As is often the case, someone comes up with a new idea that is going to alter humanity and forever redirect our course for the good. The healthcare bill is an example of such a hope-filled new idea. However, the healthcare bill contains within it some very old ideas, too, such as the idea that abortion is necessary for the health of a nation or a people. That idea is not new. Pharaoh thought it was necessary for the midwives to kill all the sons of Hebrew women–3,500 years ago (See Exodus 1). More recently, Margaret Sanger thought it was necessary to kill black children for the good of America (See here). Planned Parenthood (which arose from the work of Margaret Sanger) still targets blacks and minorities (See here). So, these new “progressive” ideas aren’t new. They aren’t good either. It is never good or healthy for a people to kill their offspring. It never will be good.
I am an optimist. I know the outcome–that all things will work together for good for those who love the Lord. So, I am an optimist. Yet, I am not optimistic about Obamacare ever being overturned. I hope it is. I will support the repeal of this terribly invasive healthcare reform. I don’t think it will be overturned. Here is why.
Entitlements are never overturned. Once people begin getting something for “free,” they don’t want to give it up, even if it restricts their freedom and burdens their neighbors. Everybody likes a free lunch. Don’t get me wrong. I believe there is a huge backlash coming for Democrats in November, and I know people are angry right now. But that will change. Public opinion always does. The Democrats know this, too. Once things calm down, the Democrats will simply bring up all that will be lost by overturning this bill. We will begin hearing stories of all the terrible suffering which will result from “taking away” these “free” benefits for needy people. When that happens, public opinion will swing back to the middle.
When public opinion swings back to the middle, then the true mettle of conservatives will be tested, and it will be found lacking, in my opinion. Why do I say this? Not simply because I have seen conservatives cower in conversations concerning life, though that is reason enough for saying conservatives often lack mettle, but, rather, because I have been listening to the majority of conservatives express their outrage at the notion of a congress and a president going against the will of the people. Granted, I am outraged, too, that this congress and this president have ignored the voices of millions–and they really have completely ignored large swaths of the American landscape in this.
However, I find a glimmer of principled conviction in the actions of the Democrats. Their leadership has accomplished something that conservative leaders have not accomplished much. They have led on principle–even if it costs at the polls. Sadly, we once thought it was virtuous to stick to your guns and stick to your principles. I remember President Bush (I think it was in his debate with Gore?) stating that he would not lead by opinion polls, but by principles. I thought that was admirable then. I don’t like it much now because it involves principles against which my mind and body viscerally revolt. Yet, one cannot claim that the Democrats did what they did by merely sticking their fingers in the wind to see which way it was blowing.
The Democrats acted out of their belief that women should have access to abortions everywhere, and we all ought to pay for it. They did it out of their firm conviction that the federal government should decide how to pay doctors and nurses. They did it from their soft, socialistic outlook on life. Oh, I know they violated protocols in the House and in the Senate, and I know right now people are outraged about that, but they acted out of principled convictions–even if the principles were horrendously wrong-headed.
Outside of Congressman Ryan and a few others, the Republicans responded that the Democrats should have listened to the will of the people. So, in the course of repealing this repugnant set of rules governing my private colonoscopy, the Republicans must hope that public opinion remains strongly opposed to Obamacare. Even though I hope it does, I doubt that it will. I doubt that public opinion will remain strongly opposed because the radical new policies don’t take place until 2014, conveniently after the next presidential election. In fact, around the time of this election in November, there will be $250 checks going out. If public opinion were the reason for opposing Obamacare, then public opinion may in the future become the reason for keeping it.
What I wish would happen is that Republicans would become steeled in their resolve repeal Obmacare on principled grounds. Let conservatives learn to be passionate and unapologetic about ending abortion on demand, taking a principled stand for babies even if public opinion swings against them. What I wish would happen is that an unwavering regard for liberty would gain a foothold in the minds of conservative leaders. Real leaders don’t lead by looking at polls. They are fixed on eternal principles such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I fear that–even though for today we are outraged–in the future we will accommodate (as Europe has) to suckling our existence from the breast of a federal nanny who increasingly kills her unwanted children.
I’m not an anti-government fanatic, and neither are you probably. We understand that government has a role to play in our lives. Government is necessary for protecting us all and for maintaining order where sin might otherwise abound. That being said, this new Obamacare legislation is egregious. Just think about what it is going to do.
First, it nationalizes the healthcare industry (one-sixth of a very large economy). Second, and more significant, it is federal legislation over every individual in America. Granted, other laws affect every individual. This law, however, actually mandates activity for each individual from Washington, D.C. We have never operated like this before in America. This is not the America of the constitution or of the founding fathers.
In fact, this aspect of the healthcare bill will lead to constitutional challenges. Attorneys General in several states like Virginia are already preparing lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of this bill. Specifically, as this Washington Post article points out, the issue at hand is whether the federal government has the power to pass laws which punish any and every American for not doing something. The healthcare bill punishes you if you decide not to purchase health insurance. In other words, by federal law (not state law), you are now no longer free to decide whether or not to buy health insurance.
There are further regulations on which plans you must purchase and on what must be provided in the plans, but you must realize the significance of the federal government telling you that you cannot choose to pay for your own medical expenses. The federal government says you must purchase insurance. And the federal government says that it will fine you a couple thousand dollars if you do not buy insurance. No one is free to join a medical sharing co-op. No one is free to invest $600 a month, setting aside the cash to pay for doctors visits, etc. Now, we must purchase a government approved plan–by federal law. I hope the courts agree that this bill is an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.
A song by Phil Keaggy asks, “Who will speak up for the little ones, helpless and half-abandoned?” It seems that no Democrat in America will any longer. When Bart Stupak caved in to pressure from the national Democratic Party earlier today, he sent the message loudly and clearly that abortion is at the heart of what it means to be a Democrat. Apparently, there is no place at the national level for pro-life Democrats.
I understand that I am not an expert on matters of legislation and executive orders, but I think I am alert enough to read such things. The executive order from President Obama is made to sound nice and pro-life, but it cannot–in my opinion–be taken seriously. If the healthcare bill does not fund abortion, then why is the executive order needed? If it does, then the executive order will do no good because an executive order cannot overturn legislation. Either way, the executive order is a meaningless show, which explains why the pro-abortion Obama could write it and why pro-abortion groups won’t raise even a whisper about it. If the bill passes, it will ensure that we all pay for abortions through our tax dollars, even though the practice violates our consciences before God.
In addition, this healthcare bill will fundamentally change the way we think of ourselves and our government. I am no longer free to determine whether I will receive a colonoscopy. Someone in some bureau somewhere will decide if I really need one and whether I will ever get one. We one time were accustomed to hearing folks say, “Keep the government out of our bedrooms.” Well, we shall now have them in places heretofore considered more private than our bedrooms.
I saw a news article yesterday stating that 59,000 nuns joined together to support the Obama health care plan, which had been opposed by U.S. bishops because of its funding of abortions. Well, today, Kathryn Jean Lopez sets the record straight for Roman Catholics. According to this blog post from KJL, the number of signatories in opposition was a mere 55, with one of the signatories voting twice. It appears that a much larger number of nuns is on the other side of this one–on the side of life and thus opposed to federal funding of abortion.
I received this e-mail alert from the Family Research Council. I forward it for your consideration. Tuesday is the day scheduled for a Senate committee vote. So, you may want to call today.
Members of the Financial Services Committee will be voting NEXT TUESDAY on amendments to keep abortion coverage out of ‘s (D-Mont.) health care bill. Sen. Baucus‘s health care bill explicitly includes abortion and would subsidize health plans that cover all elective abortions. Such subsidies for abortion goes well beyond the status quo of preventing federal funds either from paying for abortion or subsidizing plans that covers abortion as is prevented under current laws governing Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, and the Plan.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has introduced several amendments that would prevent government funding for abortion and would protect current conscience laws for health workers. Please call these key Senators today and urge them to support Sen. Hatch’s amendments to keep government funded abortions out of the Baucus bill:
- Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.):
- Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.):
- Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.):
- Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.):
Bloomberg has an article based on an April interview with President Obama concerning end of life medical decisions. In the article, Obama says that he would gladly have paid for his grandmother’s hip replacement himself; yet he found the decision for her to have a hip replacement troubling. He labeled the decision “a difficult moral decision.” He did not mean “a difficult moral decision” for his grandmother. He meant for the healthcare industry.
Obama seems to think it might be immoral to offer someone with a terminal disease a hip replacement. Underscoring this line of reasoning, he makes a couple of follow-up statements which are indeed chilling.
First, he makes this statement:
“The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”
Then, he makes this one:
“What I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy,”
When you couple such reasoning with the hard economics of deficit spending, you get fear from the elderly and fear from anyone who loves the elderly or terminally ill. Add to these fears the necessity to cut $500 billion from Medicaid, and you get a clear picture of the future of American healthcare. And the picture is not a pretty one at all. If you love your grandmother or your uncle who has cancer, you will want to fight Obama’s healthcare reform.
Everybody is talking about healthcare. I just wanted to share my personal conviction about the matter. I have been guilty in the past of complaining about doctors. Seems like whenever I go to the doctor, I spend a couple of hours waiting, spend a couple thousand dollars, get a couple of prescriptions, but still have the problem I went in to cure. Well, I have decided I am not complaining anymore. I only complained because of the inconvenience. I never doubted that, as healthcare goes, ours is actually the best. I know I have always been a bit uneasy about needing healthcare when out of the country.
Given the fact that it appears hip now to demean docs, I have made the decision that I won’t join in the bashing because, it turns out, we have the best healthcare system in the world. (See Here). This report explains why we don’t go to Canada or Mexico to get treatment, but they do come here.
For the record, this story means that the new villains are the insurance companies. We will be hearing how bad they are now instead of doctors.
Socializing (or governmentalizing) healthcare is a bad idea. It’s just simply bad. It undoes responsibility. It rewards slothfulness and punishes productivity (just listen to how doctors are now being vilified). The plan, as it stands presently, will also hurt lots of folks both financially and medically. This piece in the Wall Street Journal exposes some of the fallout which will occur if a government healthcare system is passed. See if you will be one of the victims.