Family Research Council’s Washington Update on Health Care

 Ok, so I lack originality in these last three days of blogs, but believe me when I tell you that (1) I don’t trust myself to be completely respectful and loving in how I phrase things right now due to my saddness and discouragement over what has happened in the health care vote, and (2) these guys at FRC say it MUCH better than I ever could.  So with that, I give you an email I received from Family Research Council entitled “Haunted by the Passed,” in part below, and in its entirety here.

 

Washington Update 

Haunted by the Passed

He was the one none of us expected to be talking about today. For five months, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) stood guard on the wall between Americans and his party’s army–a stubborn sentinel for life in a chamber of abortion-hungry Democrats. Without him there would have been no Stupak coalition, no Stupak language to ban taxpayer-funded abortion. In the end, conservatives couldn’t live without him. Now, neither can the unborn. In the last moments, when members tried to incorporate Stupak’s language into the bill, 21 pro-life Democrats voted for it. And for the first time in this Congress, Bart Stupak wasn’t one of them. Instead, the bill–completely devoid of pro-life protections–passed with his help, 219-212*.

With the clock ticking down, the Democrat from Michigan stunned everyone by trading away five agonizing months for a meaningless piece of White House paper. With one-sixth of the economy in his grasp, the President agreed to Stupak’s deal: an executive order that would somehow negate the abortion funding in the Senate bill. It was meant to reassure wobbly Democrats that the administration would protect taxpayers from any involvement in the abortion industry. Unfortunately, it does nothing of the sort. Just ask Planned Parenthood. In an email to supporters (subject: “VICTORY!”), the organization brags, “We were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his executive order.” For once, FRC agrees with pro-abortionists like Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) who told the press that the executive order “doesn’t change anything.” . . .

Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) appealed to Rep. Stupak to reject the compromise. Its legal experts were unanimously opposed. ” The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order… only a change in the law enacted by Congress can… address this very serious problem.” The Wall Street Journal seemed surprised with the deal. “…[O]f course,” the editors write, “such an order can be revoked whenever it is politically convenient to do so.” As an attorney, Bart Stupak would have known that this was an empty gesture on the President’s part. More importantly, he turned away from beliefs and put that trust in the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history. Americans have come to expect this kind of betrayal from this White House–but they never expected it from the man fighting for life in his party. . .

If House and Senate leaders believed the American people would forgive and forget by Election Day, they were mistaken. Right now, the bill’s new taxes and mandates are scheduled to start hitting homes in the heat of the campaign season. Meanwhile, nine state attorneys general will do their best to fend off the federal invasion at their borders. In Alabama, North Dakota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, a collective lawsuit will launch the moment ObamaCare becomes law. . .

America is radically shifting in its opinion of the unborn–so much so that the only way Democrats could pass this bill was by putting a pro-life veneer on it. Those who ignore the people on this issue do so at their own peril. During his victory lap, President Obama said smugly, “This is what change looks like.” With all due respect, he hasn’t seen anything yet.

Please read the rest of this article here.  And then join me here later in the week as I return to non-political blog writing.  I’ve had enough of it all right now–not that I’m apathetic or will not be “standing on truth” with the voice that God gave me, but for now, I don’t have the stomach for it, and will be writing more along the lines of what you, my readers, voted for–Culture Through a Biblical Lens, Parenting, and Nutrition.  Join me!

Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell on Health Care

I haven’t written on politics in quite a while, months maybe.  And that has been intentional.  My heart is too heavy and my frustration too overwhelming at what I am seeing happen to this great country that I love so dearly, that I can’t find the words, or the effort, to write about it as often as I did.  But today I would be remiss if I did not speak my outrage once or twice on what happened last night; the historic vote that House Minority Leader John Boehner called “armageddon” because it would “ruin our country” (source).  And  then I received this email from The Heritage Foundation’s president, concerned about the vote as well; a vote that some (including myself) would say is the biggest step towards socialism we may have ever seen in this country, and thereby the biggest step away from freedom.  I’ve included much of it here, but please follow the link to read the rest.

Fellow Americans,

Late last night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government. They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington’s intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.

This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night’s passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change. . .

Those who supported this bill are our fellow Americans, and we do not question their good will or patriotism. In public policy, however, good intentions alone do not suffice. And let there be no mistake, our philosophical differences with supporters of this bill are profound. The reason government-run health care has been the holy grail of the left for decades is that liberals realize as much as we do that it is a giant step toward the creation of a European-style welfare state. This is an evolution Americans have always resisted because it is alien to our national character.

If there is one good thing about the past year-one in which we have witnessed unprecedented horse-trading, press stunts, midnight votes and political manipulation in both houses of the U.S. Congress-it is that the American people have come away educated as never before about the differences between these two visions for America. Americans are strongly opposed to this bill not because they have been hoodwinked but because they understand this bill both in its particulars and at an instinctive, gut level.

They understand this health care bill forces individuals and employers to buy insurance policies designed by government bureaucrats. This intrusion is intended to follow us from cradle to grave.

Instead of empowering families and individuals to make their own choices, Obamacare empowers the bureaucracy to make those decisions for them. It is this unelected bureaucracy, unanswerable to the electorate, that will determine the content of health benefits packages, including medical treatment and procedures, and how much will be paid for those services. Yesterday’s legislation brings us one step closer to fully government-run medicine, with expanded government power over the financing and delivery of medical services that is sure to ration care in the name of cost control.

You will hear the left say this new entitlement will be popular with the American people. Do not believe them for a second. Yes, 32 million people will gain the theoretical right to health insurance. But over half of that coverage comes from placing at least 16 million more Americans into Medicaid, an unpopular and overextended welfare program that already rations care.

Americans will not stand for it. The American love for liberty prevailed in our founding, and will prevail once again. . .

Our health care system requires reform, and we have long advocated measures to improve our system. We can and should strengthen the ability of American families to choose the coverage they want, rather than giving that power to Congress and its agency bureaucrats. We can also spur competition and choice to bring efficiency and lower costs to the health system, in place of the bill’s deadening regulation and damaging price controls. And, above all, we should foster state innovation rather than Washington-based central planning.

Read the rest of this email from Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., President, The Heritage Foundation here.

“Climategate”

For the better part of President Obama’s presidency, we have heard quite a bit about global warming and how it is one of his highest priorities to, as a nation, slow its effects.  I am working on an article on global warming, but my fear is that there will be irreversible damage done to our nation before the truth is completely exposed about the hype (or dare I say scam) of global warming.  This week it seems the truth is starting to be revealed in “Climategate.”

And then I see this headline in the news:

Obama to Travel to Copenhagen for Climate Change Conference

For weeks, we’ve been hearing that he probably won’t attend this conference.  This was around the time that Lord Christopher Monckton, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher and climate change expert, got air time.  He was on cable news and conservative talk radio warning Americans that our sovereignty as a nation may be signed away in a matter of weeks!  Get informed and then see if you agree that, at the very least, this is something to pray about, voice concern about, and stay up to date on the details.  Watch this video and read the commentary at the following websites. 

onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.youtube.com');">watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

I find it a little bit suspicious that the week that “Climategate” breaks and polls may start to show that public support of climate change legislation is waning, President Obama, after having his administration lead the public to believe that it would be a stretch for him to attend and he had no plans to, now confirms he will attend.

Here are some links to Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh as they try to uncover the truth as well.

My personal opinion?  The way this president has been acting the last 11 months, I personally think he (1) has incredibly radical viewpoints, (2) he has an incredibly radical agenda that he is determined to get passed, (3) is not as fond of America as he needs to be in order to thoroughly defend her liberty and sovereignty, and (4) does not care if he gets re-elected for a second term.  That tells me that for those of us who hold conservative values, are opposed to socialist principles, and want to preserve our freedoms, there is nothing we can relax about in the next 3+ years.  Should we worry?  No.  God asks that we give everything to him in prayer and acknowledge HIS sovereignty above all, but we can certainly stand on truth and keep making our voices heard.  Be vigilant.  I will borrow a phrase from Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, “Pray.  Prepare.  Participate.”

Hand Over Your Health

These past nine days I’ve had a never-ending, pain-in-my-backside cold.  I’ve been in and out of bed, on and off of supplements, and through more cups of hot green tea with honey than I’ve had in my entire lifetime.  As minor as this cold is in comparison to many of the health care issues other Americans are facing, I’m grateful that I was able to treat my cold the way I wanted to, and the way my doctor advised.  I can’t imagine having a much bigger health concern and having a government appointed task force deciding for me what was best for me.  But isn’t this what we are headed for?  Here has what has happened in the last week:

New mammogram guidelines for women between the ages of 40-49.  The Associated Press writes last week, “A government task force said Monday that most women don’t need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 - a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society’s long-standing position. What’s more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn’t be taught to do them.”

This immediately caused me suspicion, and I mean immediately.  But ok, maybe that’s just my “conspiracy theory” mindset (read my sarcasm).  Then another guideline came out later in the week regarding cervical cancer screening:

“In what some see as further attack on women’s health care, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended Thursday that women delay cervical cancer exams, also called Pap smears, until the age of 21 and that women younger than 30 undergo cervical cancer screening once every two years instead of an annual exam. The organization also said that women age 30 and older can be screened once every three years.  The recommendations, the college said, are based on scientific evidence that suggests more frequent testing leads to overtreatment of irregular Pap smears, which can harm a young woman’s chances of carrying a child full term.  Reaction to the recommendation has been mixed.

“I think it’s bad timing with the whole health-care reform effort going on and the mammogram recommendations that came out earlier this week,” said FoxNews.com managing editor of health Dr. Manny Alvarez, who opposes the new mammogram recommendations. “But these particular guidelines don’t fall into the criteria of saving money. These guidelines have to do with minimizing injuries to women that are of reproductive age.”

But Dr. Elizabeth Eden, an obstetrician/gynecologist and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine in New York City, disagrees and says it’s another attempt by the government to cut costs on preventative medicine” (source).

Ok, but to all you cynics out there, maybe these decisions are really for our best interest and not about money.  You think?  Then I see a news segment that prices for prescription medicines have been on the rise this year, and again, I wonder why.  Yes, the economy is in a recession, but is there more to it?

“Financial analysts have attributed some of the increases to drug makers attempting to boost profits amid an economic downturn as they confront the prospect of congressional action on health care that could change the marketplace” (source).

Nooo!  Could it be that drug makers are reacting to the possibility of Obamacare passing, and now it’s being taken out on patients?  Surely we are just Obama haters.  We really won’t be that affected by the health care plan, will we?  After all, what kind of influence do these new recommendations really have on our choices in health care?  These are just recommendations, aren’t they?  The Heritage Foundation sets us straight:

“Section 2713 of the Senate Health Bill would give the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force the force of law by requiring all health insurance plans to provide coverage (with no patient co-pays) for “items or services that have in effect a rating of “A” or “B” [recommended] in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.  Conversely, under Obamacare, last week’s Task Force decision to give annual mammograms a “C” rating (not recommended) will henceforth be viewed by insurers and employers as a justification for discontinuing coverage.”

So if Obamacare passes, these task forces have considerable weight in what will or will not be covered by insurers?  So potentially life-saving tests (beyond just mammograms or pap smears) could be withheld from me (if I cannot pay out of my own pocket for them) because a panel of 16 (including no oncologists) says so?  And again, why was Sarah Palin impaled and labeled a fear-mongering liar for her Facebook comment about “death panels”?  Seems to me this sort of scenario is developing right before our eyes.

Should we hand over our health then?  Should we throw debt on our children and grandchildren for a bill that the majority of Americans still do not want?  In an excellent article by David Broder of The Washington Post, he says that according to a Quinnipiac poll, only 19% of us trust Obama when he promises he will not sign a bill that will add to the national debt.  That’s a very telling number.  But yet, the Senate Health Care bill was given the go-ahead for debate over the weekend.  Are the people we’ve elected not listening to us? 

Maybe they are being bribed:

Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana reportedly has been offered $100 million for her state if the plan passes.

The AMA?  The AARP?  The drug industry?  According to Dick Morris in a Newsmax article, yes, they were bribed too for their support.

If you are not convinced by now that you cannot trust the government, what will it take?  And yet, we should hand over our health to them?

Newt Gingrich says it best on his webpage Center for Health Transformation:  “Health reform or ‘health insurance reform’ should not be a political wedge, pushed to satisfy political allies at the expense of the American people. Healthcare is too important and the stakes are too high. The American people deserve and have demanded better. With an honest process, the right priorities, and the right solutions, we can and will succeed.”

Missing George W. Bush

Despite the unpopularity of my blog title today, I’ll say it anyway.  I miss President George W. Bush.  Watching him on television yesterday delivering his speech at Southern Methodist University brought a warm familiarity–a comfort–to my heart; like a dependable, much loved blankey would for an infant.  And as I see from fellow bloggers today, maybe my sentiments are not that unpopular anymore.  Maybe the tide is turning.  Maybe the public is beginning to see just how radically different President #43 and #44 are and they are beginning to miss what we’ve “changed”.  Take a look at this webpage full of bloggers and viewers in support of Hillary Clinton, and read what they are saying about President Bush and also President Obama, whom they call “Dr. Utopia.”  And thanks to blogger Change Barack! for calling my attention to this in the first place.

Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush

In Whom Do We Place Our Hope?

You know that game you used to play when you were kids. . .a friend would say, “Name the first thing that pops in your head when I say ____.”  Well, I wonder if we played that game with the world, and then read them the following verse, who would pop in their heads:

“In his name the nations will put their hope” (Matthew 12:21).

Are you thinking about President Obama right now?  Maybe you know that this verse is referring to Jesus, the real Messiah, not our president, but how many Americans put their hope in the fallible man, Barack Obama?  How many have placed him on a pedestal that no mortal should occupy and set their highest hopes and deepest dreams at his feet?  His campaign was known for chanting hope across all 50 states.  He promised it.  He manipulated emotions with it.  He won the presidency because of that strategy.  People are longing for hope.

But how many Americans have been disappointed?  And that’s not a statement on President Obama (although I deal with that in various other blogs), it’s more a statement on the inability of any human being–and the absurdity of such a request–to provide the hope that only God can provide, made available through Jesus Christ.

I’m not sure I’ve seen such desperation for hope as I saw last November.  It saddens me that so many people are that hungry for something readily available to all in the Truth of God’s Word and in the person of Jesus Christ, and yet they placed their hope in a man until it bordered on idolatry.  Many times I felt as if I were watching a rock concert in which women were on the front row, weeping from the emotion of being that close to. . .what?. . .greatness?  I think we’ve attached some kind of Hollywood-star-status to our president and now many hang on his every word, looking for something he says or does to bring us life and fulfillment.

Lisa Harper, in a Walk in the Word devotional, says, “We need to quit bowing at the altar of mortal charisma.”  And isn’t that exactly what many fans of President Obama have done?  They are bowing down in worship of charisma. . .and in worship of the man that made them feel hopeful and empowered.  This is a dangerous place to be.  If charisma and good feelings are all that is needed to cause people to abandon their values, then we as a nation will crumble.  And if charisma and good feelings are all that is needed to cause people to place their hope in a mere mortal rather than in a loving Savior, there is more at stake here than an election or even a country.  Eternity is on the line.

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade-kept in heaven for you” (I Peter 1:3-4).

Click here for real, true, and lasting hope.

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

So President Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  Too fast?  On grounds that are not convincing?  Embarrassment?

Author and scholar Judith Miller says, “The decision to award Barack Obama the Nobel Prize rewards him for not being George W. Bush and for his aspirations rather than his achievements, his promise rather than his performance.”  I could not agree more.

I’m curious though.  Will this affect his decision about whether to honor General McCrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan or will he continue to hem and haw, vacillating between the far-left wing of his party and the General’s informed opinion?  Ms. Miller goes on to say, “The Nobel committe chairman readily acknowledged that he hoped the prize would encourage Obama’s ‘emphasis on negotiations’ in resolving that conflict, too.”

Hmm.  Interesting.  Manipulative?  Presumptive?  How will Obama respond?

Allan Lichtman, American University history professor, says this in an article by Joshua Rhett Miller, “his [Obama's] liberal base will be pushing him to live up to this” and “this [Nobel Peace Prize] was to encourage rather than to recognize an accomplished fact.”

Will President Obama continue trying to get the whole world (enemies, terrorists, unhinged irrational people) to sit down and have tea with us or will he realize that there are people with evil intent out there that want to kill us and kill us brutally and there is no way around that?  What will look like peace on the outside will be registered to terrorists as, “Wow, look at how weak (and foolishly trusting) this country is.  We can take ‘em!” 

Will he continue to be a puppet for the fascists, socialists, and pacifists of the world?  I’d take mean ol’ President Bush who had the guts to stand up to terrorist ideologies anyday.  I want to stay safe.  I want the world to respect us.  Anyone who thinks the world respects us more when we eliminate any perception of strength is mistaken.

What President Obama is being awarded for is seen by many of us as ignorant and idealistic at best, and reckless, foolish, and dangerous at worst.

Health Care Reform. . .It’s Getting Really Serious

Ok, I’m getting really scared here.  Even with 50% of the nation disapproving of the President’s health care proposals, there is talk that this health care reform including  a public option could pass as early as next week, with or without Republican support.  I’m just not quite sure enough people really and truly understand just how drastically this free country could (and will) change with this simple bill.  

Newt Gingrich has an excellent article at HumanEvents.com in which he outlines 8 contradictions between what is currently in the health care bill and what President Obama has promised not to do to the American people.  Although I have such trouble understanding the mindset of one who wants to turn over more of more of their life, freedom, money, constitutional rights, opportunities, and dreams over to a government that is widely believed to be inept at nearly everything they try to do, I won’t begrudge those that are coming from the mindset that we ought to love “the least of these” and take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.  I just happen to believe that there are many other ways to do that other than those that President Obama and Congress have devised.

The House GOP Study Committee has come up with nearly 30 alternatives that have gotten little to no attention from the President or the media.  There include some issues that, I believe, can be agreed upon without an entire takeover of the health care system.  I’ve heard it before, but I’ll say it too:  Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?  The United States has the best health care in the world. . .yes, it is broken in some areas. . .but Scott Rasmussen reports that “80% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent.”  Why throw out the whole system–and don’t be fooled, that’s what President Obama is doing long-term–when we can just tweak the areas that need fixing?

And for those who are staunch pro-lifers like myself, it should be equally disconcerting that as of now there are no ammendments to the House or Senate health care bills that EXCLUDE abortion as being funded by tax-payers.  All were shot down by the democrats, including one by Senator Orrin Hatch and one by Senator Jon Kyl.  In fact, Baucus’ bill specifically includes abortion.  As for HR 3200, we know that what is not specifically excluded can be assumed to be included.

This is getting very serious, and in order to protect our nation’s freedom and protect the precious unborn, we need to get informed and support reform, yes, but not one that bankrupts our country, hands over our economy even more to corrupt government, and includes using our hard-earned money to fund the killing of babies.

“Unprecedented Power”

In this video, Congressman Mike Rogers lays out some of the concerns with President Obama’s health care reform bill. 

onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.youtube.com');">watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc

The Case for Limited Government

I just received a membership to The Heritage Foundation for my birthday.  The Heritage Foundation, “founded in 1973, is a research and educational institute–a think tank–whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

As I was browsing through their website, digesting what seems like volumes of research and information on a wide variety of topics, I came across this article, of which I am only giving a few blurbs but you are more than welcome to read it in its entirety here.  It is about what role government should play in the life of American citizens.  It is brilliantly written and it clearly articulates some things that we, as a country, are in grave danger of losing sight of forever.  I encourage you to read it.  And now, with this new membership, there is a small chance I will be tempted to simply regurgitate information from The Heritage Foundation on a daily basis (because it is THAT good), and although there are much worse things that I could do, I will resist that urge. . .for now.

This is taken from the article called “Government for the Good of the People:  Ten Questions about Freedom, Virtue, and the Role of Government”

4. Does big government pose moral problems?  When government oversteps its bounds and begins to assume more authority, it weakens other important social institutions, including those, like the family and religious congregations, that are particularly capable of encouraging moral virtue among citizens. Big-government programs and policies also tend to confuse the lines between citizen responsibility and government responsibility. As a result, they erode our understanding of the ethical obligations we have to one another—especially in regard to issues such as poverty and economic justice—and encourage us to assume and to expect that government will provide for our neighbors’ needs.

7. How does big government weaken smaller, virtue-producing communities?  As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities.

This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay.

The power of government carries significant moral implications. The amount of responsibility yielded to or claimed by government can shape attitudes, motivations, expectations, and even the terms of public debate.

The article concludes with these words:  “Government can also influence the cultivation of character and the strength of social bonds by protecting institutions that help to encourage virtue in society, such as the family or religious congregations, against unjust interference from other institutions, including the state. In other words, there is a strong moral case to be made for limited government authority.”

So I ask, in which direction are we headed today–toward a limited government or a rapidly expanding one?

Next Page »