I honestly think that whichever party was in power right now would be drawing everyone’s ire. I know nobody who is pleased with the current system, where no one knows how to compromise or negotiate any longer. I’m glad Scott Brown got elected, and I did vote for him, but I also think American are getting too frustrated with the current system to leave the two current parties in their current configuration for much longer.

God Bless you, Jane.

Nothing profound in my words. Someone sent me an e-note that finally a Kennedy became a Republican—that was when Ted got to heaven (and that could be a stretch :-). My take… my hope is that God who is in charge of all events has His plans and timetable… and perhaps the MA election is the beginning of a return to men/women of integrity and with no back rooms to conduct business in.

While I tend disagree with some of the obvious partisanship used in writing this article, the fundamental message is a good one. The people of this country want an end to the games - an end to the political stagnation. They want things done. So far, Obama has not been able to do deliver on his promise to do so. He is to blame. The Dems are to blame. But all of the GOP are also to blame. Everyone is to blame for nothing getting done. No one wants to work together. Clearly our politicians are far more concerned about their own careers than what is best for everyday citizens. You are spot on, they need to be thrown out. But not just the DEMS, all of them. A clean sweep.

To this end, I personally think the election of Scott Brown is less pro-republican than advertised and more pro-the people are tired of the charades. It was a clear message. Scott Brown didn’t run as republican, he ran as an independent. He rarely tied himself to either party during his campaign. He was voted in by independents (which in MASS have now swung out of the Dems corner and into the “alternative” flavor-of-the-month, get something done corner). I would cast some serious doubt on whether or not Scott Brown would have defeated the late senator Kennedy, for example. He was a “get things done” politician - one of the few I might add.

Overall, this blog post tells it like it is. Career politicians are becoming more and more like meteorologists - very little of what they promise to occur actually occurs. In every other field this would do little to secure your job, so why should it for our elected officials? I think it is time we vote none of the above.

It’s not whichever party that is in power that people are upset with. It is the party which is passing and attempting to pass legislation that is horrible for the people of this country.  If the Republicans were in power, there would be no attempt at a government takeover of health care or raising of taxes. It is the democrats who are doing it.. Period.

I know John Holdren and he’s no extremist. He’s one of the most brilliant, level-headed, and compassionate people you could ever hope to meet, and your slander is most unbecoming.

Agreed, Phil. Which to me means it is irresponsible to argue for or support a federalized health care system.  Especially when it can be handled much more appropriately, efficiently, effectively and morally at a lower government level (such as the state program they have in MASS.). Then each state or local government can decide on their own how they want to handle these health care challenges - all the while learning from the successes and failures of other state/local programs.

The idea that the issue of health care should have ever been nationalized has been part of a political power grab taking advantage of a misguided compassion from the very beginning. Americans are starting to wake up to that and remember that we don’t need the fed government for all that much. And in fact the less we need it and rely on it the better our lives will be.

Herbert,

I think the word you are looking for is libel - not slander. And before you go making libelous statements about me being slanderous…please consider the following.

John Holdren wrote this “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Granted, he is not necessarily advocating for these policies as some critics may imply. But he does seriously consider them as viable options…which, as a matter of statistical fact among Americans, makes him an extremist.

He also said that global warming could kill a billion people by 2020. Even among global warming alarmists that is an extreme figure for 2020.

There are many other such statements. And whether you think he is right or wrong is not the issue at all. The statistical fact is that among Americans he is an extremist.

Agree to disagree Matt. I think it is more irresponsible to continue to allow 1000 US citizens to die weekly because they can’t get medical attention. Lessor of two evils, as you would say. I would rather see something done to stop the bleeding (literally). Then it can be tweaked and amended over both the near term and long term, as the checks and balances of our system lead to shifts of power (which will in part be based on its success and shortcomings).
My point wasn’t anti-health reform - quite the opposite. My point was these elected officials need to follow through on what they said they would do and quit playing nice. They were elected by the majority to execute a platform they promised. If they can’t execute it they need to be thrown out so that someone who will execute it can take their place.  This is the exact statement that was made in Mass. Get what you promised done or you are out.

I understand where you are coming from Phil.  But ask yourself this:

WHERE are these 1000 people that die every week from lack of medical attention?

First, this is a shady figure by any standard. Second, even if that stat is correct, ask yourself these next questions:

- Why is it that you think the Federal government is the best entity to “stop the bleeding” when they’ve shown a consistent and unprecedented ability to muck up and corrupt anything they touch?

- Why can’t your local or state government (or YOU simply helping your neighbor) “stop the bleeding”? And aren’t they in a much better place and understanding to do so in the area of need?

It seems to me that if one is serious about helping people the last place they would go is to the federal government who has proved quite unfit at solving any of these problems (as we’ve seen in the past few months and throughout history).

Matt:

“Harvard researchers published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health a study which reveals roughly 45,000 American adults die every year because they are not covered by health insurance.”

But what do they know at Harvard. You must be right! J/K

#1, while the Federal GOV may not be the most efficient entity, passing any form of health care that covers the uncovered will save lives immediately, as in tomorrow. It’s a fact. Period. And unfortunately, I haven’t seen any alternative, non-GOV run plans that would provide the same immediate results. Sure, you could agree states this and states that but that isn’t realistic. As in, it won’t happen, ever. Obama was elected by the majority on the promise that he would provide national health care in the form of a heath care reform bill. He needs to follow through on what he was put in power to do. You may not like it but the majority do. It was THE paramount issue of the 2008 election. It is still wanted and needed…and the polls would be much more favorable for it if he would quit catering to those in the minority who wish to destroy it and stick to what he promised and what millions (again, the majority) voted for, i.e. public option etc. It can be changed, tweaked, and amended over time (both near term and long term) based on it’s successes and shortcomings but it will save lives today. No other option in front of us right now will save lives today.

Matt, I know there are many issues with this health reform bill, the most important of which being how to pay for it. I will not deny that. I myself have numerous problems with it. But the reality is that if it fails today then we won’t have care for those who need it in the foreseeable future. You are kidding yourself if you think we will. I guess a *distant* parallel to this situation is like Haiti (as I see it). I sort of laughed out loud when we said we were sending $100M in relief to Haiti to save those who are dying everyday. Not because I think we shouldn’t but because it’s money we don’t have. And no one can say we don’t have a moral obligation to save human lives in Haiti. And no one seemed to balk at spending $100M. Well I guess I see our proposed health care plan as similar but more paramount. We are essentially spending money now to save lives, only these are our own people. While neither is economically responsible in the short term (they may be in the long run), it’s the morally responsible thing to do. When a relative is diagnosed with cancer, how many people would say they won’t pay to treat them because it’s not economically responsible?  fine

I do believe the PARAMOUNT issue of voters in the 2008 presidential election was the economy not health care which can evidently be seen through the polls leading up to the election. Sadly, many people are still suffering from unemployment or pay cuts. Politicians have made health care their paramount issue. Certainly, this may be the begininning of some postitive change where the peoples’ voices may begin to be heard throughout the nation. The thought of paying for another woman’s abortion is extremely disturbing. What is equally disturbing is that “population control” is being taught in 9th grade World Geography classes at public schools with world examples such as China. I know that there is more than enough open land for all the extra people to come live in the open spaces of Texas with enough food and water for everyone. :)

Phil,

Well if Harvard said so then it must be true. Yet you still haven’t answered my questions.  WHERE are these 45,000 people who die from lack of medical attention? Show them to us and I can assure you Americans will give directly to them. Like tomorrow.

But let’s say that number is entirely true. That means that on avg each state in the union would have 900 people die each year due to lack of medical coverage. And you are honestly sitting there suggesting that the most efficient and effective way to get these people help immediately is the sausage factory we see going on in Washington right now? You are suggesting that the best way to help 900 people in each state (this immediate crisis you speak of and compare to the millions suffering in Haiti) is to fundamentally change how our entire health care system works? To submit control of 1/6 of the US economy to further regulation and control by the Fed Gov? So that 900 people per state per year don’t die from lack of coverage?  You can’t think of any better way to make that happen?  A way that would be quicker and more effective than what Obama and the Dems are proposing?

40-50k people die in car accidents every year too. Is this an immediate crisis that we need to give up more freedom and control to the fed gov to fix behind closed doors in Washington?

We need to step back from this whole thing and get a grip again. We are too quick to accept what politicians serve up to us as our only options.

Also, you need to get your facts straight. The currently proposed legislation will not “save lives immediately, as in tomorrow. It’s a fact. Period.” as you claim. Not at all. In fact, the only thing that kicks in immediately, as in tomorrow, and this is a fact, if the bill is passed is that your premiums will go up along with out-of-pocket costs and the cuts to medicare will begin. All those start first. BENEFITS don’t kick in until (at the earliest) 2013. And the reason for the stagger is because that’s the only way they can make it appear that the program doesn’t lose a ton of money over ten years (because we will be paying 10 years for 6 years of benefits). In other words, it’s not sustainable in the long term at all.

Oh AND it won’t do anything to theoretically save anybody until 2013. It’s a gigantic ruse. Don’t buy into it anymore.

Excellent article, especially the reminder about:
“Obama said he would throw out the special interest groups.”
This is a huge problem, especially how he is appeasing the abortion groups and the homosexual community (see all the pro-gay administrators he is placing in office)!
I don’t agree with the healthcare comments, as I do think our country needs a healthcare system BUT it should not fund abortion or things against people’s conscience. That is what our US Bishops want. A healthcare system that is fair and does not involve the murder of the unborn.

Matt, when I say “tomorrow” I am not suggesting that we will flip a switch. I am well aware that these changes will not take place overnight. The point I was trying to make is that this current proposed bill is light years closer than any proposed alternative plan. Saying “let the states handle it” sounds great Matt but do you know how long that will take? Do you know that all states have the economic ability to do so asap? Do you know ANYTHING about the alternatives you suggest? I can tell you that we SHOULD use a magic tele-port instead of airplanes because it will save time and money but is that really a better alternative? How long will my tel-port take to enact? Can everyone afford a tele-port? These are all questions I have no idea - just like you throwing out alternatives that you have zero idea about. So instead of trying to bully people by telling them to get their facts straight wouldn’t it be more productive to provide us with your step by step plan to do this at the state level? I can provide you with mine at the Federal level. Let’s compare notes. I want to see: A) howlong yours will take. B) how many people it will cover. C) How much it will cost. D) How each state will pay for this at a state level (good luck with that one pal)

You know I really feel for those who are dying everyday and their families. It’s borderline revolting to me that we sit here with our morning coffee in our warm houses, using our fancy computers, and debate topics that aren’t life and death to us so arrogantly while at the same time citizens are essentially dying in the street. Truly pathetic and appalling. And then you say things like show me these dead people as if you want them delivered to your front door for proof because for some reason you and your extremist conservative pals think everything is a conspiracy. And we play politics for too long and suddenly our window to help people disappears again for 25 years and millions more of our brothers and sisters, aunt and uncles, parents and grandparents, die. It’s truly sad.

I think Phil is off base suggesting that Health care reform is top priority for the American people.  Recent polls show that the issue doesn’t even make the top three.  Jobs is what’s most important and has been for a while now.  But do you really think that ramming a garbage health bill down peoples throats so we can fix it later is what every one wants?  What a very odd thing to say. 
Everyone can agree that the health care system does need fixing, but that does not mean accepting a bill that everyone (including several democrats) knows will cause more harm than good.  You said earlier that Obama just needs to stop playing nice and get the job done; well apparently, if you haven’t noticed, not even the democrats can agree on many aspects of the health bill.

Of course you do, Thomas. But if you were watching your son or daughter die a slow death because he or she had no coverage, perhaps you would see things differently. Or if someone you love was diagnosed with diabetes and now can’t get coverage maybe you would see the benefit of taking some action now, before it’s too late for them (health wise) and you personally (financially). Taking 3 steps forward and one step back is a far better outcome than the status quo. Perhaps if you consider those in need of help now above your own arrogant political agenda then you would see that taking action now (and tweaking as we go) is a far better alternative than waiting another decade or two year for the political stars to realign themselves properly again, which *might* afford us a window but does little to guarantee success. And please don’t confuse disagreements among the DEMS with their own political agendas. Most DEMS would agree that passing a net two steps in the right direction is a far better alternative than passing nothing.

And the health care plan isn’t garbage, it would do plenty of good and sooner than later. Perhaps if you yourself were on your deathbed needing medical care you wouldn’t think that covering the uncovered is ‘garbage’.

Phil, I understand your compassion. Please stop accusing people that disagree with you with having arrogant extremist political agendas and implying that we don’t also have compassion for these people. I urge you to consider that most people in the country do not see the world as you see it. Most don’t think the “stars are aligned” right now. They think it’s a disaster that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have total control and are forcing their agenda on Americans. If you don’t believe me, let’s talk again in November. But either way, it doesn’t mean we aren’t compassionate or that we don’t care for people. We just have seen and understand how this type of political agenda serves those in power more than it does those who need it and that there are better ways to do it. You can disagree with that, fine. But if you want to learn anything, you’re going to have to stop writing off anyone that disagrees with your POV as just morbid arrogant political ideologues with extremist pals who just like to drum up conspiracy theories to excuse our inhumane lack of compassion for our fellow man.

There are likely many here who don’t just arrogantly sip coffee in warm houses everyday. Many of us spend quite a bit of time every week volunteering in our community. And we see first hand how problems can be solved right here for our neighbors - without the Fed Gov at all. I don’t know how much time you spend volunteering in your community. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Please do the same for the rest of us.

Matt, then show some compassion and stop with the politics. When you refuse to believe the authenticity of a Harvard poll and instead want to have sick dying Americans ‘shown to you’, that is not compassion. That is coldness. That is disgusting. That is not helping people. Practice what you preach my friend.

Phil - I’m not perfect and I’m quite sure I can do a better of job of practicing what I believe. But I think you’re being a bit unfair.

All i asked was for you to show these people in need to the American people. Don’t just take some vague study or politician’s word for it. Seems reasonable to me? And then we can come up with honest solutions to help those people. I didn’t ask for dead bodies on my doorstep as you unproductively and dishonestly suggest. And I never once totally “refused to believe” the Harvard study. Please, man, at least be fair to what I say. Otherwise it is hard to have any kind of conversation.

I’m not saying we don’t need to improve the system. And I’m not saying there aren’t people who are suffering. And this entire post is fueled by my compassion to get the RIGHT answer to the solution (even if you can’t understand that) and it’s certainly not political games. That was my last point with you…the fact that you can’t even fathom that somebody could disagree with Obama’s political agenda AND still have compassion for people reveals what seems to be a very closed and uneducated mind. I know you’re a whole lot smarter than that.

But since you’re for some really strange reason calling me out and criticizing me about practicing what we preach…since we’ve heard what you preach and that you believe there are thousands dying on the street in crisis…what does a compassionate response to that sincerely held belief look like? (for example, as a result of my sincerely held beliefs, just last week I was marching through downtown Dallas, standing up the best I can to be a voice for the most defenseless and poorest in the world, writing and blogging about issues close to my heart to try and make a positive difference, producing videos to spread awareness about the greatest injustice of our time, volunteering time to teach and spend time with high school youth and volunteering at my Church - stuff like that)

Surely you are spending a significant amount of time out helping these people in crisis that you speak so passionately about. Tell us how we can help you in your efforts out there? If I can understand the problems you yourself are experiencing and seeing then maybe I can better understand your point of view, what I’m missing and why for some strange reason the best way to help the people you are personally seeing dying on the street (and the only possible truly compassionate response) is to force through a terrible piece of legislation that will overburden our grandchildren, immorally force us to pay for abortions, refuses to include a standard conscience clause, will honestly never be able to be undone and that currently doesn’t have near the votes it needs to pass and that most Americans want to see trashed or totally reworked?

Phil, you make it sound like the only caring people are those pushing for Obama-care.  You seem obsessed with the idea that government is the magic bullet that will cure the ails of society, which in my opinion demeans the many organizations currently working and making a difference this very minute to help such persons with health issues.  I think you may be letting your passions get in the way of understanding what Matt was trying to convey, and now am wondering if you are just arguing for arguing sake. 

Granted it can be overwhelming to wake up every morning to know that so many suffer, but pushing legislation that will cause even more suffering, just for the sake to say that something is in place, just doesn’t make much sense.  I would much rather stick with organizations that are making a difference now, while at the same time demand government to pursue better legislation to “help” the current system, not make it worse. 

Mentally, what helps me get through this world of suffering is to keep these issues in perspective and acknowledge that God is in control, and be mindful that we must participate in his work of redemptive suffering to bring about a greater good by getting involved in both political and non-political aspects of our social construct, but that’s probably a discussion for a different post. 

Never the less I will pray for you and hope you will join me in praying for the poor here in this country and abroad.

IM TIRED TODAY!!!!!