When (many) Dems find that they can’t win an argument on the merit of their premises, they resort to their standard litany of ‘ists’ and ‘isms.’ In this case, Harry Reid actually tries to make the case that if you don’t agree with their power grab at 1/6th of the economy and the dismantling of the best medical system on the planet, you’re no better than those (Democrat) House and Senate members who voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Or, you’re just like the people who tried to keep women from having equal rights and the vote. Racist, sexist, ageist, heterosexist, thisist, thatist, theotherist … whatever ‘ist’ or ‘ism’ they can try and stick to you, they’re completely happy to do it.
Reid’s comments, of course, betray his fundamental and woeful misunderstanding of the concept of rights. He actually tries to conflate the alleged “right” to medical care to the same status as the right to equal treatment of individuals, regardless of their gender or skin color. Reid needs to go back and do a bit of research and reading into the difference between negative and positive rights. As I have written in this blog previously,
Simply put, no such right exists because, for it to exist, there must be a corresponding responsibility on the part of another/others to provide the rights holder with that medical care. Additionally, the rights holders have the moral base from which they can demand that treatment and – if need be – forcibly extract the means of providing that treatment from others. …
Don’t fall for the flawed logic that underlies positive rights theories. That ‘logic’ always dead ends in the state or the alleged rights holder deciding – for you – how much, when, and why. Occasionally they will revert to talk of “autonomy” and claim that infringing on your rights is quite alright, so long as you are allowed to maintain some airy concept of autonomy. However, their defense of positive rights does not remove the requirement of some other person or power defining the level of acceptable level of rights infringement. That other person or power makes the choice of how much or how little autonomy you are allowed to posses and then tells you to be happy that they deigned to give you that much.
When the premises for autonomy fail, arguments will typically revert to ad hominems and claims that you are cold-hearted and uncaring for actually daring to claim rights to your private property, your life and your work.
The Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog has posted a screen shot from Obama’s OFA website (www.barackobama.com). I’ve reposted the screenshot at the bottom of this post.*
Apparently Obama and the campaign arm of the White House (i.e., OFA) are trying to designate 9/11 as “Patriot Day .. in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the 9/11 attacks.” So far that doesn’t sound too bad, right? How could commemorating 9/11 be a bad thing?
One small problem is that they are actually not commemorating 9/11. They’re planning a day of coordinated Castroturf action in which all their followers make at least two calls into their U.S. Senator’s office and demand that they vote for government run health care.
So 9/11 is no longer about remembering the attacks on American soil. It is no longer about the thousands of lives taken by islamist terrorists. It’s no longer a national day of mourning. For Obama and the staff at BarackObama.com, 9/11 is now about the much higher calling of forcing socialized health care and a massive new government bureaucracy into the lives of Americans. And if Obama and OFA need to invoke the memory of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 as a means of winning a political battle, they’re apparently all for it. (After all one should never waste a good crisis, right?)
As offensive as misappropriating 9/11 for political gains may be, it isn’t enough for OFA. Nope, 9/11 can now also be used as a means to attack and malign the majority of average, every day Americans. As part of the text of their post, they actually state that those who disagree with the Obamacare plan are “our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists” who are “subverting the American Democratic Process.” So they see those attending the Tea Party gatherings as morally equivalent to the al Qaeda attackers who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Furthermore, to the people at OFA, a gathering of ostensibly free people practicing their right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” is “subverting the Democratic Process.”
In their own words, for those who think I’m making this up.
All 50 states are coordinating in this — as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propoganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.
As I noted in the post on Obama advisor, Van Jones, calling Republicans a**holes. and other posts where Obama tells his detractors to “get out of the way” so he can socialize health care without interruptions, we are getting an increasingly clear picture of the Democrat concept of civility and rational discourse.
If you agree with them and bow to their every whim and desire, you’re reasonable and bi-partisan. If you dare to question their plans, you’re an a**hole, a Nazi, un-American, etc. and you need to “get out of the way.”
* Of course, once the post was found out by the Heritage Foundation and others, the OFA organization quickly pulled it.
Update: Robert Moon @ the examiner.com provides more insight into this misappropriation of 9/11 and the attack on the majority of American citizens. He also provides an extensive list of this thin-skinned administration’s other attempts to malign and attack anyone who dares disagree with “the One.”
This video should be a wake up call for anyone who is seriously pushing the Obamacare, single-payer option. I endured the Canadian health care system for most of my life and have posted on what life under this system is like several times before.
Essentially, the care you get is mediocre to OK, when you can get it. The remainder of the time, you are being told by triage/emergency room/walk-in/urgent care doctors and nurses that you need to wait and that you can’t have this test or that test.
All the supporters of single-payer that I’ve talked to think that if they can just get “coverage,” everything will be coming up flowers and sunshine, but the reality of socialized health care is they tell you you’re “covered,” but then your coverage doesn’t mean a thing because you can’t get treatment, can’t find a doctor, and get stuck on interminable waiting lines.
Oh yeah … don’t forget the best part. It’s going to cost you somewhere between 35% – 60% of your earnings to help cover the bill for this “free” health care.
Take it from one who has survived socialized health care for about 30 years, YOU DON’T WANT IT!!
Nod to Hot Air
From the lips of the Obamessiah himself,
Mr. Obama pushed back on people who say he is overtaxing the nation, saying his tax increases on families earning $250,000 or more a year are reverting to the tax system under former President Bill Clinton. The president added he will pay higher taxes himself as a result.
“These folks can afford it. They were rich back in the ’90s,” he said. “It’s not like suddenly they’re going to have to go to the poorhouse. But what that does is it allows us to pay for health care reform for a lot of people.”
Going after a line of attack Republicans have used against him, Mr. Obama insisted, “I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I don’t think that’s socialism.
He may not think its socialism (or he may not want to openly admit it), but his policies from the word go have all advocated, or moved the country toward, the state ownership and control of the means of production and the delivery of services. That’s textbook socialism.
Then, to make it worse, he’s throwing in a healthy dose of class warfare to try and make it more palatable for people to demand that their neighbors cover the costs of their health care, mortgages, etc.
It’s good to see that some in the Canadian health care establishment are willing to recognize just how horrible socialist health care provision in Canada has become.
The natural next step for Canada’s health system is allowing more private delivery, which will give patients more choice, and better access to care, the new president of the Canadian Medical Association says.
“My whole career has been about resolving access issues. This is my battle horse,” said Robert Ouellet, who takes over Wednesday as president of the CMA.
“Private delivery is an accepted practice everywhere in the world and it’s time Canada accepted this reality.”
I have written about the wait lists and cues in several posts on this blog and dozens of other places as well (and yes, my Mom is still waiting for that hip replacement 3.5 yrs and counting). Others are agreeing and reporting that people are literally dying on the wait lists.
The comments after the article are equally interesting. Many Canadians are clinging to the silly belief that the reason the wait lists are so long is because the government refuses to fund health care – despite the fact that approximately 10% of Canadian GDP goes to health care spending. They also add in the note that wait lists are also too long because the doctor to patient ratio is too low. Surprise!!! When you restrict the ability of doctors to charge a reasonable fee for their time and effort and to practice in the area they want, they move to the U.S. where they can make a decent living. No wonder the ratio is weighted so heavily toward patients in a socialist system.
One hopes that elected officials listen to people like Ouellet and the millions of Canadians who are being forced to choose between waiting for years or traveling to another country for necessary treatments.
Via Hot Air and Bryan, we can hear Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack openly state that the expansion of the S-CHIP program was a Democrat scheme to bring about fully socialized health care.
“I think there is going to be a commitment to universal coverage. I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be a sector by sector process. I think you either need to go in whole hog or not. We tried to sort of squeeze the middle here with doing children and doing seniors, and trying to squeeze it. If anything happens, it would more likely look something like this: you would extend eligibility for children from 200% of poverty to 300% of poverty, and create resources to insure the parents of those children.”
You heard it, straight from the trojan horses mouth.
I’ve been there and done that, growing up in Canada folks, you don’t want what they’re offering. Trust me. An eighteen month wait for basic hernia operation just isn’t worth it.