Tonight (Wed. Sept. 9, 2009), President Obama delivered an address on health care reform to both Houses of Congress that was televised and broadcast around the country. The President spoke for over an hour, clearly illustrating that even though Lincoln is one of his political heroes, he definitely didn't learn anything about speaking from him (President Lincoln was often ridiculed for delivering short speeches). There's a lot that I could say about the President's speech. However, there are two things I wish to address.
The first is in regards to this part of the speech: "That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers."
I am completely opposed to such an action. To begin with, the comparison between auto liability insurance and health insurance is not a valid comparison (not to mention that statistically most accidents that occur where a driver is uninsured that driver is an illegal alien). Sure, they are both types of insurance, but that's where the similarities end. It's like saying that people who raise bananas and people who raise chickens are both farmers because they both raise things. They might both be farmers, but they are completely different types of farmers. However, besides the fallacy of this argument there is the more important and critical issue of the President seeking to take away more of our freedom and liberty. It's bad enough that in my state to drive a car you're required by law to have liability insurance. However, at least that's on a state level. It's not a national thing. President Obama wants this to be national. To do so is an infringement of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. We've had enough of our liberties and freedoms stolen by the federal government in the past five years. It's time that it stopped.
The other thing I can address from the speech regards this statement: "Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."
Apparently neither the President or his advisers have read H.R.3200 (a massive 1,000+ bill that is the only one available for public scrutiny). Now, though I'm not a lawyer, I am trained in English. I know how words and phrases work, even a lot of legalese. I've only read about 20 pages of the bill, but it's so full of bullshit that's all I could handle. However, I made it a point to read the "death panel" parts. Though it is true that the bill doesn't set up a direct "death panel", persay, it does make a point of "advanced care planning" and "end of life care" which, "may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions." In other words upon implementation one of the "physicians" that has been approved by the government can choose to deny treatment to someone. Though the wording of opponents of H.R.3200, especially in regards to this part of the bill, is a bit hyperbolic, it is not cynical, it is not irresponsible, it is not a lie. That statement in and of itself is completely unPresidential and doesn't bode well for a man who campaigned upon being above the political fray.
No comments:
Post a Comment