Dan Riehl, over at Riehl World View (h/t: Instapundit), rightly reminds conservatives that certain memes are forming about the Van Jones issue and that while we should celebrate the Van Jones resignation victory; we should then get back to work defeating Obamacare — the truly destructive policy agenda.
I would add the school speech thing. Yeah it’s creepy, but it’ll be over tomorrow and it’s effects will be negligible — my kids can barely sit for a 20 minute cartoon much less The One’s 30 minute blather. Obamacare will injure for decades. Speaking of… here’s a piece from CNN Money (!) laying out 5 Freedoms we will lose under Obamacare. If he’s lost CNN then the tide is still turning. We can kill this thing by Christmas! Here’s a taste of the CNN piece, go read the whole thing:
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Health committee, contradict the President’s assurances. To be sure, it isn’t easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company’s Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests — you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage — including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money — but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can’t have. It’s a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I actually heard an NPR piece saying much of the same stuff! I checked my radio dial, as I also listen to the local Christian
wackotalk radio, but it was NPR. I figure if both sides report it, it’s probably true. Anyway. There they were saying out loud on a public radio station that maybe this wasn’t such a great idea. Now they did have a guy on the panel who said something like, “there is rationing now, except that it’s done by a looking at the bottom line corporate bureaucrat instead of a government entity looking for the best for all.” I guess he doesn’t realize the second one is what scares us most.We must keep fighting.
“there is rationing now, except that it’s done by a looking at the bottom line corporate bureaucrat instead of a government entity looking for the best for all.” I guess he doesn’t realize the second one is what scares us most. – But why Tracy, why? If the government is designed to look out for the well being of the majority, why do you want to support the people who are looking out for the well being of the minority (the few who will benefit from the profits).
again Barry the eye is off the ball as far as the central point of the argument: junking our whole health care system and replacing with CanadaCare which simply does not work. No one I’ve talked to supports the insurance industry. Everyone knows there needs – desperately- to be strong insurance reform. But Prez. O and his clown posse, yet again, use a legitimate issue as a trojan horse for their central planning fantasies.
For me, it’s a matter of who defines “best” and “all”. When Obama supports abortion the way he does, it doesn’t make sense to me. If he is willing for a complete innocent to die for the sake of “not punishing” the one who’s action brought them about, why am I going to trust his appointments to decide other life and death things? His “best” is different than mine. His “all” is different than mine. And someday the person in charge might very well have a different “best” and “all” than yours.
If the government is designed to look out for the well being of the majority…
Bary, our government was designed for common justice among the whole citizenry. Policy is set when there is a consensus among the majority, acting through their votes and representatives, after reasoned deliberation, where everyone can voice concerns. But we also have a common body of rights and a system of checks and balances, where power is diffused and balanced to prevent concentration among any one group. This is to prevent a majority from trampling a minority under foot, even if that minority may not set policy. How we have distorted and strayed from that system is another discussion.