Reasons We Don't Need Universal Healthcare

Universal Health Care seems to be in vogue again, even though the Democrats tried this before and it failed to pass. Part of this may be because the President Elect stated health care was a "right" of all Americans. However, I have to disagree with the constitutional scholar. No where in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do the Founding Fathers indicate that access to the best medical treatment without regard to cost is a fundamental right of all Americans.

In Mr. Obama's argument, he even qualifies the right because we live in a "rich" nation. How does he think we got rich? It's because we had free enterprise and freedom of choice.

There are three major problems with any Universal Healthcare System we may implement. It would increase overall healthcare costs, it would degrade the quality of service, and it would take away our freedom and limit choice.

Contrary to popular belief, a government run health care system would not be any less expensive than our current private payer insurance system. When the need for a universal healthcare system is put forth, usually there is an anecdote of someones mother or grandmother having a hard time paying for something. However, anecdotal evidence does not mean the conditions are universal.

Instead of having privately run institutions with limited boards, we would instead have to develop a large bueracracy at the Federal, state and local level to manage our hospitals and clinics. The higher taxes needed to fund this additional bueracracy would come from our taxes, which are already stretched to pay for current government projects. With both the out-of-pocket expenses we would have to pay and the higher taxes needed to fund the the bueracracy, the American public would indeed end up paying more.

Another consequence of moving to a universal healthcare system would be a degradation in service. Other countries with universal healthcare have slow ambulance response times and long waiting periods for treatment. Now why would we degrade a life saving system just to save a portion of the US population a little money?

Finally, have the Federal Government involved in making decisions about our healthcare and lifestyle will take away choices from Americans. According to 2006 numbers (some of the most recent), 38% of America's uninsured population earn $50,000 or more. That's almost 18 million people who have decided, on their own, that they want to spend their money elsewhere. How can the Federal Government suddenly decide that these people can't make that choice for themselves any longer?

Taken to it's absurd limit, the American public would lose lifestyle choices because of perceived problems from some lifestyles. This means that, even though McDonalds may still offer french fries, you may not be able to eat them. Of course, managing these 'waistline cops' would simply add to the cost of the healthcare budget.

All three of these problems relate to the fact that, in the United States, government was not meant to take the place of businesses. Government should have a limited role in our daily lives.

Hat Tip to Carpe Diem for the uninsured statistics.

Cry for Hamas? I Don't Think So.

Remember, these are the same people who celebrated the deaths of Americans in September 11, 2001, civilians all. And there are indications the Palestinian National Authority tried to cover this up. Now, they want us to cry for them because the IDF is responding to their barbarism and attacks by decimating MILITARY targets.

More and more, I think people are catching on to this hypocrisy. More and more, we see videos of the actual violence of the Hamas fighters, like this one.



I think Israel has a right to attack those who attack them, to protect civilians in Israel. Hamas has been goading Israel for some time. I think it is unfortunate that there are civilians casualties from the IDF's response. But of course, as we see from the previous video, Hamas was killing civilians too, and in much greater numbers.


To learn more about the brutality of Hamas, see this video segment that includes a montage of different video pieces from Hamas.

The Federal Government Needs to Tighten Uncle Sam's Belt

This article at the National Review Online clearly highlights the financial problems hanging over the heads of the US. We need to tighten our belts and start reducing the deficit. We should have been doing this during the "good times" of economic abundance. We need it more than ever during these times of financial stress.

One of the big things to do to keep the budget in check is to stop giving bailouts to failing businesses. The American people have to live with a limited budget and manage their money well. Why shouldn't businesses be the same?

Like Walker, I also think Obama is on the right track. Limiting earmarks projects or "pork" in the federal budget will do more to help limit spending than most people know. I, for one, would like to see less government spending and less government intrusion in my life.

Why can't he just admit he's wrong?

This video is very enlightening.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

An honest, upstanding man, one who truly wants to serve the nation well, would readily admit when they are wrong. When confronted with obvious errors, an honest man will say, "You're right. I was wrong." However, Harry Reid is not an honest man, nor a great statesman. Instead he shows himself as a grasping, self-serving politician who wants to attribute all successes to himself and blame others for all failures.

Remember, Harry Reid was the politician who pushed hardest for us to leave Iraq as soon as possible. He stated that the surge was a failure and would not secure the region. Even in his review of the current issues in the Middle East, where he talks about the "destabilizing" of the region because we invaded Iraq, he makes monumental and factually wrong mistakes. (For instance, Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush and the US Congress agreeing to attack Iraq.)

I will agree with Harry on one thing, though. Patreaus is a genius. He had the intelligence to correctly guage the high morale of our troops, understand the mindset of the enemy and discern the correct path. He knew that the enemy would rightly see this as weakness on the part of America. Of course, the one Senator who supported and fought for this surge strategy ran for President. Unfortunately, another politician, one who had similar views to Harry, was elected. At least he had the grace to admit the surge worked.

Best Anthropogenic Global Warming Debunking Article Yet

Check out this article on why anthropogenic global warming is a fallacy. Like me, the author asserts that temperature has changed and will continue to change. In Mr. Ambler's words, "So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes." Proof of this is seen in the Vostok ice core data, where cyclical patterns of temperature change are obvious.

And so, the all important answer the question, "If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate?" The article points to a short term answer (ocean cycles) and a long term answer, the Sun. This will surprise no one who really studied the global warming issue in depth.

And why do I continue to rail against this fake crisis of anthropogenic global warming? Because there are so many other things we can focus on. I will let Mr. Ambler provide the best reason.

"To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong." (emphasis in the original)

Hat Tip - Hot Air.

You're kidding me, right???

So, in this land of the free, we allow people to comment peacefully on just about anything, even to protest a country protecting itself, as seen in this video here. One thing to notice is the Pro-Gaza group attacking the counter protesters. (But violence never solves anything, right?)

Okay, so why exactly are the Pro-Gaza protesters out? It's because Israel has decided to stop the people who are shooting at them (page 5 includes great graphics of the statistics). And this time, the IDF has the videos to prove what they're doing. And it's not like the Israelis are being particularly cruel or inhumane.

I find it oddly ironic that the Pro-Gaza protesters resort to violence when someone says something they don't agree with. Kind of like shooting mortar shells at somebody because you don't like them.

So, How are things in Iraq?

Seems like the news from Iraq has been pretty quiet lately. This could be because the US has already won the fight there. It could also be because casualties are down to their lowest level since the conflict started. Yes, the coalition forces in Iraq did a great thing in helping to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Now the Iraqis are starting to take more and more control of their own country.

Parting question, though. Why do we not hear more about this from the reporters leaving the nation? There has to be a reason.