Dr. Quack, Opinion & News with the harsh cry of reason.

What's really scary about the Dem's Health Care Legislation...

The scariest part of the Democratic Party's Health care Legislation passed through the House of Congress March 21, 2010, and sure to pass the Senate on Tuesday 3/23/2010, is what wasn't said for the most part over the weeks leading up to its final passage. Mandate, Mandate, Mandate. Sure, once in a while I'd hear a radio or TV host bring it up, momentarily. But momentarily was it, zip that's all folks. And I understand why.

 

The opposition to the Democratic Party's health care legislation was the only thing bipartisan with regards to the Bill itself. 34 Democrats voted with 178 Republicans to stop this specific piece of Legislation for a variety of reasons. They did not vote to stop Health care reform. The possible and very likely symptomatic problem with the Democratic Party Bill is the execution of its Mandate. I could have supported the Dem's health care legislation if not for the Mandate of requiring and enforcing each and every American, business and institution to pay for a health insurance plan. Enforcement whether I can afford it or not under stiff penalties enforced by none other than, the IRS.

 

I now believe that the Democratic Party, once a Party of the American dream and human richness, is now a Party of Left Wing Loons bent on shifting the political landscape in America to that of a revolutionary militaristic held society. I didn't want to concede to this possibility of what was once a proud and great Political Party of the people. But the realization of legislation passed that is supposed to be so good for the American people, must be enforced and policed by the government's bully dog, the IRS. Give me serious pause as to the state of the government now in power in this the greatest nation on earth. I'm not coming down on the IRS nor blame them in the matter of the Health care Legislation just passed. The IRS is simply the good licensed soldier of the Federal Government and will have a job to do.

 

Now, not only will the Federal Government have complete access to my financial records but, my medical records as well, potentially in one central system. Isn't this the excessive power of government our Founding Father's wrote against in establishing the Bill of Rights "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Thomas Jefferson.  Sunday night March 21, 2010 did we possibly see a glimpse of an arbitrary government? John Adams wrote "Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people." When some politicians and Tea Party protesters cried  chicanery, I'm reminded again of what John Adams wrote;"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."

 

The Democratic Party has become the Party of hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice. The Democratic Party once believed in the American Dream and was called the Party of the People. Sure the Party passed entitlement programs, but clearly were not meant nor were inclined to be intrusive upon the Liberties of Americans. But the Democrat Party has changed greatly over the decade and a half infiltrated by Loons and so far to the Right Fanatics, they are seen as Left, what a mess. Now they are eager and hungry for government intervention and government will over the people. So back to my original thought as to why Mandate wasn't a cry by the opposition to the Health care Bill. The Left Loons would have been characteristically deaf.

 

As a small business owner, the Health Care Mandate will limit my size and potential for growth, it will be an albatross around the neck of America's businesses. Thomas Jefferson wrote; "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

 

I'm Dr. Quack...with the harsh cry of reason...3 22 10

Reconciliation isn't the problem, and the New York Times, knoooows that.

In Sunday's New York Times (3/7/10) 'Reconciling with the Past' the point of three writers was; "The history is clear: While the use of reconciliation in this case — amending a bill that has already passed the Senate via cloture — is new, it is compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent."

Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Raffaela Wakeman is a research assistant at Brookings. Fogelson-Lubliner is a graphic design studio in Brooklyn.

 

The bill is the health care package and the point noted in their final sentence is non-argumentative. It's their intent, that I take to task. I've posted their Op-ED as well as the chart they created to make the point that reconciliation has been used by both parties several times and America has survived. Yet their own chart shows how wrong, and the difference between the reconciliations of the past and  the Obama health care package, now being considered for a vote. Starting with a $700billion dollar difference and the beginning of another big government bureaucratic boondoggle.

 

I want health care reform, but graduated with common sense budgeting, built with a lot of conciliatory deliberation. None of that was used in the creation of either the House or Senate Bills from Congress. And let me be clear, any health care legislation that is put  upon the good citizens of America as a Federal Mandate, does not have my backing. Constitutionally I challenge such legislation that would stymie the growth and dictate to me what the responsibility of my business is, when referring to a social contract like health care. That as a citizen of the greatest nation on earth, I'd be forced by threat of financial penalties and or else, to carry health care insurance for myself and employees, as a new government mandated social entitlement, is a  real, infringement upon my Constitutional rights.

 

In none of the charted examples by the New York Times Op-ED above, did Congress ever enact legislation so clearly in contrast to the views of what seems the majority of Americans. This current health care legislation is an overwhelming bureaucratic and budgetary albatross around the neck of America's future, not to mention, 'Lady Liberty's.' This grotesque piece of Constitutionally devoid legislation, needs to be cleaned up, shaped up and for the peoples sake, brought down and back to earth.

 

Though it be imminent that Congress & President Obama will pass this health care package, it will then be left to the voters in November and 2012 to send this Administration a clear message, "we've taken all you could shove at us, and we'll take no more." No more Mandate, no more big government, no more big brother attitude from a government that took an oath to serve the people, not compel them (us) with unconstitutional mandates. I could opine till the cows come home, for now I'll wait, pray and hope that the President will open his eyes to the realization that he was elected because he offered 'change we can believe in' and hope that we'd have a president who actually listened to the people, setting an example for Congress, that has failed to listen for some time.

 

I'm Dr. Quack, with the harsh cry of reason...3 11 10

Did Huckabee Mean What he said, or only Say What he Meant...?

  Â

For a moment in my quest of whom I'd endorse for President of the United States Republican or Democrat. I found myself leaning a little to the camp of Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Still like the man, and his candidness. But on Sunday during an interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday, "Huckabee's answer to the abortion issue surprised me.

    Not that I don't agree with abortion being a moral issue, because I do. But Mike Huckabee compared the logic of the Civil War freeing of slaves to abortion and the morality of right and wrong. Quoting from "Fox News Sunday, Huckabee said. "If morality is the point here, and if it's Right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong." I disagree with the Governor on whether morality should be legislated by the Federal Government . Or by any Government at all, State Federal, Global, any at all.

    Yes we have State and Federal laws that outlaw or legalize countless acts of moral depravity. Sad to say, they are needed, holding together some semblance of a working established society. Undoubtedly if you are a Duckeon you'd know, I'm big on States Rights. However wacky some States can go with their perspective on issues. I cannot, and will not, support a one-world order any more than a one-centralized government of national order to rule America. Never. This I say, despite my agreement on abortion, in most part with Governor Huckabee.

    If we begin legislating and amending as some wish, the Bill of Rights or Constitution of the United States of America with group, item by item, and majority moral compasses. Then we will no longer have Democracy, we will have a society ruled by elite sociopaths engrossed in moral depravity such the world has never seen before. Harsh, perhaps. But on the money. That is why we shouldn't legislate individual depravities anymore than individual religions as being the law of the land. Already does the Bill of Rights say, and mean exactly what it says. America's authors of the Constitution didn't believe that it was necessary to list individual rights in the constitution, because the national government’s powers were explicitly restricted. Individual Rights were to be the norm in the new Nation. Any attempt to list item by item, group by group, or by majority, special preferences to individual rights by a Federal, National agenda, would be tyranny. How say you?

    I can go on, and on, and on with maintaining not only States Rights but individual Rights as well. Rights that don't need specified listing in a Federal or National agenda, legislating or amending to the Bill of Rights moral directives.

I'm Dr. Quack with the harsh cry of reason. 111907