National health care not a radical change
Published Friday, January 21, 2011
Read more: http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/01/21/1517941/national-health-care-not-a-radical.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1BnIloPeG
Let me see if I have this right. Many citizens of the United States, along with some politicians in Congress, have access to: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, disaster recovery (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.), yet they are objecting to a national health care program that will help 32 million uninsured Americans. And why? Because they don't want the government running their lives? Who's selling whom the farm?
Stop and think about that for a moment. "Ludicrous" comes to my mind. That along with all this political posturing lately gives me a headache. If there are some things wrong with the health care law, then address those specific issues by prioritizing. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Wake up, America, and tell your elected officials to concentrate on more important things, such as bank bonuses, pork-barrel spending and a "Weeper of the House" who incites vitriol. Besides, I didn't vote for him as president, and he doesn't speak for me.
Finally, I see a modest recovery under way in spite of all the negativity. President Barack Obama is doing his job and doing it well. The proof is in the pudding.
Joseph W. James III Beaufort
(Switch the subject, Ignore the facts, Name call)
** Take a moment and find in the above editorial how the author in four simple papragraphs manages to S.I.N.
I am always amazed at the ability of the left to ignore and distort facts and in using unrelated subjects to prove a bogus argument. With this in mind, I may be wasting words and time on Mr. Joseph W. James III (Love how they have to quantify their name instead of just signing Joe James), but it just may make a difference to another reader. So here goes.....
Mr. James does have one fact correct, in that he stated that "Many.... have access to:" various public programs. The key word is "access" not mandatory participation. The individual must voluntarily apply and meet certain criteria to be eligible for the services he mentions. No where in the Constitution does Congress, the Executive Branch or the Judicial branch have the authority to mandate all citizens to purchase a service or good as a prerequisite to citizenship or residency. If such a power did exist, then government could mandate that everyone must purchase and wear only pink underwear or some other inane item or service.
The very premise of a mandate is unconstitutional, therefor the entire legislation must be nullified, because each section of it is based upon the mandate to purchase by everyone. With this in mind, the best plan of action is to return to square one, look at the sections of the bill that can work as stand alone programs, such as forgiving pre-existing conditions, portability, etc. and begin to overhaul health care in a logical fashion. Build a sunset clause into these programs, so that if it is found they are unsustainable, impractical or just plan failures they can die out and be replaced with workable programs that are within the framework of the Constitution.
Health care does exist on varying levels for all people (note I did not say citizens) residing within the United States. Federal law mandates that anyone who goes to an hospital emergency room must be treated, they can not be turned away. If the patient is indigent or lack adequate funds, each hospital has a social services department which will assist the individual obtain Medicaid, charitable funding, grants, loans or work out discounted payment plans. They also assist in helping them to obtain follow-up care through community clinics, pro-bono doctors or medical facilities. Medications can be obtained from the the hospital or pharmaceutical companies with their various programs at low or no costs. I downloaded a coupon from http://www.SmartSource.com which offers a 75% discount on ANY medication at ANY pharmacy for ANY person WITHOUT insurance. It is being offered to a local pharmacy (at my own cost of time, ink and paper) so they can use it for someone in dire need. If Mr. Joseph W. James III is so concerned with the uninsured, maybe he'll take the time, ink and paper, to download a few of these coupons and offer them to his local pharmacy to help the uninsured.
I personally have experienced instances where I could not afford certain care. Simply sitting down with the Doctor's staff, I was able to work out programs and payment plans which enable me to receive the full and proper care needed. Many Doctors and Nursing staff when faced with an uninsured patient, based upon the medical and financial situation may offer their care for free.
I will agree with Mr. Joseph W. James III that we need our elected officials to concentrate on more important matters, such as "pork-barrel spending". He can help by going to http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/ and tell Congress what programs to cut to help balance the budget. However, he mentions bank bonuses without qualifying the statement. This is a free market, capitalistic society, so what is wrong with making a profit or being rewarded for a job well done? Would he deny Andruw Young his $2 million dollar contract with the Yankees or the performance bonus of an additional $1.2 million? Would he deny Spike Lee a portion of the box office receipts on each of his movies or the royalties on the movie rentals or broadcasts? Would he deny Michael Jordon, in his post basketball career, the dividends on his holdings or returns on his properties? If honestly earned and not taxpayer funded, I think not.
The idea of the big bad "Fat Cat" versus the little average Joe is being stretched too far. Wealth, honestly earned is good. It generates jobs, improves standards of living of those it surrounds and promotes a robust economy. Why do others wish to tear that down, unless it is to control and impose their unconstitutional mandates upon us.
As for Mr. James W. James III attack upon Speaker of the House John Boehner, it was undignified. Representative Boehner has not in the past, nor announced a future run for President, so I can see why he didn't vote for him. However, when control of the House of Representatives returns to the Democrats, I do encourage him to contact his elected Representative to voice his choice for a new Speaker of the House. Barring that, maybe if he wants to be able to directly cast a vote for a new Speaker in 2012, he may want to contemplate a run for his district's seat in the next election.
I do respect Mr. Joseph W. James III opinion of the job performance of President Barak Hussain Obama and unlike others in his political party (Such as Bill Mahr, Chris Matthews, Joy Behr, etc) have and will refrain from vitriol. Instead, I will quietly smile and voice my opinion discretely in the voting booth next year.
May God Bless America and help us protect and defend The Constitution!