(Ranked 200 on Spades (GameDesire) Ladder) on November 04, 2009 at 00:07:03:In Reply to: Re: Pelosi's 1,990 Page Orwellian Heathcare Proposal posted by dolll (Platinum) on November 03, 2009 at 11:50:00:
: Why does it have to be only 72 hours? I mean with a crucial document this long, just about 2000 pages long it would need a few weeks (in my opinon to go over thouroughly if, since it is going to affect millions of people in the whole country. Who sets the time limit before it goes to be voted upon?
I agree it should be longer for that long of a document, but the republicans only asked for 72 hours, and the democrats refused. Because the democrats have the majority, they set the time limit. If they had said yes, there would have been 72 hours to look it over after it was completed.
: : Why does it have to be 1,990 pages long? Does anyone really believe there are not many things hidden in those pages, things if the public were made aware of, the public would not support? : : Why else would the democrats refuse to allow the final version to be available for the public and media to scrutinize for 72 hours before they vote on it? : : Here is an article by Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi that provides a summary and insight into what can only be described as a Marxist bill that will give the government control over an important aspect of our lives, our health and healthcare.
: : ===========================================
: : October 30, 2009
: : Washington 'Shall' Control Your Healthcare
: : By David Harsanyi
: : The King James version of the Bible runs more than 600 pages and is crammed with celestial regulations. Newton's Principia Mathematica distilled many of the rules of physics in a mere 974 pages.
: : Neither have anything on Nancy Pelosi's new fiendishly entertaining health-care opus, which tops 1,900 pages.
: : So curl up by a fire with a fifth of whiskey and just dive in.
: : But drink quickly. In the new world, your insurance choices will be tethered to decisions made by people with Orwellian titles ("1984" was only 268 pages!) like the "Health Choices Commissioner" or "Inspector General for the Health Choices Administration."
: : You will, of course, need to be plastered to buy Pelosi's fantastical proposition that 450,000 words of new regulations, rules, mandates, penalties, price controls, taxes and bureaucracy will have the transformative power to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending . . . ."
: : It's going to take some time to deconstruct this lengthy masterpiece, but as you flip through the pages of the House bill, you will notice the word "regulation" appears 181 times. "Tax" is there 214 times. "Fees," 103 times. As we all know, nothing says "affordability" like higher taxes and fees.
: : The word "shall" - as in "must" or "required to" - appears over 3,000 times. The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase "mind our own freaking business." Not once.
: : To vote for the bill, a legislator must believe a $1 trillion price tag is "revenue neutral," or that it alleviates any of the pain higher costs bring to the average American. This would require alcohol.
: : Real competition, as far as anyone can tell, is antithetical to the authors of this bill. Remember, you can purchase oranges from Florida and whiskey from Kentucky, yet you're prohibited from buying health insurance from anywhere outside your state . . . so sayeth Nancy Pelosi.
: : Instead of creating a new market with interstate trade, what we get is the institution of the pleasant-sounding "Health Insurance Exchange," which exists, it seems, only to accommodate a non-competitive, government-run insurance option.
: : Now, finding a name for a state-run program without offending the lingering capitalistic sensibilities of bourgeoisie has been problematic. So Pelosi went with the innocuous "consumer option" - known for a fleeting moment as the "competitive option" and popularly as the "public option." Whatever your preference is, it's the option that leads to a single-payer insurance program.
: : Democrats say we can save billions by funding a plan that uses billions of wasted tax dollars from another public plan that we already supplement with billions. Make sense?
: : In actuality, we pay for all this by "cost sharing," or "sharing the cost" of insuring everyone through higher prices and taxes. But no fear. The legislation taxes "the rich." The bill doesn't index the tax to inflation so more of you will be on the hook as inflation rises due to the tragically irresponsible behavior of Congress and the White House. The rich - many of them small-business owners - are already set to see their rates go up in 2010.
: : Hey, who needs those jerks to create real jobs when we have Washington pretending to do it?
: : All of this, as Madame Speaker says, constitutes a "a historic moment for our nation and families." True. No legislation in modern American history compares when in comes to injecting itself into the everyday decisions of the citizen.
: : And few can compete with its deception. The bill's intentions are cloaked in euphemisms and it is teeming with ulterior motives, all cobbled together in closed-door meetings where industry payoffs are offered using taxpayer dollars to facilitate a power grab of unprecedented cost.
: : All of it, rolled right into a neat 1,900 pages.
: : Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.