…this guy HATES America!
(NOTE: The following post is a repost of comments I left in response to comments made about my previous post regarding Obama’s hatred of America. I repost here to ensure it is seen by all who frequent this blog.)
The comments section of my own blog is being overrun with left-wing liberal propaganda! Pixelmaster suggests that today’s America is comparable to Hitler’s Germany and no one thinks THAT comment is over-reaching? It’s comments like those that display the kind of hatred for this country that is in the heart of Barack Obama which comes out in words like those in the above video clip.
America is not a bad country because she defends herself. America is not a bad country because she uses her intelligence ability to listen in on planned attacks on her citizens, even if those planning the attacks ARE citizens. America is not a bad country because she denies constitutional rights to enemy combatants – rights to which they were never entiled in the first place. Yet you liberal propagandists and apologists for Obama suggest that all of the above make America a bad place and have the audacity to compare America in 2008 to Hitler’s Germany! THAT IS OFFENSIVE! These things you hate about America are what protect your rights to SAY SO on this blog!
Both Barack and Michele Obama do not “love America’s values.” America values life – defending it when necessary militarily rather than cow towing to the UN and the extreme liberals in Europe – and defending life from the moment of conception, something Barack Obama is on record as radically opposing. Barack Obama refuses to protect life even AFTER it has been born if the mother had attempted to abort the baby and the abortion failed. He would allow doctors to KILL the child outside of the womb. NOW THAT SOUNDS LIKE HITLER’S GERMANY!!! Is this the “change you can believe in” the Obama campaign is promising (threatening)?
Barack Obama would destroy the institution of marriage by continuing the radical liberal agenda to legitimize sodomy.
Barack Obama is in bed with supporters of terrorism, radical Islam, and the Chicago underworld (i.e. Bill Ayers). The corrupt methods he used to win his first election are well documented by David Freddoso in his book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate
A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
He won his US Senate seat because the one opponent who would have defeated him in a landslide flamed out on stories about his personal life. In the only real political race of his life – a congressional race – Obama lost in a landslide. Now a man who cannot win STATEWIDE office on his own merits is the Democratic nominee for president of ALL the United States????
Obama’s 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright shouts loudly of his commitment to a racial theology committed to eliminating any Anglo influence in American culture.
With all of Obama’s rhetoric about the “poor,” he just voted to raise taxes on the “wealthiest Americans” who are earning more than $32,000 a year! In addition, Obama has a long and yet to be fully revealed relationship with the convicted criminal Tony Rezko, to whom he funneled hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars.
You liberal posters can stick your fingers in your ear and call me a “Rush Limbaugh wannabe” all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts about who Obama is and his radical agenda to “change” American values.
When you post here you should remember that you are guests in my house. I value opposing viewpoints, but I will not tolerate personal attacks on my own character.
I have not over-reached or crossed any lines. You people are so blind to who Obama is! I am convinced that it’s a spiritual blindness inflicted by the god of this world. This blog is about bringing light to darkness. There is no question that Obama IS darkness. His defenders here can’t stand the light. “If the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”
Loving the Kingdom doesn’t mean hating America. We have dual-citizenship and responsibilities in both. I love the Kingdom of God, and through this blog and my radio program I am working to implement Kingdom principles. You are free to disagree, but you are NOT free to attack my character BECAUSE you disagree. It WILL NOT be tolerated.
I have NEVER been more offended by comments posted here than I have by these comments. Consider this a shot across your bow. You will not turn my blog into a deposit for liberal crap.
Sweet! The spirit of Christ prevailing.
Nancy,
This is why we need to fight for HSAs. It gives a great incentive to save for medical expenses and if those funds are not used by the end of the year, there is the option to invest the money. Dave Ramsey is the only one I know who talks about this with any depth.
Pix,
Glad to see your right-wing tendencies showing a little! You’re more moderate than I thought! But Chuck Baldwin has a snow-ball’s chance in you-know-where of winning which is why I have not looked at his candidacy below the surface. Ron Paul has some good ideas in regards to following the Constitution, but with the world situation as it is he is too isolationist for my taste. Besides, his chances of winning are that same as Baldwin’s. The reason that winning is important is because I do not want to contribute in any way to an Obama victory, and McCain, as unsavory as some of his policies and legislation have been, is much more palatable.
By the way, since this post IS about Obama, I found an interesting story about him and who is supporting him.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/communist-party-backs-obama/
Interesting food for thought.
Paul G.
Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. Since Man is inherently evil, every system of government must have a clear system of checks and balances. The second paragraph of the Declaration Of Independence states that there are self-evident truths that we hold to including life, liberty, and the pursuit (not guarantee, by the way!) of happiness. (The full test of the Declaration can be found at http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm. It would do us all well to read it in it’s eitirety.) It is clear that our founding fathers understood the nature of Man and the difficulties in changing a society. I, for one, believe they were brilliant. This nation has given its’ citizens more opportunity to succeed than any other nation in history. All I ask is that the government get out of my way and allow me the chance to succeed or fail based solely on the Grace of God and my own efforts. If I fail, it is my own resposibility and I am better because I attempted to succeed than if I merely subsist on any pittance I would ever receive from the government.
Paul G…Unfortunately, with the way things are shaping up…I don’t think you will even have to choose…the HMOs will definitely over take the PPOs…then the government can tell you which diseases are acceptable and which ones are only figments of your imagination.
Pixelmaster,
“Capitalism is fine so long as there are restraints”
Well said. Until the Reign of the Lord, there shall never be a perfect government on earth, except perhaps in the book of Acts, but even then evil had to be purged from it.
It comes down to how you wish to live. Me, I would rather die due to lack of proper medical care, than have the government tell me how to live…
In Christ,
Paul
Even my sweet DH who never has an evil word to say about anyone…made a frowny face when he heard how Obama was going to relieve the destitute with our fortune…
I admit, I don’t know the details of this plan by obama but i think it is simplistic to say that he is going to “raise” taxes for anyone making over 32K, as with most things we need to see the trees through the forest.
Oh yeah…Obama just redistributed the “wealth” with his clarification of the wealthy class as anyone making more than $32K
“The main problem with socialism is that man, by nature, is inherently evil”
Thus would also be the case of greed in the system of capitalism. Capitalism is fine so long as there are restraints, otherwise unregulated wealth to a few individuals will cripple the entire system. Look around…..
The main problem with socialism is that man, by nature, is inherently evil…
In Christ,
Paul
Here is another question for all you capitalistic right wingers who seem to think that all evil comes from socialism. I am listening to a discussion of Joseph in the Bible and his interpitation of the Kings dream about 7 good years followed by 7 bad years. I thought, if those farmers in that day were right wingers they would be crying Socialism, how dare we conserve anything, it is all about business, all about profits. Obviously, it is different, Egypt was run by a King and they had no say but I couldn’t help but think it similar also in the way that right wingers think that most gov’ment social programs(some are meant to conserve resources) are akin to evil.
I actually do like the postions of the right wing, I think the current right both political and religious are off track, NeoCons, not conservatives are in charge. BTW, I don’t like everything Baldwin offers I just think, like Ron Paul, he is a man of integrity.
Chuck Baldwin?! Now your right wing is beginning to show, too…. 😉
Hey, all you righties, good luck with McCain.
McCain’s Top Foreign Policy Advisor Got Money From Georgia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/mccains-top-foreign-polic_n_118743.html
Do you think that if McCain’s foreign policy advisor is paid by another nation involved in a conflict that it might effect his opinion?
The days of McCain as a maverick are long gone.
I still say the best choice based on principle, is Chuck Baldwin.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. I did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me.
Joe, I realize that I am long-winded. (My wife reminds me of this frequently!) but I hope this answers your questions. More than anything, I want to engage people in meaningful dialog with the goal to cause those reading these posts to think through their presuppositions and find the foundation of their world-view and learn how to articulate it in an intelligent and non-threatening way. Thank you for your questions because they only serve to make us all stronger.
. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. I did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me. (I wrote more on this at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/january-22-1973.html)
Well, I’ll just have to retype it, here goes.
“If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Thanks for the heads-up! Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice.
Here we go,
““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Thanks for the heads-up! Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
Joe,
I’ve tried to post the answer to your last question and it would not post. When I tried again, WordPress said it was a duplicate comment. So this is a test to see if this will post then I’ll try in short increments.
Hopefully this will post this time.
““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Thanks for the heads-up! Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. I did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me. (I wrote more on this at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/january-22-1973.html)
Joe, I realize that I am long-winded. (My wife reminds me of this frequently!) but I hope this answers your questions. More than anything, I want to engage people in meaningful dialog with the goal to cause those reading these posts to think through their presuppositions and find the foundation of their world-view and learn how to articulate it in an intelligent and non-threatening way. Thank you for your questions because they only serve to make us all stronger.
““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Thanks for the heads-up! Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
Hopefully this posts now (This is my fifth attempt!)
““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Thanks for the heads-up! Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. I did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me. (I wrote more on this at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/january-22-1973.html)
Joe, I realize that I am long-winded. (My wife reminds me of this frequently!) but I hope this answers your questions. More than anything, I want to engage people in meaningful dialog with the goal to cause those reading these posts to think through their presuppositions and find the foundation of their world-view and learn how to articulate it in an intelligent and non-threatening way. Thank you for your questions because they only serve to make us all stronger.
““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Thanks for the heads-up! Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. I did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me. (I wrote more on this at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/january-22-1973.html)
Joe, I realize that I am long-winded. (My wife reminds me of this frequently!) but I hope this answers your questions. More than anything, I want to engage people in meaningful dialog with the goal to cause those reading these posts to think through their presuppositions and find the foundation of their world-view and learn how to articulate it in an intelligent and non-threatening way. Thank you for your questions because they only serve to make us all stronger.
““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Thanks for the heads-up! Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. I did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me. (I wrote more on this at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/january-22-1973.html)
“” and NOT giving specifics on what “change” he he does want to bring about”
He’s pretty specific about his plans. I used The Google to find it. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/”
I agree that he is specific about his plans. What he is not specific on is how his plans really are a “change” from the same old left leaning policies of the last 75 years. (WOW! A short answer!)
Joe (Comment #37),
I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability (which is limited, I know!)
“Greg Rice: “But when the government is allowed to control more and more of our lives, the only result is less and less freedom to choose our own path.”
Can you tell me how precisely Obama is scheming to control more and more of our lives?”
Obama is an ideologue who’s ideas have been tried and rested throughout the years and have been found to be ineffective at best and devastating at worst. I do not believe that he is “scheming” (not my word to describe it) to control more and more of our lives. To “scheme” infers a diabolical intent and I don’t believe that is the case. However, one example of how he is in favor of an over-reaching government is that he is in favor of nationalizing our health-care system (of which I am very familiar since I have worked in the health insurance industry for almost 20 years, so I do have at least a rudimentary understanding of how it works.)
First of all a little history (OH NO!!) During World War II, Congress put certain wage freezes in place to control inflation, but in 1943, the War Labor Board ruled that fringe benefits were not subject to any wage controls. At this point, employers began to offer employees more fringe benefits in lieu of wage increases. The obvious result is that when the wage controls were lifted, employees now expected the fringe benefits to continue as well.
Second, when insurance companies and health-care providers began to accept assignment of benefits for health-care services, the members of the health plans no longer had to deal with how they were going to pay for the services and therefore no longer had an interest in how much the providers charged. If benefits would only be paid to the members, they would be more conscious of the cost and seek out the most economical services. By allowing assignment of benefits, the whole concept of market driven forces was stripped away from the system and has led to sky-rocketing health-care costs.
Third, in 1949, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that employee benefits are subject to collective bargaining. This had the result of solidifying the idea that health-care is a “right.” (This of course is not found in the Constitution, but apparently, Obama believes it is.)
Then came the biggest blow to the health-care system. In 1965, Congress established Medicare and Medicaid. What originally was to be a small portion of government spending (and it could be argued that it was started with the best of intentions, at least on the surface) has now ballooned to behemoth size.
If anyone thinks that a government run health-care system would work, my question is how’s Medicare and Medicaid workin’ for ya!?
This is just one example of how extensive government control does not work. If this is truly what Obama wants for this country (and after reading what is on his website that you listed below, that is exactly what he wants), he will effectively cripple if not destroy the finest health-care system in the world and do the same to small businesses all over the nation. If we really want to change the health-care system for the better, we need to allow for more market driven forces in the payment system. By the way, Health Savings Accounts are a definite step in the right direction.
Joe (Comment #37),
I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability (which is limited, I know!)
“Greg Rice: “But when the government is allowed to control more and more of our lives, the only result is less and less freedom to choose our own path.”
Can you tell me how precisely Obama is scheming to control more and more of our lives?”
Obama is an ideologue who’s ideas have been tried and rested throughout the years and have been found to be ineffective at best and devastating at worst. I do not believe that he is “scheming” (not my word to describe it) to control more and more of our lives. To “scheme” infers a diabolical intent and I don’t believe that is the case. However, one example of how he is in favor of an over-reaching government is that he is in favor of nationalizing our health-care system (of which I am very familiar since I have worked in the health insurance industry for almost 20 years, so I do have at least a rudimentary understanding of how it works.)
First of all a little history (OH NO!!) During World War II, Congress put certain wage freezes in place to control inflation, but in 1943, the War Labor Board ruled that fringe benefits were not subject to any wage controls. At this point, employers began to offer employees more fringe benefits in lieu of wage increases. The obvious result is that when the wage controls were lifted, employees now expected the fringe benefits to continue as well.
Second, when insurance companies and health-care providers began to accept assignment of benefits for health-care services, the members of the health plans no longer had to deal with how they were going to pay for the services and therefore no longer had an interest in how much the providers charged. If benefits would only be paid to the members, they would be more conscious of the cost and seek out the most economical services. By allowing assignment of benefits, the whole concept of market driven forces was stripped away from the system and has led to sky-rocketing health-care costs.
Third, in 1949, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that employee benefits are subject to collective bargaining. This had the result of solidifying the idea that health-care is a “right.” (This of course is not found in the Constitution, but apparently, Obama believes it is.)
Then came the biggest blow to the health-care system. In 1965, Congress established Medicare and Medicaid. What originally was to be a small portion of government spending (and it could be argued that it was started with the best of intentions, at least on the surface) has now ballooned to behemoth size. If anyone thinks that a government run health-care system would work, my question is how’s Medicare and Medicaid workin’ for ya!?
This is just one example of how extensive government control does not work. If this is truly what Obama wants for this country (and after reading what is on his website that you listed below, that is exactly what he wants), he will effectively cripple if not destroy the finest health-care system in the world and do the same to small businesses all over the nation. If we really want to change the health-care system for the better, we need to allow for more market driven forces in the payment system. By the way, Health Savings Accounts are a definite step in the right direction.
“” and NOT giving specifics on what “change” he he does want to bring about”
He’s pretty specific about his plans. I used The Google to find it. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/”
I agree that he is specific about his plans. What he is not specific on is how is plans really are a “change” from the same old left leaning policies of the last 75 years. (WOW! A short answer!)
““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”
Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. i did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me. (I wrote more on this at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/january-22-1973.html)
Joe, I realize that I aM long-winded. (My wife reminds me of this frequently!) I hope this answers your questions. More than anything, I want to engage people in meaningful dialog with the goal to cause those reading these posts to think through their presuppositions and find the foundation of their world-view and learn how to articulate it in an intelligent and non-threatening way. Thank you for your questions because they only serve to make us all stronger.
Joe (Comment #37),
I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability (which is limited, I know!)
–“Greg Rice: “But when the government is allowed to control more and more of our lives, the only result is less and less freedom to choose our own path.”
Can you tell me how precisely Obama is scheming to control more and more of our lives?”–
Obama is an ideologue who’s ideas have been tried and rested throughout the years and have been found to be ineffective at best and devastating at worst. I do not believe that he is “scheming” (not my word to describe it) to control more and more of our lives. To “scheme” infers a diabolical intent and I don’t believe that is the case. However, one example of how he is in favor of an over-reaching government is that he is in favor of nationalizing our health-care system (of which I am very familiar since I have worked in the health insurance industry for almost 20 years, so I do have at least a rudimentary understanding of how it works.)
First of all a little history (OH NO!!) During World War II, Congress put certain wage freezes in place to control inflation, but in 1943, the War Labor Board ruled that fringe benefits were not subject to any wage controls. At this point, employers began to offer employees more fringe benefits in lieu of wage increases. The obvious result is that when the wage controls were lifted, employees now expected the fringe benefits to continue as well.
Second, when insurance companies and health-care providers began to accept assignment of benefits for health-care services, the members of the health plans no longer had to deal with how they were going to pay for the services and therefore no longer had an interest in how much the providers charged. If benefits would only be paid to the members, they would be more conscious of the cost and seek out the most economical services. By allowing assignment of benefits, the whole concept of market driven forces was stripped away from the system and has led to sky-rocketing health-care costs.
Third, in 1949, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that employee benefits are subject to collective bargaining. This had the result of solidifying the idea that health-care is a “right.” (This of course is not found in the Constitution, but apparently, Obama believes it is.)
Then came the biggest blow to the health-care system. In 1965, Congress established Medicare and Medicaid. What originally was to be a small portion of government spending (and it could be argued that it was started with the best of intentions, at least on the surface) has now ballooned to behemoth size. If anyone thinks that a government run health-care system would work, my question is how’s Medicare and Medicaid workin’ for ya!?
This is just one example of how extensive government control does not work. If this is truly what Obama wants for this country (and after reading what is on his website that you listed below, that is exactly what he wants), he will effectively cripple if not destroy the finest health-care system in the world and do the same to small businesses all over the nation. If we really want to change the health-care system for the better, we need to allow for more market driven forces in the payment system. By the way, Health Savings Accounts are a definite step in the right direction.
–“” and NOT giving specifics on what “change” he he does want to bring about”
He’s pretty specific about his plans. I used The Google to find it. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/“–
I agree that he is specific about his plans. What he is not specific on is how is plans really are a “change” from the same old left leaning policies of the last 75 years. (WOW! A short answer!)
–““If socialism is so beneficial, why in the world do they have to build walls and fences around socialist countries?”
Which candidate is promoting socialism what businesses is he planning to nationalize? (Caveat: This is a loaded question.)”–
Of course this is a loaded question. I have definite reservations regarding McCain. Anyone remember McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman? Every one of these pieces of legislation leans way too far left for my taste. I am sure that you have an example of how McCain is doing the same thing that Obama is doing (I look forward to seeing it!), but please keep my reservations in mind. McCain was not anywhere near my first choice. I wrote a blog post on this point at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/05/sovereignty-and-2008-election.html.
My first choice was Fred Thompson, who forgot how to campaign, first by waiting too long to get in in the first place, and then acting like he wasn’t really interested in the whole process. My second choice was Mike Huckabee, who is a man of incredible integrity, but I think that he had too high a mountain to climb in the Republican hierarchy to really have a chance. i did have some concern regarding some of his social policies and he was a little flabby on the war, but he was rock solid on the life issue, which is extremely important to me. (I wrote more on this at http://evensongnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/january-22-1973.html)
Joe, I realize that I aM long-winded. (My wife reminds me of this frequently!) I hope this answers your questions. More than anything, I want to engage people in meaningful dialog with the goal to cause those reading these posts to think through their presuppositions and find the foundation of their world-view and learn how to articulate it in an intelligent and non-threatening way. Thank you for your questions because they only serve to make us all stronger.