A simple question for the Liberals, lead by Rich(ie).
What can't the government control? Honestly try and answer one question, what are inalienable rights?
The economy, gun rights, health care, banking, property rights, anything? What in your world can they not control?
This does not bother you, the obvious goal of the left, the control of the population?
The transfer of income from one segment to another?
Taking over a large segment of the economy, health care.
Do you value your freedom and our responsibility so little?
Terry, compassion is a wonderful sound bite and excoriating corporations is fun but what happens when they tell you how to pray? Paranoid you say? The won't let you buy health insurance (see article that follows) or a gun now. They decide to use the wealthy to pay for an insurance plan (where do they get the power?).
What can't they do? What are their limits?
3 comments:
It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.
Okay - I'll take your bait any answer your silly question one at a time.
Broadly, our inalienable rights are negative rights. Time prohibits a full lesson at this time, Jim, but you can Google the concept.
The economy? The government has been significantly involved in the economy throughout history - long before Casear's time.
Gun rights? Our gun rights are limited to that which is required for a well regulated Militia.
Health care? It is not a right - but universal coverage is good policy pursuant to the general Welfare.
Banking? Are you kidding? Government just SAVED banking and the whole financial system. You'd prefer we just handed the banks our taxpayer dollars willy nilly?
Property rights? We have very strong property rights in this country. I'd like to hear a reasoned and intelligent rebuttal - not simply parroting that which was heard on Fox News Channel (over and over).
Who wants to control the population? Which side believes in a right of privacy? Which side abandoned warrants in order to eavesdrop? Which side politicized the Justice Department as never before? Which side wants to be able to hold citizens absent habeas corpus if the president merely labels said citizen an enemy combatant?
Transfer payments? Again - it has been going on since the New Deal and is clearly constitutional. The penurious complaints of the affluent are not attractive at all.
Who is telling us how to pray? Again - it is the conservatives that keep trying to inject religion into our secular system of government. "In God we trust?" One nation "under God"? How come the government needs to tell us how many gods there are, if any? The Republican base is comprised of fundamentalist Christians that want to marginalize those of us who are not.
You have no legitimate complaints, Doc. This is a free country. In fact, freer now than it was on January 19th.
Jim, just a thought Switzerland has a higher standard of living than the United States is a Capitalistic society with very tight regulations of course and a very liberal social programs. Also no lifetime politicians they are changed every few years, so the Goverment takeover you are predicting may not be that bad since it's seems we can't trust the American business man
Post a Comment