About Me

Name: Unperson
Email: jkthomas@in.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Questions, Questions, Questions

The following are questions developed to be answered by people who decide what is or isn't news and how that news will be framed.
 
Perhaps I missed it. Could someone tell me if proof exists concerning the assertion by President Obama that protestors against the health care bill are being organized and/or funded by insurance companies? If so, then surely part of the news cycle should include a rendering of that proof so that others, who are so inclined may verify or dispute the allegations. Thus far, I am only aware of one instance of organization which was fairly well countered by Mary Katherine Ham's article "Think Progress, MSNBC 'Manufacture' a Story With Putative Smoking Gun 'Mob' Memo" published on the 5th of this month in the Weekly Standard Online. If this is the story that is the basis for the continued allegations of corporate invovement in the protests, then isn't it time to give up the meme?
 
Has anyone in your organization actually taken the time to go to these meetings and talk to the people who are standing in line waiting to get in? If not, then why is your curiosity, the very core of journalism, so dulled? Doesn't it strike you that your continued inability to pursue a story makes it seem that you are on the take in some fashion? Aren't you interested in getting all sides of the story anymore? Do you believe that if you continue to ignore the story that it will just go away? Do you have any opinions about signs carried by the protestors consisting of lettering with magic markers on poster paper versus professionally made signs carried by members of Acorn or Code Pink whenever they protest something?
 
Has anyone in your organization actually read the health care bill? If so, then why aren't you reporting what you are reading? If not,why not? Have you given up examining what comes out of Washington? Do you now take it on faith that any legislation proposed by the current congress is above any sort of reproach? While you might believe that the current government will weild such legislation in a way that is benificial to the population at large (and it seems to me that a journalist worth his salt might be more than a little skeptical), what about the impact of the legislation in the hands of future generations and the politicians who will oversee its continuance? Do you believe that there are enough safegaurds against abuse in the bill, because I haven't seen any?
 
Are you at all concerned that your representatives are not reading the legislation they are voting on? Doesn't it strike you as being just a tad irresponsible for legislators to enact laws without fully understanding the impact those laws will have on the people, particularly with something as all encompassing as health care? If interns or assistants are the ones reading the legislation and giving a thumbs up or down, then wouldn't that leave the power of law in their hands, rather than their employer's? Do you know any of these people? Have you interviewed them to determine if they are fit to make these kinds of decisions? How about that for a story? The real decision makers in Washington! I see a Pulitzer in your future.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Future Protections against the Dark Arts Part I

As we all know, representatives, acting out of great compassion, have determined that an overhaul of the healthcare system is paramount for the purposes of giving the populace what it really needs: something regular folks are incapable of determing for themselves. Thanks to these becons of humanity, all people will have access to health care, something heretofore unavailable to many of our citizens. The number of people sick and dying in the streets have brought this problem to the attention of concerned legislators and has prompted them to roll up their sleeves and write 1000 plus pages of ambiguous law which, under the compassionate watch of Democrats in the house, senate and oval office will be honorably weilded to give the best possible treatment to the entire population of this country and perhaps even other countries as well. The question arises, what safegaurds for the future can be added to this legislation to prevent unscrupulous Republicans or other evil politicians from using this law to forward an unsavory agenda. As we all know, the evil forces of market capitalism without the restraint of government intervention runs roughshod over the needs of the disenfranchised and unempoyable. Democrats, who offer soup and bread to anyone who will for vote for them far outnumber the diminishing ranks of the unwanted and uncaring Republicans who, having members within its ranks finally seeing the sense of larger government intervention into the private lives of their constiuents, are poised to eradicate their party and become willing members of the compassionate left, thus eliminating the need for a two party system and making it possible for the greatest President ever, the exhalted Barack Obama, to maintain his seat at the mantel of the Federal government beyond his proscribed 8 years. Yet still, there is the remote possibility that one of those evil Republicans might once again find himself at the helm of the biggest government on earth. Even with the help of our comrades in the media scrutinizing every move and criticizing every decision, it is possible that a Republican might use some of the language of the bill to inflict damage on the collective and bring about an unpopular appearance to the legislation as it stands.

 
For instance: Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to "ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure"! As you can see, an unscrupulous politician could attempt to provide incentives for small and mid-size business owners to look beyond the government plan thus making it possible for any remaining evil insurance companies to stay in business thus diminishing the ability of the compassionate government to oversee the health of the business owner's employees.
 
Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get. Suppose one of these future Lex Luthors decides to put free market capitalists at the helm of this commitee and they decide to give that choice to individual patients. There would be anarchy! Insurance companies might actually make a comeback and as we all know anything short of government oversight ensures criminal negligence and abuse.
 

 Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued! As we all know, government has proven itself to be the very pinnacle of efficiency, particularly in the realm of information exchange and the handling of finances.  It makes sense, therefore that government have access to individual accounts because the average citizen is incapable of determining when a medical procedure is more important than a chocolate eclair. Republicans would have you believe otherwise and may attempt to shut down this aspect of the bill, or use it to determine who is and is not a legal citizen, thus risking the loss of a valuable voting block which would diminish the compassionate aspect of government.


Sec. 201, Pg. 72, Lines 8-14 - Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private plans under government control. Can you imagine the horrors of Republican control over this aspect of the plan? Private plans would surely grow and florish diminishing the innate attractiveness of a government plan. Individuals and private enterprises might even begin to rethink their decision to abandon insurance in favor of the government plan which would only exsist out of the goodwill and fond wishes of the American public office holder, unlike the awful insurance comapanies which plunder the bank accounts of their clients while denying every possible service.
 

Sec. 205, Pg. 95, Lines 8-18 - The government will use groups (i.e., ACORN & AmeriCorps) to "inform and educate" (sign up) individuals for the government plan. It should be plane to everyone, by now, that groups like Acorn and AmeriCorps having nothing but the best interests of the country at heart. Why Acorn's commitment to harrassing mortgage companies into providing mortgages to people who couldn't pay for them alone should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their honorable intentions. Many newly homeless New Yorkers thank them for giving them the opportunity to garner one way tickets to the vacation spot of their choice. Once Republicans get the bill, they're likely to have the Guardian Angels or the ever incompetent Sisters of the Poor at the helm of this incredibly important function.
 
(Bill highlights provided by the Liberty Council. The entire document can be viewed here)
 
-Hat tip to Loyal Democrat
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Approach To Congress Concerning the Health Care Bill

I recently read a series of comments on The American Thinker entitled "What to Ask Your Congressperson about Obamacare". There are seven articles with 25 questions for which one would offer to one's congressman either during a townhall forum, on the phone or in a written missive, either through email or snail mail, depending on one's inclinations. I read these questions silently, at first, and then aloud to myself and was struck by just how difficult the language of this bill is. Each question begins with a detailed referencing of a section of the bill followed by a question based on the provisions stated (I'm struck at this moment by how reading this information has me modelling my writing after the fashion of legalese). In reading them aloud, I found myself stumbling over words and zoning out, asking myself what the heck I just read. While I get a general sense of the legislation being offered and the questions that arise out of the specific sections of the legislation I find it difficult to bring any sort of natural expression or understanding of what's being offered here. It is my beleif that were I to read from the legislation at a townhall forum and proffer the questions as they are written that everyone attending, including my congressman, would be at a loss as to what the legislation meant as well as how the question relates to what I just read. Think about that for a minute.
 
This brings up a couple of points. It is clear, by now, that John Conyers doesn't read the legislation that he votes into law. I wonder how many other elected officials don't read what they vote on. On Tuesday of this past week Joel Achenbach on the blog Sweetness and Light  reports that about 180 members of Congress attended a 2 hour seminar followed by a two hour question and answer session covering, I'm guessing, a general overview of the plan. What's striking here is not so much that legislators are attending a seminar on legislation that they were going to vote on before the voters started reading the legislation themsleves, but that legislators rarely, if ever, have attended seminars on major bills that they vote on. This is particularly noteworthy considering the 2 other major pieces of legislation that have been introduced by the Obama administration. Both, as with the healthcare bill, were introduced with the admonishment that failure to act quickly would result in devastating consequences for the people of the United States. This particular tactic was used by a departing George W. Bush, who wanted to save the free market by abandoning it, and instituted with verve by an incoming Barrack H. Obama. I would assert that this tactic was not unfamiliar to Obama, coming as he does from the Chicago political machine. For Obama supporters, rushing legislation for the benefit of Americans must seem like a truly altruistic act. For the rest of us, though, it sounds more like "don't read it, just sign it!" Thus, while legislators have had to come up with creative reasons for not reading the legislation that they are voting on, Obama has given them a reason, so now they don't even have to be creative. As an aside, the rush to advance legislation to prevent negative consequences, absent the ability of legislators to read and understand what they are voting on, makes possible another and greater set of consequences that could prove way more debilitating than allowing events to procede as they may. This is another reason I think that an effective government does very, very little.
 
I'd like to make another point. It bothers me that people like me and others who are concerned about the laws introduced onto the floor of the house and senate have to do the job that our representatives should be doing. It pains me to see that only an outcry from the citizenry can force these people to start looking into what's being offered by way of legislation. Not only should our representatives be reading these pieces of legislation, they should be understanding them. By understanding, I mean, take the law as it is written and attempt to visualize it as it is being practiced. Does it actually benefit the population at large, or does it only serve to increase the holdings of a small percentage of individuals? What does it look like when you punish people for not abiding by the law you have created? If such a law is enacted, what will it look like in 10 years or 20 years or 100 years? If the law is enacted and it doesn't work out, is there a way to undo it? There are certainly a number of enacted government programs that can be used as a template while asking these questions. Just go to the original legislation and see how the law is faring now.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »