Jackie’s off
Jackie Speier, illustrious Congressional Rep for my district, boasts of her pride in voting for a health care bill, keeping what she calls her promise to “the voters and taxpayers who sent me to Congress.” One reason she didn’t get my vote.
Surprisingly, she refers to the “most exhaustive and transparent review process of any bill in our nation’s history,” with input from all sides, or at least two sides — the Democratic and Republican wings of the Incumbent Party. Even so, it is clear to anyone paying attention that the Republicans were shut out of the process but, more important, critics of this ill-conceived legislation were ignored or demonised as racist enemies of the uninsured.
Since Hillary Clinton attempted meddling with health care, it is apparent the problem is not a lack of insurance, it is a surfeit of insurance. Wayne Rogers of “Cashin’ In” put it succinctly. The problem is “third-party payers,” whether private or public. When the doctor-patient relationship is breached, responsibility vanishes, costs soar.
Of the health care bill, Speier says, “Americans are right to ask: What’s in it for me?” I never thought to ask that. My question: Where does the Federal government get the authority to control our health care?
Bob Barr claims there’s this Constitution. Has anyone ever seen it? If it exists, Congress has read it as carefully as the trillion-dollar bills it passes.
Most Americans are asking: “How will this new intrusion hurt me?” For the answer, check the handy Obamacare cheat sheet. It’s in colour.
Speier advocates human rights. Selectively. Claiming women will pay the same premiums as men, she says they “will finally enjoy the same health care coverage that their fathers, sons and brothers have.” So I guess there won’t be coverage for pregnancy or exclusively female conditions, like hairy limbs. She waxes on about how the so-called reform bill is comparable to women’s suffrage, civil rights, Social Security and Medicare. Civil rights includes the vote for women and that is about rights. Social Security and Medicare are misguided government entitlements Americans are forced to pay for, although the premiums are taxes.
Retiring Americans will benefit, according to Representative Speiers, “… by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, eliminating out-of-pocket payments for preventative care and banning overpayments, this Congress is making good on [the] promise [of medicine for the elderly] and extending the Medicare trust for future generations.” [Does she mean the imaginary trust "fund?"] Declaring that you will cut waste, fraud and abuse is not the same as accomplishing it. Especially if you are in government.
The bill is also great, she says, for “the 14,000 Americans who lose their health insurance coverage every day.” Somebody has seen “Groundhog Day” one time too many.
Speier did not forget Americans who already have health insurance, who “get the best news of all.” It’s a bit confusing what that is; suffice it to say they will benefit from the reduced cost of insurance premiums in Fantasyland.
She says “no issue has been studied, scrutinized and debated more than health care reform.” More or less correct, but without consensus, how can a total overhaul be justified? Speier’s comments are light on sensible reasoning, heavy on partisan piffle. She even throws in a dig at the right’s misguided hero, Ronald Reagan.
Speier concludes:
| It will be a proud day for this Congresswoman — and for America — when Congress finally sets our nation on a path toward great access, greater equality and greater accountability and competition in our health care system. |
I not only agree, I predict we will not live to see that day. Here on Earth in 2009, the current legislation is not a catholicon, it’s a cancer. 
