needs…if you’ve been doing your part to support a controversial abortion-rights bill. If you didn’t vote like you were supposed to, when you were supposed to, then who knows maybe some paperwork will get lost.

It’s worse than that.

“Maybe the guy next door who’s never taken care of himself can get a full-body transplant because he knows somebody.”

That’s Socialism, and always has been.
- rob | 11/04/2009 @ 07:49
The tea parties have been laudable in both effort and in ultimate effect.

But the one thing I’m looking to see, that I have not yet seen…is a serious, commanding challenge to the idea that this is about providing health care to people who can’t get it.

In 2002 and 2003, The Left told a fairy tale that the reason we were invading Iraq was not to take down an asshole who needed takin’ down, but to “avenge” George W. Bush’s “daddy” for an assassination attempt. That was bullshit. But it might very well stand as the most successful propaganda drive since Roman times…

…contrasted with that, the notion that this is about controlling people as opposed to providing them with medical goods and services in time of need, is really true and so easily demonstrated. Now, is it really so difficult to put the question out there as to what this is all about, and get just a few more people asking it? Is it really that expensive? Are only liberals allowed to shift debates in this way? And if that is the case, then why?
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2009 @ 08:33
It’s simply really.

Any member of congress or of the house that votes for that … abortion … should be tar and feathered, then tried for treason against the US.
- pdwalker | 11/04/2009 @ 09:13
Are only liberals allowed to shift debates in this way? And if that is the case, then why?

Because they control most of the media, education, and culture, it’s what they get from their long march through the institutions. If there is gonna be a serious challenge to their propaganda, their grip on the aforementioned things needs to be broken. Unfortunately, that’s gonna take a while, if we’ve even started that is.
- KG | 11/04/2009 @ 09:46
I’ve seen/heard many people on the Right bring up the “controlling people as opposed to providing them with medical goods”, from Beck, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingram and Coulter.

Not sure who you want to voice the “commanding challenge” that hasn’t already. If you’re referring to politicians, I’ve seen a number of them too so I’m still confused here.

BTW, the “George W. Bush’s daddy” fairy tale may have been out there but it was hardly forwarded by anyone of circumstance that I remember, and if it was it wasn’t by that many folks compared to the challenge on the government control on healthcare. I think that a bad comparison. Just as many people voiced the “9/11 was an inside job” but I hardly think they deserve to be mentioned in a serious discussion such as this issue.

Don’t mean to belabor this Morgan, I’m just unsure of what exactly you want or what/how/who you are referring to. I usually understand where you coming from but on this one I’m not.
- tim | 11/04/2009 @ 10:17
I’ve seen/heard many people on the Right bring up the “controlling people as opposed to providing them with medical goods”, from Beck, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingram and Coulter.

Now, that’s not the kind of setting I’m talking about. And I’m not talking about the MoveOn folks who’ll never actually take serious control of anything either. I’m talking about everybody in between.

Let me put it to you as a rhetorical question…or a not so rhetorical question since if there’s an answer, I’d like to know it. Where do you go, what watering hole, prayer breakfast at Denny’s…wherever…in which there’s a natural prevailing local consensus that the invasion of Iraq was — nevermind whether it was foolish or wise — but simply an honest effort to defend our nation’s interests? Where a reasonable thought like that isn’t summarily hounded out, ostracized, given pariah status the instant it finds a voice?

The other day I quoted Mark Steyn…talking about library books and garbage cans. That’s what I’m talking about right there. People get together to compare notes and not a single one among them knows a whole lot about the issues…nor are they so proud they have to pretend they do. They’re in need of an education and willing to admit it. None of them are hard-right or hard-left. And yet — they still “decide” stuff just by being together. What do they decide? Barack Obama wants to heal the sick, and George Bush is a spoiled little rich boy who rapes puppies and wants to start a fourth reich. This is how the elections are actually decided.

You took umbrage when I blamed “we”. I was blaming the BIG “we.” I have trouble tracing the source back to a single Michael Moore or David Axelrod or George Soros. It seems these maggots of brain-dead liberal talking points are already living, in a form so nascent and microscopic that they cannot be seen, on the skin of everyday people. It’s exactly like, if you were to keel over and die in an apartment with all the windows closed, by the time they found you you’d be crawling with flies — how’d they get in?? Answer: They were on you when you were alive, just like they’re on everybody else. In the same way, it seems the flaws in the human condition lend us all to be more receptive to the idea conservatives are trying to hurt us & liberals are trying to help us, than the other way around.

It’s not a trivial issue. Americans do have a passion against being controlled, in exactly the manner in which this health care bill seeks to control us. If that were not the case, there is no way the tea parties could have had the effect they had this summer. But there has to be some trigger that can be pulled, to just really slam-dunk this thing in a way that resonates with the “big middle” of undecideds. The ones who decide everything.

The necessity that is involved in figuring out where that trigger is, and what it takes to trip it…well, it’s huge, and I’m sure you don’t need that part explained.
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2009 @ 10:57
The necessity that is involved…”

Absolutely, agreed, 100%.

Just didn’t understand where you were going originally, thanks for taking the time.

BTW, don’t hang out at any Denny’s…especially for payers…and certainly no “umbrage”, just some requested clarification.

We cool Dog (pumping fist into chest, scowling for street cred effect).
- tim | 11/04/2009 @ 11:27
Let’s cut through the bull.

Can’t we just purchase these incompetent and irresponsible citizens a catastrophic insurance policy at a reduced bulk rate of $1500 grand a pop and be done with this whole mess?

I’d rather not do even that, it’s not my responsibility to provide for another human’s health care, but let’s just be done with this whole damn mess the simplest and cheapest way possible, shall we?
- Daphne | 11/04/2009 @ 17:34
Yep. Yeah, that’s the point I was trying to make. If it wasn’t for my magic billboard (it’s about power) you wouldn’t have even had to come up with the idea, someone in Washington would be proposing it already. Just like buying food rations for our troops that all the politicians claim to care so much about…wring every last buck out of it by dickering down the quality and dickering up the quantity and playing hardball with the vendors, then shrink-wrap so much of it together that a C-130 is the only thing that’ll fly it over to where it goes. Do exactly that with the health insurance.

Except…what about the young invincible people who are part of the 30 million because they could buy insurance if they wanted it, but would much rather use it up on door charges every Friday and Saturday night at the downtown meat market? Do they get the benefits of Daphne’s free, palettized, forklifted, shrink-wrapped, dehydrated health insurance? If so, then we’ve started a precedent and we’re not done. If not, then we’ve left something undone, and it’s not done.

So it doesn’t do what you’re looking for it to do. It’s a great hypothetical to use, though.
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2009 @ 17:55
Except…what about the young invincible people who are part of the 30 million because they could buy insurance if they wanted it, but would much rather use it up on door charges every Friday and Saturday night at the downtown meat market? Do they get the benefits of Daphne’s free, palettized, forklifted, shrink-wrapped, dehydrated health insurance?

It seems they are going to anyway, Morgan, if our legislators see their way clear. Don’t take me wrong, I hate that this entire conversation is on the legislative agenda, but it seems that they are determined to do something so I thought I’d make a suggestion to those dolts in DC that consisted of more than the loud Fuck You I’ve been screaming at the top of my lungs.
- Daphne | 11/04/2009 @ 18:06
Here’s one thing that the GOP and all of it’s pro-side pundits (including bloggers) seem to be losing sight of: y’all are taking the erroneous criticism of the republicans have no plan seriously. Of course, the GOP has a health care plan, I’ve blogged on it, what you seem to be missing is that the GOP, and all of you, should be shouting that we don’t need any stinking plan period.

You’ve bought into the game, the agenda, that something should be done in Washington. Well, if that’s the case, why not go with my cheap fix? It’s not like we’re planning on ditching any of the legacy entitlements we already own, or funding them in a fiscally sane manner, what’s a little more icing on the proverbial cake? It’s hell of a lot cheaper than either of the ruling party’s suggestions.

Seems to me that it’s just partisans swinging at each other and I’m going to take it in the pocketbook no matter who wins.
- Daphne | 11/04/2009 @ 18:47
They say the GOP is the party of no, I wish!
- KG | 11/05/2009 @ 11:06
You and me both, KG.
- Daphne | 11/05/2009 @ 12:12

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“We Can’t Make That Up; It’s Right There in the Bill”Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

“We Can’t Make That Up; It’s Right There in the Bill”
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009