But I sent the following to my Va. senator, Jim Webb:
Dear Sen. Webb,
I hope you will support the efforts under way in Virginia to opt out of the just-passed health care "reform" - specifically, the federal mandate that will try to force individuals to purchase a private insurance policy. This is by any sane reading of the Constitution beyond the authority of the federal government and more deeply, an affront to basic human liberty. The notion that the government should be forcing individuals to pay money to private, for-profit insurance companies is noxious in the extreme.
If you supported this "reform," you have lost my vote and the votes of numerous freedom-loving SW Virginians who elected you.
Thank you,
Eric Peters
Opting out of this unconstitutional bill would never be possible in my state. We have such a liberal asshole governor and mostly liberal congress men. But I think the people who would make the vote to opt out would be the state level congressman. Motherfucker Obama bribed my represenative Paul Kanshitsky into voting for it. This sucks.
Here's the form letter BS I got back:Originally Posted by dieseleverything
Mr. Eric Peters
721 Hummingbird Ln SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079-2548
Dear Mr. Peters:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding health care reform.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me, and I understand the deep concerns that Virginians have on both sides of this important debate. As further health care reform legislation comes before the full Senate, I will continue to be guided by the principles I set forth at the beginning of this debate. I support meaningful, fiscally-responsible, and effective health care reform that contains costs, expands access to health care, protects Medicare, and reforms the market for health insurance. I am particularly concerned that we protect Americans with pre-existing medical conditions and foster increased competition among carriers. Significant deviations from these core principles would lead me to withhold my support.
As the health care reform debate continues, please be assured that your views will be very helpful to me and my staff. I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with us in the years ahead.
Thank you again for your interest in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
What did you expect?
It seems Webb fully supported the bill, when I read between the lines.
IMO, we will get used to the change. I hear at first the fight against Social Security was a lot bigger of a deal than this new health bill.
Give it five or ten years and see if anybody is still complaining. I kinda doubt it.
While I will not benefit from this new health bill in any way, it certainly has some good points to at least 32 million Americans.
Do you have a better idea? Keep things as they are with 32 million with no health care and just let this number grow?
-Don-
"Do you have a better idea? Keep things as they are with 32 million with no health care and just let this number grow?"
How about for starters not using the police power of the state against peaceful people harming no one, to force them to buy a product they may not need or want?
For second, if we're going to have "reform," how about cutting off illegal aliens and making scumbag criminals who incur costs (such as being shot during a drug deal) work off their debt via digging ditches, etc? And requiring that breeders who produce more than one kid they can't afford select either sterilization or lose their benefit?
Just for openers...
Do you really want the fucking government involved not merely in your health care choices, but dictating you lifestyle choices, since after all, your lifestyle affects "society" and "the system"?
I got a form letter in reply; so here's what I sent back to the prick:
Dear Sen. Webb,
This form letter is just another example of the disconnect between politicians and the people. Do you imagine that a constituent considers himself to be "represented" by a politician who not only thinks it's appropriate to send out canned, pre-packaged form letters in response to a direct inquiry but also acts contrary to the clearly expressed wishes of those he allegedly "represents"?
The people of SW Virginia do not want to be compelled at gunpoint to buy a product (health insurance) from a private, for-profit corporation. The partnership of government and big business is the essence of fascism. (You might read up on your Mussolini.) It is an outrage and obvious affront to the Constitution - or rather, what's left of it.
If you believe, moreover, that people have a "right" to health care, then why not also housing, food, a job - or any other material benefit? Who shall provide these benefits? Before the government can give, it must take. All you and other apparatchiks of the federal government are is middle men, using the police power of the state to extract money from "Smith" in order to provide a benefit to "Jones." How does this differ from my threatening to bash a random stranger over the head if he doesn't give me his wallet, because I "need" money? Oh yes, I forget: When the government does it, it becomes legitimate.
I used to admire you; I read your book, "Fields of Fire" and considered you an honorable man. But your support for this fascist collusion of state and large HMO/corporate interests absolutely disgusts me.
You have lost my vote, for whatever that's worth.
-Eric Peters
I have some better ideas:
If those 32 million people had decent paying jobs they could buy their own health care.
Secondly, nobody has ever investigated why healthcare costs so much in the first place.
It's now us taxpayers (which is less than 50% of the population) to pay for their right.
Soon they will have a right to 'decent': housing, utilities, transportation, clothing, internet, you name it.
This bill makes the IRS even more powerful.
I'd like to accelerate deficit spending so our country could just go bankrupt and get it over with!
Be happy you got anything back. I sent a letter to my senator Bob Casey Jr a while ago, and I never got anything back. I would have been happy with even a form letter, at least I would've know his office got it.
Yes de-regulate, and set caps on the amount people can sue doctors and hospitals for. And half of those 32 million are more than able to afford insurance, but do not want to buy it. It's all a massive redistribution of wealth scheme that will control our entire lives.Do you have a better idea? Keep things as they are with 32 million with no health care and just let this number grow?
Don't forget FDR's second bill of rights, "...all men should have the right to adequate entertainment." Just what we need the government deciding how much fun to let us have.Soon they will have a right to 'decent': housing, utilities, transportation, clothing, internet, you name it.
If those 32 million people had full time jobs with benefits, there would be no reason to have such a health bill. But how do you expect to find such jobs for those 32 million people?
And if we really did have 100% employment, all with decent pay, we would have other problems such as runaway inflation.
BTW, I am neutral on this health bill. I might not be after it's been in effect for a while, but I could go either way, depending on how well it works (or doesn't work) in the real world.
-Don-
The way it will work is that people in favor at the moment (UAW, SEIU, Government worker drones, politicians) will get whatever the best care is at the moment; the rest will stand in line the way we do at the Post Office,DMV, Social Security Office, etc. A nameless, faceless bureaucrat will decide if your proposed treatment meets his test of cost-benefit, in other words,as Obama said, "maybe you are better off to not get the hip replacement, maybe you should just take the pain killer."
In the meantime, you, your boss, and anyone making a decent living will pay thru the nose in taxes to pay for the health care of illegal aliens, and the abortions of repeat breeders...oh, wait. maybe it isn't all bad.....
See here.
"The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate"
"The House bill says that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will not be allowed to receive subsidies."-Don-
Note "subsidies" - not free medical care. Big difference. The sons of bitches already get free medical care and it won't be denied them under Obamacare. They just won't et "subsidies" to help them "buy" the now-mandatory (for the rest of us) "insurance."
"Buy" means "not free".
IMO, this bill is a good start. Not perfect, but the imperfections can be worked out in time.
BTW, I wonder how much Canada (and MOST other countries) would scream if they were going to change to our old system of health care that leaves millions of people with none.
Do you prefer to make no changes in our health care system, which leave more and more with none each year?
BTW, see how it will affect you here.
-Don-
"Do you prefer to make no changes in our health care system, which leave more and more with none each year?"
I'm not a "we" person - I'm a "me" person. My health care is my problem; just as yours is yours. The idea of the state using its police power to force me to pay for your health care (or making you pay for mine) disgusts and appalls me.
But I'm one of those kooks who isn't a collectivist thug .... who believes the only time the state is morally justified in using force against anyone is to prevent that person from using force against another, or to punish him for having done so.
No one has a "right" to health care anymore than they have a right to a car or a house.
The only valid rights are rights that don't come at the expense of someone else.
I didn't realize until now that you're a republican!
So when your house starts to burn down you will not call the fire department to use the services that others mostly pay for whose house never burned?No one has a "right" to health care anymore than they have a right to a car or a house.
Yeah, some people are less selfish than most others. But I see now you're against paying for the schools of others and etc. too, right?The only valid rights are rights that don't come at the expense of someone else.
BTW, even under the old system those with good health pay for those with poor heath. I know a couple of people who use the same HMO I pay for. I rarely use any of their services. I know a few people that use them a lot but pay the same premium I pay. I would rather be the one paying than using, wouldn't you?
-Don-
"I didn't realize until now that you're a republican!"
I'm not - Republicans are statists; I'm a Libertarian/conservative! (It was Republican statists such as Mitt Romney who came up with the idea of Obamacare; that is, forcing people to pay private corporations for "insurance.")
My philosophy is the opposite of Republicanism: I believe it is immoral to point guns at people, or threaten them with force, unless they are threatening someone. I do not believe anyone "owes" me health care, a job, a house or anything material. Nor do I "owe" random strangers or anyone else except children I may have, etc. such things. Any forcible taking of property or income by the government to provide a material benefit to another person is theft, plain and simple. You can gussy it up with gassy language about "democracy" and "voting" and so forth - but all that comes down to is, once again, the use of force by a majority against a minority. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Just leave me in peace - and I will extend the same courtesy in return.
"So when your house starts to burn down you will not call the fire department to use the services that others mostly pay for whose house never burned?"
Apples and oranges. Public safety - police, law courts, etc. - are not remotely the same thing as forcing me to provide you with medical care. Or forcing me to buy the product of a private, for-profit business.
"Yeah, some people are less selfish than most others. But I see now you're against paying for the schools of others and etc. too, right?"
Having children is a choice. How does someone else's decision to produce a child impose an obligation - enforceable at gunpoint - on me to provide for that child's education? We have lots of pets; we chose to get them - and we provide for them. Do you think I should use the power of government to force you to help me pay for our dog and cat food, too?
"BTW, even under the old system those with good health pay for those with poor health."
Ah, but force - the use of the police power of the state - was not part of the equation. A big difference.
Again: My insurance situation/health care is no one's business but my own (and perhaps my family's) just as your health care is none of my business.
The only thing each of us "owe" our fellow men is goodwill and the forbearance to leave them in peace to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they are not harming anyone else in the process.
The rest is just thuggery masquerading as "help" and "the public good."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote