Along those same lines, I’ve been trying to figure out exactly how to “stick my hand in this toilet” called H.R. 3200, and the brand-war that surrounds the bill. It’s no secret that I’m opposed to the billed titled “America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”. I’ve tossed out a few quips and letters concerning the legislation to my congressional representative and to my senators. I do this because I believe that this legislation will:
- + Serve to stifle economic growth as it will place smaller and midsize businesses in a position where they have to downsize in order to make payroll.
+ Lower my take-home pay, as my benefits will be taxed. (Noteworthy: The new Republican plan also taxes my benefits; hence I'm not for their plan either.)
+ Choke out the existing private options we now enjoy.
+ Create the typical merciless government bureaucracy that identifies individuals by social security number and not need.
+ Build more incompetence into our healthcare system, as it will seek to make the role of physician a non-desirable job.
+ Eventually lead to statistical and rationed care.
With a government option, these things are inevitable. Maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. Of course the liberal thinks that a guy like Barack Obama would never let this happen. That said, let's walk through a hypothetical scenario and fast-forward in time to the year 2012. In a bizarre twist of fate, Dick Chaney is elected President of the United States. Government-run healthcare is in place. You gave government the controls, now are you ready to trust Chaney to pull the switches?
I have nothing against Chaney. By the same token, I wouldn't want to go hunting with the man. I offer up the scenario to create understanding on both sides of the asile or to "get your brain chugging". If you’re a “left-winger” don’t want this scenario, as you’d view your healthcare as being subject to someone you view as being on a first name basis with Satan. If you’re lean is to the right, you trust Nancy Pelosi about as far as you can throw her. Guess what? I’m a conservative independent and don’t trust ANY government official to manage something as personal my healthcare.
Now you have a little insight into my reasoning. You’ll see that I never mentioned words like “race” or “prejudice”, or “bigotry”. Why? Maybe I’ve skipped these words because they just don’t belong in this fight.
Would I be picking low-hanging fruit if I asked why folks like Katie Couric or Charlie Rangel keep bringing such a broad brush to the canvas and using that brush to paint those who are disagree with this legislation as sinister or driven by a racist view on life? Isn’t using a broad brush in this way called “stereotyping” and isn't it wrong? While I'm there, doesn’t creating a “stereotype” make Katie Couric and Charlie Rangel bad people?
Couric’s Comments:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/14/couricandco/entry5242830.shtml
Rangel's Comments:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/rangel-prejudice-obama-halting-health-care-reform/
