Get It Right: The Healthcare “Rage”

The 219-212 vote last Sunday on health care reform may have, as Mr. Obama phrased it, answered “the call of history.” History has certainly seen its share of usurpation and tyranny. However, it is unlikely that the passage of the bill answered the call of the Americans it will impact. Rasmussen Reports polls reveal that as Obamacare’s champions headed to vote on Sunday, 54 percent of polled voters opposed the plan and 45 percent polled strongly opposed the plan. Yet, despite majority opposition and transparent political wheeling and dealing, Obama and the Democrats in the House managed to pull the bill through. Immediate tumult followed the bill’s passage: 14 attorneys general have filed suit against the government on the basis of the unconstitutionality of this reform. Republican leaders are attempting to gain momentum to repeal health care reform and are inciting voters to display their displeasure in the upcoming elections.

Considering the costs and benefits of the reform, it is not difficult to discern where the main points of contention arise, which is why I was surprised to discover a New York Times article the other day entitled “The Rage Is Not About Health Care.” Nonplussed (I had been thinking the rage was all about health care) I read further, seeking enlightenment. And how, you ask, does columnist Frank Rich account for such raging Republican fury? In the same way that liberals traditionally respond to opposition when they fail to find substantive counter-arguments: by blaming the angry white men.

According to Rich, “If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory.” Angry, racist, sexist and homophobic Republicans cannot handle the “conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House – topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman,” and therefore would have demonstrated the “tsunami” of “illogical” anger over any legislation advanced by diverse government leaders. Maniacal chants of “Kill the Bill” reveal the homicidal lust of reform opponents as shouts of “baby killer” to Congressman Bart Stupak and “You Lie” to Obama indicate “small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.”

I am struck by the irony that liberals are outraged by accusations of socialism levied at the president (and here we are moving toward socialized health care) and yet feel justified in comparing conservative political unrest to the horrifying murder and persecution carried out by the Nazis. Rich backs his claims of Republican racism with evidence such as, “the Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935.” While casting his aspersions, Rich conveniently ignores figures such as Michael Steele, the conservative African American serving as the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. Or how about our very own Condoleezza Rice? An African-American woman who formerly served in the capacities of both National Security Advisor and U.S. Secretary of State? What a bunch of sexist racists these anti-Healthcare white male supremacists must be!

I am unconvinced by Rich’s argument, and I offer an alternative explanation for discord over the reform. Fundamentally, this bill is a mandate for Americans to purchase a product. Individuals who do not wish to purchase health care will be penalized for failure to comply with the new system. One might ask where in the Constitution such an ordinance is justified, just as the attorneys general are asking, but instead of explaining the violation of our founding document, Democrats such as Frank Rich point to protestors with accusations of racism and bigotry.

There are, of course, a plethora of other objections to the bill, ranging from a tax on tanning salons to the definition of “children” as 26-year-old dependents to the potential imposition of huge fines on employers. The fact that the highly politicized issue of abortion was used as a bargaining chip in the House vote outrages members of both parties. Forty percent of doctors over the age of 55 express concerns that it may not profitable for them to remain in the health care business. Many question the bill’s efficacy and express anxiety over giving the government control over an additional sixth of the American economy. Still, more worry that the legislation will stifle the healthcare industry and lead to the kind of substandard care evidenced by socialized systems in Europe and Canada. Take your pick of concerns to address/debate/discuss, but realize that Republican reaction to the health care reform has everything to do with conservative values clashing with the elements of the bill (shocking!) – and stop shifting the focus of the debate to alleged racial prejudices.

THe American family and personal property, and Judeo/Christian originated law are the foundations of and the reason for our particular Republican Constitution. Take any one away and our country cannot stand. All three are in peril.

1) property: 45% of middle-class wealth is already gone in the trillions via the dot.com failure and the mortgage crisis. Fannie and Freddie, once half private/half govt, is now ALL GOVT, and controls essentially all the private mortgage business and holds all the equities with the FEd Reserve itself owning more than a trillion worth....redistribution of private property to the govt is what central planning and communist ownership of property is all about.

2) law: current administration and Dems are challenging and running all over the Constitution at will.

3) More than 50% of blacks have only one parent. Increasing numbers of others have one parent. One parent has not been able to support any family at all for a couple of decades, and it is getting worse with no end in sight. A jobless recovery is not even in sight yet, and jobs will lilkely be inadequate for 25 years. The depression did not begin recovery until 1946, and this time round it should be a longer time as the US is no longer agricultural or industrial and serivice and financial jobs or govt jobs generate no wealth. THE Healthcare Bill, known otherwise as the jobs destruction bill, makes it decidedly not cost effective for companies to hire and maintain anything BUT GAYS, SINGLES. Single men and women who marry now, are instantly very expensive employees to keep on the books. THe bill is anti-family on the employment side. Careers are instantly to be stratified, reversed and phased out. A common mechanism is simply to eliminate the job, the job description.

The healthcare bill will end up funding abortions...600,000 were originally hoped for. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded over 25million abortions in Brazil. H. Clinton in March 2009, to Planned Parenthood stated the number one State Dept. Foreign Policy priority was “reproductive issues”.

Functioning families are slated for extinction by the healthcare bill based on its impact on hiring, corporate or small business. Jobless men can have no families or afford to marry any woman who has become impregnated. THe marriage penalty also, separately, upped from $6000 to $10000 for married men, a disincentive for men or women to marry at all.

Here is an article right to the point from American Thinker today regarding the Marxist goals regarding property and the family as practiced in Russia. TOday, Russia has passed the point of no return for maintianing its population. It is going to die in just a few more decades. Putins frantic policy of purchasing births at $25 thousand a pop is not working:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_abolition_of_the_family.html

The way obama and company are struttin' around like peacocks over their obamacare "victory" reminds me of the old story about the flea, floating down the Mississippi River on a leaf, with an erection, yelling "Raise the drawbridge..

As they soak their "victory", I wonder if a prizefighter to is paid off to take a dive constitutes a real "victory" for his opponent.

The "Stupak 11 10" - forever more to be known as the "Stupid Pack"...(Stupak for being stupid enough to fall for obama's 'executive order' trick, and the other ten for blindly following Stupak).

On May 24, 1844. Samuel F. B. Morse sent the first message on his newly invented telegraph, which read, "What Hath God Wrought". I wonder what he would have sent had he witnessed the obama administration?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.