Throwing the American People Under the Bus

It has become obvious with the unveiling of the Democratic 1900 page "plan to fix healthcare." by Nancy Pelosi today that liberal Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes to create a socialist-style bureaucracy that controls as much of American's lives as possible in the little time they have left in office. There are virtually no changes in the bill proposed by Pelosi and the Democrats from the one proposed by Democrats in May and which was the topic of outrage at townhall meetings across the country. Again, I repeat myself, if the Democrats are interested in "fixing healthcare," this is not a way to do it. Evidence of note: Republican and Independent congresspersons have introduced no less than 10 plans while Democrats were mulling this monstrous Universal Health Slavery package, all of which were slammed to the floor in committee because the "did not do enough." The purpose of Obamacare is not to fix ourhealthcare system (unless by fix you mean fewer doctors, longer waits and further escalating prices for service). the purpose is to create a welfare state that cannot operate without government spending.
Need an Example? Obama's stimulus package handed out billions for "shovel ready projects" (meaning projects already planned for by local governments). In exchange for federal money to start work, contractors were asked to report number of jobs "saved or created." What a rediculous requirement. These were projects that were going to happen anyway and most were short term. In Yuma, 16th St. and Avenue A projects will both be completed in less than a year and contractors will then be looking for more work. meanwhile, other private-financed jobs have been shelved because the federal money attracted contractors bids first. This type of spending has the effect of deepening the recession by limiting job growth to federal funds instead of creating competition.
The same is true of healthcare. The answer is not more government spending, the answer is encouraging competition and entreprenuership among providers, not fixing prices. Democrats have been fixated on forcing Americans into a Universal System that has proven costly and is intended to drive wealthy Americans and their investment capital overseas, to be replaced by Chinese debt notes. The money they are looking to pay to run their shiny new train will leave for greener pastures and more lucrative investment opportunities overseas. But the Democrats won't care, they will have gotten what they wanted: enslavement of the American ideal of free enterprise and opportunity to taxes to pay for bigger and bigger government.

More Lies from Grijalva on healthcare

It is clear from listening to the man that Raul Grijalva's experience in economics is based on writing grants for federal funding and then overspending. The man seems to believe that money grows on trees, is harvested by farmworkers for the government and is available for anyone who can pull the right strings in Washington.
Take the latest example of Grijalva's spend and spend some more philosophy of government: Socialized medicine in the form of a "robust public option," translated robust (big) public (government) option (mandate). In his latest editorial Grijalva supports this 110 billion destruction of our childrens' economy with blatant lies about "the money a public option will save." Here's some truth-enhanced quotes:

"A robust public option, paying fair and consistent rates around the country, will hold insurance companies accountable and provide legitimate competition, thereby reducing costs for all Americans."
It will do no such thing. Like Medicare, which it is modeled after, it will spiral costs even higher. Grijalva knows nothing about healthcare cost controls and is getting his figures from liberal models that have failed in Massachusetts and Maine.
The 2008 census found 46.3 million Americans with absolutely no health insurance. No they have ACCHS or the equivalent in other states if they qualify. If they do not then, according to the new bill they will be required to pay. This is not due to a lack of consumer responsibility, as some conservative commentators suggest. Yet the Democrats' bill would force every consumer, whether they want to or not to pay, punishing them by implying that they are not responsible. So apparently "some conservative commentators" are correct since Democrats are ready to "make people responsible"(typical of Democrats, don't call people stupid, just treat them as if they were). It's due to a broken insurance marketplace that needs strong competition as soon as possible. Competition? From the government? That's like Military Intelligence or Friendly fire. Get real Raul. When was the last time you experienced competition in a marketplace for a job that didn't include government funds or a lifetime pension and benefits?

Healthcare legislation has been negotiated, amended, assessed and reassessed throughout the course of the year, and CBO experts have been hard at work every step of the way calculating the effects of each change. Yes, and the figures just keep going up. Some members are still holding out against a robust public option because, they want to be responsible and not spend money that is not available to create a new government agency that will add to our national debt without improving anything about healthcare in this country. ...despite the analysis to date hailing it as the greatest money-saving measure we can enact, they remain unconvinced. Analysis by liberal thinktanks that has convinced no one except liberal tax and spenders like Raul. Leadership has worked hard to craft a bill that brings down costs, cuts the overall price tag and extends coverage to as many Americans as possible. Calling Nancy Pelosi "leadership" is like calling my Chihuahua deadly. in addition the "bills" before Congress show no realistic indication of bringing down costs or extending coverage. In fact, every single objective indicator shows the exact opposite. The continued resistance of some members to effective, comprehensive reform at this point seems less about fiscal responsibility and more about unrealistic and ill-defined expectations. To call this "effective, comprehensive reform" would be calling Rosanne Barr "svelte and sexy." Even with the robust plan that I and over 200 other members support, If 200 members support it then you should have no trouble passing it. They don't and you will. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius will be allowed to negotiate rates in certain areas if she identifies over- or undercompensated providers. Oh, I feel better already. With the "Cough Nazi" in charge how can anything go wrong?!" There is truly no reason to object to the robust option... I object "robustly" as will most of Congress when they listen to their constituents and all that is Holy and good in the world.

Paying Medicare-plus-five saves more costs, to the government and to consumers, than any alternative. It is the real fiscally responsible solution to America's healthcare problems. Actually, paying every American $500,000 to spend on health care any way he or she wants would "save" as much and make more sense than this bill which saves nothing except Raul Grijalva's job and the jobs of hundreds of bureaucrats on the dole in Washington.

What we are in for with "Limited Public Option"

Democrats in Congress are looking at any way possible to save the "public option" for Obamacare. After trying to slip Universal Healthcare to Americans in a "Quickie" bill over the summer, Democrats are advocating cheaper alternatives like "Public Option Lite" or a "Public Option Trigger." The problem is the same. None of these will do the two things that Obama has promised: pay for themselves or provide healthcare for those who can't afford it (without massive government spending. the examples from Canada, Massachusetts and Maine are revealing. Giving everyone healthcare for free doesn't work. The best example is Maine, which couldn't even provide coverage for its uninsured before the plan went bankrupt:


Even Raul Grijalva, one of the loudest proponents of the Public Option, admits that implementing a public option will 1) take three years to implement 2) limit choices of doctors and 3) be expensive:
Yuma Daily Sun
So someone tell me again, why do we want a public option?

Columbus Day: Celebrating the Uniqueness of European White Christian Men

"In Fourteen hundred ninety two, Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue." For two hundred years, Americans recognized the first documented settlement of Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, the introduction of Christianity to the America's and the beginning of a renaissance of cultural and and agricultural transference known as the Columbian Exchange. Then along came the Progressive movement with its historical revisionism to downgrade Columbus to "unholiday" status, lump George Washington and Abraham Lincoln into one day (even though they are 70 years apart from different parts of the country) and replace them with holidays for everything from Rosh Hashanna to May Day.
I for one am sick of the systematic emasculation of European heterosexual Christian men in the name of "Cultural diversity." So from now on, I will no longer celebrate all those fake holidays that have nothing to do with American freedoms or the Christian faith. I will proudly fly my flag on October 12th in honor of all those white American Christian men who died while exploring the unknown, or died while fighting "Native Americans" who wanted to scalp them and steal their wives and children, or who died fighting against slavery, or Communism, or terrorism, or any other isms that opposed the freedom of people throughout the world. Because those men made up the vast majority of the war dead, influenza ravaged, as well as the statesmen and world-changers that made this continent, and this world a free place for my children to live in. So while I respect the diversity of cultures and viewpoints that flourish in this country, I can never forget that diversity survives, and peace survives because of the diligence and vision of a few white men, men like Christopher Columbus.

Obama Contributes to "lasting world peace," Grijalva gets awarded as "Liberal Hispanic"

"For What?" read the headline Friday to our Overlord Protector Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Will liberals never cease congratulating themselves for accomplishments they didn't accomplish? the Nobel Prize committee has argued that they wanted to "support" Obama's goal, as expressed recently at the United Nations, "of a world without nuclear weapons."
Every year candidates for Miss Universe support the same goal. why aren't they receiving the Nobel honor? Reason? Not Black. Not liberal.
Likewise, Raul Grijalva recently congratulated himself for being named on the top 100 political Hispanics.
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/top100influentials/
What did he accomplish? Promising to stand in the way of any Health Care Reform that does not increase government spending by 70 billion dollars? So did every other Democrat in Congress. Many Republicans have worked tirelessly to come up with alternative plans. Why aren't they being awarded? Not Mexican, or liberal enough. Supporters like La Raza and MEChA refuse to endorse any candidate that seeks funding outside their web of federally funded liberal agencies or seeks solutions that are faith-based. Example in point: The chastising of Mel Martinez in is decision to resign to help his family at home. The message: the liberal agenda is more important than family. It's more important than your personal life. It's La Raza.
It's time to confront the elephant standing in the corner of the room. the Nobel Awards committees (and the media, and all liberals in the entire world) give unearned awards to other liberals, especially those of color, and ignore or antagonize everyone who doesn't see a world with tangerine trees and marmalade skies where rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies. Especially those of color.