It's not just Obama

While Obama may be the driving force behind the current attempts of government to take over our health system, he's not my biggest concern. Yes, I believe he is trying to take our democracy down the path to socialism, whether you want to call it socialism, nationalization or "doing what's best for Americans". I certainly believe he and the Democratic Congress are blurring the path between free enterprise and government, interfering and stabbing democracy in the front (and the back).

However, like and trust Obama and his plans or not, the biggest problem with government involvement in health care and other aspects of our lives isn't what's going to happen during Obama's administration. The biggest changes are going to happen down the road, post-Obama ("assuming" he doesn't figure out some way to turn us into a Chavez nation where term limits and true-free voting don't exist).

Once the government gets their mitts into our health care it becomes another power base for Washington DC bureaucrats. It becomes another place for government workers to protect their jobs and coast to retirement. It becomes a place where mini-despots act out their desires to rule and be superior to someone, anyone, but mainly those who come begging for a health procedure. It becomes anything BUT good.

Even if you're an Obama-lover, can you really expect the next batch of government types to live up to the lofty ideals being advertised by current proponents? You have to know oh skeptical ones, that those touting the "change" are often doing so for personal reasons, for personal or capitalistic gain? We've already head the leaks of power deals being made between drug companies and the Obama administration.... what haven't we heard about?

Why do people think the top echelon of AARP and the AMA are quasi-signing on while the larger part of their base is opposing the move? Come on, we know this is just another power shift. Deals are being made as I type... Although, those who are making deals to keep their power and dollars should look at history and know that the kind of promises made during power shifts are often not worth the time it took to shake hands. It's a "whatever we need to do now" mentality that rules during huge governmental change, then, when the changes happen those that helped are next in the steamroller's path.

Welfare started out as something the government, notably President Roosevelt, did to "help" during and after the Great Depression. During that period of time Social Security and unemployment compensation came into being. Those changes created generations of people completely dependent upon the government. Can anyone really say that was a good thing? Sure, it was good temporarily for those who'd hit rock bottom and those who were headed in that direction. But if they government hadn't stepped in to redistribute wealth, would we have survived? would we have been a stronger country?

What if, instead of giving hand outs to individuals, the government had given loans to businesses so people could work, have jobs, be self-sufficient? What if they had made the hand-outs temporary while creating jobs, then stopped the programs (which I believe was the original intention)? What if... there are a lot of what ifs...

Now we're in a temporary downturn and people are hurting. We'll get through it. We would have gotten through it without the 'stimulus' redistribution of our tax-dollars by Congress. Like-wise, we can also make changes in how health care is handled without having government take over any portion of the process.

Government health care will become another boondoggle program that curtails self-dependence. If the government, if Congress, is successful and mucks this one up, we will become a true nation of government-dependent weenies. We are close to going over the line from true democracy to some form of socialism, whether you want to use that label or not. Government-run or government-involved health care will be the proverbial straw that breaks American democracy's back.

Today I heard the government is digging deeper into private business, wanting the salaries and compensation info from insurance companies. Why? So they can continue their demonization and take over of private enterprise. It's a slippery, slippery slope we're on right now. Who figures out where to draw the line?

Even if you believe Obama and friends are right, that the government should offer a public option, do you trust future governmental types to run it efficiently and honestly?

The point being, you don't KNOW who's going to be making future decisions. All we really know is that once the government gets involved we have Welfare, the IRS, the Post Office, and our Medicare and Medicaid programs which are riddled with abuse and waste. No matter how good Obama and others make it sound, no matter how they vilify the current system, it's not going to be better when the government takes over. These will become the good old days for those of us who live through the transition. The next generations will only know government run health care, just like so many now only know Welfare. Scary.

Who says there's ANYTHING in the Porkulus package that's good for our country?

When the Democrats talk about the bill, they say we have to do something, it's needed, we have to act quickly... but they never really praise what's in the porkulus package do they? They're quick to defend parts of the bill when criticized, but that doesn't count as praise.

No one is able to say that this behemoth will help anything. It's welfare and will have more of the country locked into that defeatist path.

Here's another take on the bill, and it ain't good:

Ben Stein: Almost Half of Stimulus Goes to Unions That Backed Obama
Columnist Ben Stein has taken a close look at President Barack Obama's proposed $820 billion stimulus package, and made some eye-opening discoveries.

Writing for Spectator.com and NYPost.com, Stein calculates that:

The House of Representatives debated the bill for eight hours, or roughly $102 billion per hour.
Only 10 percent of the stimulus funds would be spent in 2009.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ben_stein_stimulus/2009/02/01/177324.html?s=al&promo_code=7937-1

Really critical that we have that bailout, huh?

Yep, the world is coming to an end if we don't get that bailout yesterday. No wait, we had to have it the day before to keep everything from collapsing. Aw, man, wrong again, we had to have it last week if we were going to save the world.

OK, missed the deadline for the end of the world, so lets just take a couple of days off.

Ho hum, everything still working?

Sho nuff? OK, why not wait another week or so and just see how it goes.

No way, we have to do it the day we get back from our time off or the world will collapse.

Anyone out there on "main street" believing the hype?

Anyone out there on "main street" believe there isn't a better way to handle this mess without putting the same folks who messed it up in charge of cleaning it up?

If this was really so critical how come the twelve guys on Barnie's committee voted no? They only needed twelve votes to pass the thing. 94 or 95 Democrats didn't vote for it. Why couldn't they just go along with Nancy to set the world back on its financial axis? It came down to twelve votes if I totaled the numbers correctly. Twelve.

Am I the only person who finds it peculiar that Pelosi is so all fired up about getting a plan from the Bush administration through? There has to be some powerful incentives in there for the Democrats, such as more power for the government and less for the people.

When I think about the IRS, Welfare, Social Security, and every other agency or program the government handles I cringe to think what could become of this one.

The media keep trying to paint the angst of "main street" as hating having fat cats leave failing companies with golden parachutes. I don't like it but that's not my main beef with the bailout at all. I don't want the grasping fingers of the government taking over anything they can mess up, and mess it up they will.