DON’T GO THERE

I don’t doubt the conviction of liberals who advocate that government control of healthcare will benefit almost everyone. It’s an appealing argument: e.g., coverage of pre-existing medical conditions; “children” can remain on their parents’ insurance until age 26, if you don’t have the money to pay, you get it all free.  Where do I sign up? And, if the goodies you receive are not sufficient to persuade you, then there’s always the argument that, “Everybody else is doing nationalized healthcare.”

What’s wrong with this picture? For one thing, the government provides absolutely nothing for free. Someone has to pay - - big time; that is, you, I, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and at least 50% of all Americans. (When all this settles out, it’s likely that the remaining 50% will pay zilch.) 

Not a problem, you say, just cut back on defense spending and all will be fine. That may work - - until the Chinese or some radical Middle East country, emboldened by our deteriorating defenses, decides to call our bluff and destroy a few of our cities. (Remember 9/11?)

The seminal question is:  What’s likely to happen when our heretofore relatively benign government takes over at least one-sixth of our economy? Do well-meaning liberals truly believe that healthcare will be managed more efficiently or fairly? 

Certainly Lenin and his proteges (a.k.a., dictators) sincerely believed that their “humane” collective systems would bring the greatest benefits to the most people. What the people got (their elite rulers excepted) was an almost sub-human existence, constant propaganda (lies), and extreme cruelty.

And as for those “enlightened” countries with national health plans, medical mediocrity and bureaucratic quagmires are now the norm, not the exception (e.g., shortage of doctors, lengthy waits for treatment, lack of innovation, severe rationing).

Let’s not go there.

Jim Littlejohn

Concerned Coastal Voters

Gualala, CA

FREEDOM?

The 4^th being so close, I thought I’d write about “Freedom”. Do you have more freedom today than 3 ½ years ago when Obama became president?

 

Do you have the freedom of not having health insurance? Today you’re mandated to have health coverage or you’re taxed and that’s less freedom. Obama promised you could keep the health coverage you had prior to Obamacare, but surveys indicate most large companies are opting for the tax rather than pay the $10,000 to $20,000 per employee to offer health coverage. Welcome to government run health care.

 

You have less freedom to travel. Gas is now nearly double what it was 3 ½ years ago. Economically your freedom to travel has been restricted. Do you feel safer traveling to the border towns near Mexico with all the “Fast and Furious” guns our ATF provided the drug cartels? Do you feel safer traveling to anywhere in the world?  

 

Want that dream home?  Record low interest rates and housing costs are way down, but banks aren’t lending, because of new strict investment laws put into place by Obama. The result is less freedom to purchase a home.

 

How about jobs?  Unemployment is up and you have less freedom to support yourself and family, but you get 99 weeks of unemployment instead. That's 99 weeks of the government controlling and supporting you. There’s also the freedom to get “Food Stamps” since Obama has made that easier. Who wants to work if you can get “Free Stuff”? How about starting a business? Now you’re back to the restrictive health care law making it nearly impossible to start a new business.

 

Where’s the freedom? Do you feel that tightness around your throat? That’s the federal government and Obama strangling you and your future.  

 

Bud Spencer

Gualala,Ca

Concerned Coastal Voter

IT'S VITAL

(Published in the Independent Coastal Observer)

Conservatives are split on what to make of Chief Justice Roberts’ unexpected decision that kept Obamacare on life support. A majority of the Court struck down the Individual Mandate, which should have been the end of Obamacare. But, it wasn’t. The Chief Justice recast the Individual Mandate as a tax. Never mind that the President and almost every every other Democrat proclaimed long and loud for two years that the Individual Mandate was not a tax. In spite of the Court’s ruling, Democrats are even now running around glassy-eyed and flush with victory saying, “Tax, what tax?”

Some conservatives see a silver lining in the limitations the Court placed on expanding the Commerce Clause, a tool that liberals have used for decades to gobble up individual freedoms like a giant PacMan. But this Decision defines its limits; that is, Americans can’t be forced to buy a product that they don’t want or don’t believe they need. Still other conservatives see the newly-minted “tax” as another way to achieve the same end for our "elite" rulers- - the never-ending expansion of government powers over individual citizens.

Overanalyzing or even psychoanalyzing the majority Decision is a fool’s errand. We have what we have. The political battle lines for November are clearly drawn. The conservative priority is to elect Mitt Romney and as many conservative Senators and Congressmen as we can.

Replacing Obamacare, with its legion of 16,000 new IRS agents and unprecedented intervention in the patient-doctor relationship, is vital to our freedom. It is equally important to restore the spirit of the American people and to allow our inherent entrepreneurial genius to once again place this great country on a sound economic footing - - well out of the grasp of these irresponsible leftists and far from their reach.

Jim Littlejohn

Concerned Coastal Voters

Gualala, CA