Options
Bipartisanship Equals Single-Payer-ship
· Friday, February 12, 2010
It's not a good idea for Republicans to accept President Barack Obama's invitation to a "bipartisan" health care summit, because it would not advance acceptable health care reform. The only thing it likely would advance would be Obama's propaganda message -- and, thus, his socialist agenda.
Everyone knows Obama wouldn't be considering such a move if the American people had not so resoundingly rejected Obamacare.
From the very beginning, he has approached this issue more as a dictator than one interested in hearing genuine input from the other side. Nor has he shown good faith, having broken his cynical promise to televise the debates on C-SPAN and having misrepresented his plan in a number of particulars.
When called on the C-SPAN pledge, he glibly replied that most of the process has been televised in regular sessions of Congress and committee hearings, knowing full well that's not what anyone understood him to mean when he made his promise.
He has been as highhanded and dishonest in dealing with this issue as he has been with any other, which is quite a mouthful. He has ridiculed Republicans for their alleged obstruction and for not offering ideas of their own, when it was Republicans who first called for bipartisan talks last May and who did offer alternative plans, which Obama summarily rejected.
He looked us straight in the eye and told us, disingenuously, that in his plan, there would be no federal funding for abortion, no rationing, no interference in the doctor-patient relationship, no forcing people out of their private plans, no bill that was not budget-neutral, no single-payer plan and no decrease in patient choice with his public option.
As he waltzed unannounced into a news conference after failing to make himself available for one for some seven months, he proceeded, as usual, to decry "the political posturing that often paralyzes this town." I wonder whether he considers himself a participant in such posturing. After all, no modern president has ever engaged in the kind of incessant sniping at his predecessor or his opponents that Obama has. None has failed to take responsibility for his own actions the way Obama has. None has debased a State of the Union address to "call out" his political opponents.
If he wouldn't even square with us in his short statement on the proposed "bipartisan" health care summit, why should we expect him to in the meeting itself?
When he announced that he is "going to continue to seek the best ideas from either party," what were other members of his administration saying?
One White House official told The Washington Post, "This is not starting over. Don't make any mistake about that." And Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that Obama will "absolutely not" reset the legislative process. "I think he sees this as a step to actually accelerating the process forward," she said. "He wants a bill at his desk, and he sees this as kind of closing the loop and let's go."
He views this, just as he did his appearance at the Republican retreat, as an opportunity to use Republicans as a prop, to depict them as partisan obstructers of his magnanimous plan to save our health care system.
Obama says the American people are demanding bipartisanship and "a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics."
I don't think so. And I don't think his primary concern is what the American people want. If he were truly listening to the people, he would hear their rejection of Obamacare and the rest of his socialist agenda. He would heed the freshly released Rasmussen poll showing that 61 percent of Americans want him to drop health care reform. Yes, the American people have spoken, but what they're demanding is not bipartisanship. Rather, they want him to cease and desist from his socialist schemes.
Indeed, bipartisan compromise in this case would likely be very detrimental to America's best interests. What Obama means by bipartisanship is that he be allowed to proceed with his plan to expand government control over health care with the fewest possible cosmetic changes necessary to con Republicans into signing on -- a ploy right out of the Saul Alinsky street agitation playbook.
Any bipartisan action on this bill would necessarily result in further government control over health care and move us ever closer to a single-payer system. Yet the only way to improve our health care system is to roll back, not increase government's role. It follows, then, that no reform at all would be vastly superior to so-called bipartisan reform.
Seriously, does anyone believe that Obama will agree to any plan that includes market reforms? Of course not. Republicans -- on behalf of the American people -- should just say "no!"
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Former Senator Fred Thompson: "Thanks to The Patriot for your considerable efforts to hold back the 'Clintonistas' while I was in the Senate. The Patriot's message provides a critical touchstone for those inside the Beltway who have forgotten who they serve." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!























Ruth Ann Wilson
Hussein is setting a trap for "Politicians". The Republicans have already declared they are "politicians" and what he wants to do is "show them for what they are". He wants to show that The Republicans are manipulators just like he is. ( Progressive Communism vs Passive Communism) So he plans to "tear off the covers" of those who "covertly" hold the positions he holds. Once he starts the "show", it will be quit telling.
If you are a Politician, BEWARE.
Statesmen - Honest, God-fearing, Oath Keeping, Constitutionally bound. II Samuel 23:3, "...He that ruleth over men, must be just, ruling in the fear of God." v. 6,7 "But the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands: But the man that shall touch them must be "fenced with iron and the staff of a spear;" BEWARE DO NOT enter this battle unless you are "fenced with iron and the staff of a spear."
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Posted February 12, 2010 at 7:34:47 AM
Bruce R Pierce
The People spoke and they want Obamacare to be obstructed. He may call those who opose it what ever they like, the People stand behind the obstructers.
Posted February 12, 2010 at 7:57:20 AM
Ruth Ann Wilson
You can make it down. "Half-Way Covenants" have never worked in America.
"Clean hands, Pure heart"
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Posted February 12, 2010 at 9:07:24 AM
Brian Conaty
Isn't the point of bi-partisanship to find a middle path, a compromise that both parties can live with? Obama's plan is a total giveaway to big pharmaceutical and insurance companies. As far as I'm concerned the single payer is the most cost effective solution. But the socialist connotations scare people. Whatever we do should lessen the profit motive and let doctors focus on helping people. Thanks.
Posted February 12, 2010 at 11:37:49 PM
Jerry
Finally someone makes some sense; thank you Brian.
I agree that the Mass. election gave a resounding NO to Obamacare. Not because it was socialistic, but because it gave away too much to insurance and drug companies. If you want to call things by their right name, call our current government and its attempt at reform as Fascist.
With Single Payer everyone gets basic healthcare for less without an insurance company between them and their doctor. If you want 'gold plated care', knock your socks off and buy it from a private insurer as provided for in HR676, the Single Payer Bill.
Posted February 15, 2010 at 10:12:56 AM
William McCrindle
Obama's and the congress plan is unconstitutional! There is no Constitutional Authority to mandate citizens to buy healthcare! If and when they come to collect for this, I hope they will take lead!
Posted February 17, 2010 at 1:21:04 PM