Dear Senators: Thanks for Not Caring

In trying to call to voice my opposition to the Great Heathcare Monstrosity:

A.) Senator World Class Scumbag Chuck Schumer wants me to call back during normal business hours. Well, I'd love to, but you're the one who's party has decided to schedule votes for freaking ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

B.) Senator Kirsten ("Chuck Schumer is soooo polite!") Gillibrand is marginally better. Her voice-mailbox is just full. Hopefully it's full via the likes of people like me who are expressing our utter disgust with what they are trying to jam down our throats during 1:00 AM votes.

You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward. (Quotes of the Day)

Becky Hollibaugh, D.O., to Senator Ben Nelson (via Michelle Malkin):

Thank you, Ben, for forcing doctors like me to earn less than the repairmen who fix our appliances. Case in point: We recently had our dishwasher fixed. The repairman who came to our house charged $65 just to come and ‘diagnose’ the problem, then charged another $180 to ‘fix’ the problem. You and your fellow lawmakers have fixed MY going rate (Medicare) at $35 per-visit. Thank you for securing such a ‘lucrative’ rate for me! Thank you so much for making me–someone with 8 years of education!–make less than a mechanic or appliance repair technichian. And thanks especially for falling in line with Obama and the rest of the Democrats to make such a socialist system permanent.

You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward.

Bride of Rove:

We are watching the fall of a Republic and I loathe these politicians with the fire of a thousand suns. May they rot in hell for what they are doing to us.

R. Stacy McCain:

Speaking of radical rhetoric, I notice that King Herod Harry Reid plans to kill the babies by Christmas.

Frankly, even considering the strong language, I couldn't agree with them all more.

In 9 1/2 hours, at 1:00 AM on Monday morning, the Democrats are going to invoke cloture on this monstrosity of a bill and lurch America onto a path towards bigger and bigger government, bigger and bigger deficits, and less and less freedom & liberty.


The mantra of liberals when it comes to abortion has been that health decisions should be between a person and their doctor. Well, that's about to change dramatically. And with the government controlling the terms of our health care, how much liberty still remains? If they can dictate your health care coverage, what's out of bounds?

Likewise, if the Senate version's abortion provisions win out over the House version, my tax dollars - my hard earned tax dollars - will find themselves paying for abortions. My money going to killing the unborn. How repulsive.


Note to Senate Democrats (and any Republicans contemplating joining their betrayal of what made this country great):  If you wish to violate my God-given rights, then you have my disgust and disdain forever and I shall loathe you with the fire of a thousand suns.

No, It's Not.

That's my answer to this Cato ad, anyway:



And, FWIW, both CATO (here: http://healthcare.cato.org/) and the Heritage Foundation (here: http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/) are excellent references for policy solutions, from a conservative perspective, that really could have a positive impact on health care "reform".

One of the things that drives me crazy is when liberals ignorantly blather on about how "conservatives don't have any solutions to these problems". Yeah, we do. And those two sites feature some of the best solutions.

Also, Heritage's header graphic neatly summarizes the differences in approaches between individual-empowering conservatives and government-growing liberals:

Trouble. Ben Nelson Sells Out.

I'm outraged over the direction our country is headed with "healthcare reform."

Both the bill that passed in the House and the one that now looks destined to pass the Senate are direct attacks on your average American's liberty that are going to make health insurance more expensive and add new debt-riddled entitlement programs which will churn out greater and greater deficits at a faster and faster pace.

I haven't had time to blog about the issue though. Instead, to have something of a voice but at a lower time-cost, I started a "tumblelog" (mini-blog) at Tumblr to link to healthcare articles / blog posts / videos related to the subject. It can be found here: Stop Un-American Healthcare.

I've linked to a lot of stuff over there. Most of it I think it worth taking the time to review.


The bottom line for me is that while I agree with the end goal this legislation supposedly tries to accomplish -- more affordable coverage, broader coverage, etc. -- and stories of people with denied claims, etc. all breaks my heart too -- there is nothing about the legislation that I think will actually help. But there is a great deal it will do that will harm.

There will be new layers of government between the private citizen and his doctor as well as new layers of government between the citizen and his insurance. The bill drives decisions away from the individual and into the hands of the government. That pushes things in the wrong direction.

And, to boot, both bills are blatantly unconstitutional.


Today, (formerly?) "pro-life" Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, who's hoped-for-opposition was one of the last great hopes in ending the threat to liberty that is the Senate bill, has decided to sell out his pro-life principles and integrity and support the Senate bill.

Blogosphere reaction to Nelson's Sell Out is has been apt:

Michelle Malkin has the full run down of this morning's Nelson betrayal.

Over at Townhall.com, Meredith Jessup points out that the Senate bill's "'Concessions' on Abortion = Zero" and asks "What Was Nelson's Price?".

At RedState, Dan Perrin notes that:

The question of whether we live in a country ruled by leaders who refuse to listen, but do what they believe is in their own interest, has been answered. Conservatives hate this bill. Progressives and liberals hate it too. The public is solidly against it. But it does not matter, apparently.

And also at RedState, Dan Spencer lays out what the Senate vote calendar will look like for this week, with final passage of the bill pending for 7PM on Christmas Eve. The crazy pace at which they are trying to jam this through should give everyone great pause.


Earlier this week President Obama said we "on the precipice" of this government-run healthcare overhaul. It appears, regrettably, that he's right. Both that it looks like this very well may happen and in his unintentional use of a word that means we're about to go through something hazardous.

Louise Slaughter's Ignorant Hubris

Speaking of my local and awful representatives, until a few months ago I lived in NY-28, which is currently represented by Louise Slaughter.

There is some buzz today about Slaughter's post at the Daily Kos (liberal blog/hate site) about her introducing HR-4300 which would restrict credit card companies from charging rates higher than 16% APR.

That post, and her proposed bill, are an excellent example of the hubris and ignorance it takes to be a liberal.


First, you have to believe that voluntary agreements entered into by individuals and credit card companies are somehow the government's business.

No one forces someone to get a credit card. Nor does anyone force someone to get a credit card with specific APR terms. If people don't want credit cards with 25% or 30% or 100% or - heck - 200% - or whatever APRs, they don't have to get them.

The reality is that credit card agreements are a free and voluntary arrangement and should be none of the government's business.


Second, you have to believe that you can set interest rates for credit cards better than the market. Screw supply and demand - Slaughter knows better!

It begs the question, why 16%? Why not 12.5%? Why not 3%? Why not 18%? Following along with Slaughter's proposed claims that consumers are better off with 16% APR than 30%, should they be even more better off if rates are capped at 15.5% or 15% or 14% or 10% or 1%? Why not tell those evil credit card companies they can't even chard any interest. And late fees are evil too - no more late fees! Free credit for everyone! And also, free ponies, please.

Again, returning to reality, in a free market we have the "marvel", as Hayek put it, of the price system which can do a better job of coming up with the right interest rate than any individual ever could.


Third, you have to staunchly stay with stage-1 thinking. You can't think through things like "oh, if credit card companies can't have the option of charging higher interest rates, maybe they'll turn to higher annual fees or not offering credit to anyone with a moderate to high credit risk."

Returning a third time to reality, that's exactly what they'll do. The interest rates on credit cards reflect the cost of the risk of lending -- the risk you won't pay the lender back. If you're a high risk, perhaps because you missed a payment (and thus your rate increased), and the 16% APR doesn't cover the cost of your risk, no lender is going to offer you an unsecured credit line.


Finally, you have to think that people's irresponsibility makes the victims who need protected. Too irresponsible to pay off your balance each month? Victim! Too irresponsible to find a card with a lower rate? Victim! Too irresponsible to pay your card on time? Victim!

A final return to reality: If you can't manage your own finances, that's not the credit card companies, and it shouldn't be the government's job to nanny you.


Here's a much better idea than the Slaughter bill: First, Slaughter (and perhaps everyone in Congress) should be required to read Hayek (or at least Roberts) and Sowell. Then, every American carrying a credit card balance should be required to read Ramsey.

Why...

... do I have to have this dirtbag as my senior senator?