The passing of government-run health care.

When I first began to become interested in politics, the first question that I ever posed on the subject was to inquire as to what the difference was that existed between Democrats and Republicans. The question was asked more than once - and I never received an answer that was definitive or concise. In hindsight, I remember just how uncomfortable people seemed to get when I asked. What I eventually settled on was a vague difference between the two based on a differing belief on what the role of government is in our lives. As someone who was raised by exceptionally hardworking parents who made their own way in the world without relying on anyone else to support their accomplishments, I naturally found myself gravitating towards the party that seemed more in line with that philosophy. When I started noticing democrats employing class warfare rhetoric on the evening news, it became quite clear that it was not just limited to only the super rich. Their perception of what constituted being wealthy or comfortable was not cut and dry, and that cinched it. I remember steaming with anger at the thought of someone casting a blanket of blame and resentment on people like my parents - who had done nothing but work to make themselves financially secure and independent - all while being honest, law-abiding citizens. I registered as a Republican within a week.

I wasn't willing to let the matter settle there. After laboring about the differences in political philosophies for a while, I came upon a notion that made me feel much better about reconciling those differences with my own beliefs:

Conservatives and liberals want the same things, but they disagree on how to achieve them. I accepted that premise for almost 20 years.

After having paid very close attention to what was said and promised before the 2008 Presidential election..and having witnessed the monumental shift in the direction of the political winds during the Presidents' first year in office, I can say with comfortable certainty that my previously held notion of the differences in political philosophies was complete horseshit.

For as long as I have been paying attention to politics, there have been conservatives who have attempted to challenge liberals on the specifics of their beliefs, whether it be economic, social, fiscal or spiritual. In most cases, liberals will not engage conservatives on any issue where they are required to defend the results of their actions, but instead engage in two specific forms of diversion:

The first is to insulate any policy decision made by concentrating on what they claim to have intended and not accept responsibility for it's negative consequences. A few examples would include the promotion and expansion of the welfare state, the inevitable insolvency of Social Security, staunch refusal to enforce our nations laws by the codifying of illegal immigration, the promotion of abortion, the promotion of racism through Affirmative Action, the endorsement of high taxation, increased government intrusion into the private sector, the silencing of free speech through the promotion of Political Correctness, the erosion of personal property rights and the redefining of the role that constitutionally protected religious beliefs had in this country's Founding. In each of those cases, liberals will defend their positions based on vague notions of "fairness" and "social justice" - that the intention of what they are trying to achieve justifies the various forms of destruction created in their wake. The second method in their attempt to dissuade the notion of failure in any of their policy decisions is to accuse all people possessing a differing opinion of racism, sexism, fascism, extremism, fundamentalism and of course...Nazism.

Let's just preemptively add Obamacare to this historical list of failures and go over some simple logistics:

To start with, the arguments liberals made prior to passing government run health care were based on premises that defied all logical notions of common sense...that somehow you could take millions upon millions of people who were not insurable or capable of providing insurance for themselves - add them to the roles - and magically lower the costs of treatment, reduce the deficit and lower the cost of insurance. President Obama pitched his plans using the language of a thoughtful and caring centrist and promoted the plan behind the scenes using the tactics of a Chicago thug...utilizing intimidation, coercion, kickbacks, payoffs and bribes to fellow democrats who admitted to others what the ramification of this destructive monstrosity would be if it passed.

Health care "reform" has nothing to do with making the system better. It is not centered around improving care...nor is it now or ever will be conducive to reducing costs. It will do none of that, and all of the liberals in the House and Senate know damn well that the results of this monstrosity will also cost us TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS. Think health care is expensive now? Just wait till it's free....

Let's just cut to the chase: The reason why nationalized health care always was so important to liberals is because it ultimately is an end-run around the Bill of Rights.

Right now, anyone who buys insurance gets covered based on the dictates of their policy....but nobody has the rights or authority to dictate to that person how they live, where they live, what they eat, how they earn a living, what their hobbies are, what kind of car they drive, etc.

Government run health care is unconstitutional because it not only forces you to purchase insurance, but also dictates what level of care you get regardless of how much more you'll pay. It also cancels your private plan should your private coverage change in the slightest. Since your health care will end up being funded by a collective of taxes confiscated by government officials, they will by proxy eventually have the power and authority to dictate every aspect of your life...because in some form or fashion every aspect of your life could be scrutinized based on the ramifications of how your lifestyle will impact the cost to other tax payers.

The worst part of the plan is that the sick - the very people who need medical care the most - are going to bear the brunt of the suffering because of this.

Why? Look at it from this perspective:

Say that 100 people have the same health insurance plan with the same coverage. The first 50 people are in good health, the second 50 people are suffering from varying degrees of health issues. I know 100 people is not a lot, I'm just using it as an example...

The 50 unhealthy people will use more drugs, use up more doctor time, more resources and require more expenditures on the part of either the insurance company or the taxpayer...and eventually...just other taxpayers. So - when the government lowers the number of (or types of) procedures they'll cover, raises taxes or changes the guidelines for screening and testing - the only people who reap the whirlwind of those negative consequences are the sick. Case in point: Look at how quickly American women suffered a collective schizoid embolism when the government changed the recommended guidelines for mammograms in the name of reducing costs. After decades of running around telling people to test themselves often and early in the name of saving lives, they in turn changed the guideline in direct contradiction to the entire concept of early intervention. Result? The desire to cut costs at the expense of the people who need it the most! Consider that if something as minor as that made women go bananas - they'll have no idea what to do when real rationing becomes a necessity.

Liberals love to tout the health care system in the UK and France as models for the US, but even a minor glance at both of those reveals some pretty dark commentary about the negative ramifications of government run health care. In the United Kingdom, women are giving birth to babies in the hallways because there are not enough rooms or staff to assist them. People have also resorted to yanking their own teeth out with pliers in lieu of a visit to the dentist. We were even recently treated to a story about a young man who wasted away from dehydration for days in full view of the depraved indifference and neglect on the part of the staff. I'm not describing a 3rd world communist shithole like Cuba, I'm talking about the nation that is our greatest ally with a 21st century culture and access to technology.

Liberals like to say that the French health care system is "every bit as good as ours" at 60% of the cost by claiming that the United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. For example - in 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was only $3,300. However, the crucial things being left out is that France does not spend as much on health care as the United States because they have only 62 million citizens - 1/5th of the US population and not nearly as high a GDP that we have. They also have a completely different culture, history and societal mix. But one thing liberals constantly forget to mention is that Frances national system limits coverage.

France confiscates 21 percent of a worker's pay up front just for entry into their nationalized system, and that is on top of (and not part of) the rest of their payroll and other government taxes, surcharges and fees. Employers compensate for their part in those contributions by hiring less workers. Now imagine for a second that in a similar plan enacted here...that a wife and husband who both work (with two kids) and earn $100,000 would have an additional $10,000 a year in taxes on top of the roughly 30% they'll already lose from their State, Local and Federal taxes taken from their collective pay. (Note that I said $10,000 instead of $21,000, based on idea of the employer picking up slightly more than half the cost.)

Some might look at that and think "Great! I'll give up that much a year to guarantee coverage."

However - France - in exchange for crippling employers and their employees with all of those additional taxes on top of what they're already paying, refuses to cover past 70% of the costs. That's right - if you want to cover the other 30% - you must buy private insurance on top of what you're already paying. The reason France does this? They didn't want to run insurance companies out of business! (Hey, you have to give them credit, at least the French are not as socialist as Obama and the rest of the liberal toadstools are in the House and Senate...)

To truly add insult to injury, France, in 2008 - despite huge taxes and limiting nationalized coverage - still couldn't stop themselves from driving their nationalized system into more than 9 billion in debt. Their solution? Make their populace pay for more for the drugs they use out of their own pocket after confiscating that much of their pay AND limiting coverage AND making people buy private insurance on top of it. Impose this kind of nonsense on an American populace riddled with people who still go ballistic when being forced to pay a $2 ATM fee - you'll have violence in the streets.

Just how confident can any reasonable person be to look at the likes of Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - smiling amidst the multitude of broken promises and financial ruin settling in the country that they have no intention of abating - and genuinely feel good about their ability to deliver on nationalized health care?

Democrats have always passed themselves off as the party of the little guy - of the common man. When ordinary people of limited means started becoming educated by looking at this bill and knowing what it meant for them, what did they do? They - many of whom had never joined an organized protest in their entire lives - started voicing their disagreements and organizing. Some started protesting government spending and expansion by gathering in peaceful protests. Others started calling and writing letters to their representatives. As more people found out about this plan, the popularity of the plan and the people pushing it began to drop like a stone.

What was the reaction on the part of liberals? The people protesting, coming from all walks of life - were called AstroTurf. They were Nazis, racists, sexists, homophobes, rednecks, Christian fundamentalists, and of course...Tea Baggers. The "Party of the People" did not care what the little people thought.

Even losing Ted Kennedy's seat during a special election in the liberal Mecca of Massachusetts did nothing to dissuade them from their course of action. In the end, with polls showing that the majority of people did not want this bill - democrats passed government run health care and declared victory over the American people.

The entire process - from the empty promises made in the campaign, the end result and the methods used to achieve its end - have (in my estimation) forever laid bare one of the most important truths about politics that should be pounded into the skull of any independent or right-leaning voter left who has tried to be diplomatic in their attempt to reason with liberals. They need to understand that liberals are not stupid, economically challenged or obtuse. They are not people who mean well.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to fall into a trap, and that trap is trying to be diplomatic about their approach to liberalism...both its intent and its effects. When conservatives say that liberals and conservatives want the same things but disagree on how to achieve it, it insulates liberals from being held accountable for what their true intentions are. Liberals and conservatives do not want the same things.

Some examples:

- Conservatives see individual freedoms as having come from The Creator, that they are ours by birthright from the moment we are conceived. Liberals believe that freedom is a right that is determined, limited and regulated by governmental authority.

- Conservatives believe in the rights and sanctity of individual freedom and responsibility. Liberals believe in a group collective run by a centralized governmental power.

- Conservatives believe in the ideal and practice of a true colorblind society where race truly does not matter. Liberals believe in the use of race to coerce and manipulate people into producing results that they believe should be achieved through government involvement and regulation.

- Conservatives believe that the role of the government is to only provide for the common good and defense. Liberals believe in the government being the central provider for everything.

- Conservatives believe that the compensation received in exchange for work or services provided is the sole property of the individual. Liberals believe that the collective needs of other people override the individual right to personal wealth or property.

- Conservatives see America as a historically special place. Liberals see America as a war-mongering nation full of hypocritical imperialists.

- Conservatives believe in a solid educational system with an emphasis on reading, writing, economics, history and mathematics. Liberals have eroded the purpose and effectiveness of the public educational system to promote dependency and loyalty to the state.

- Conservatives believe in a strong emphasis on the concepts of personal responsibility. Liberals encourage the insulation from personal responsibility by the promotion of victim hood and government benefits at the expense of taxpayers.

- Conservatives believe in the importance of bonds formed by strong families and ties to the community. Liberals have consistently tried to redefine the notion of family through the promotion of homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, the feminization of woman and the marginalizing of fatherhood and men.

- Conservatives believe in the historical premise of the the religious moral compass that the Constitution was based on. Liberals have promoted the devaluation of religious beliefs in favor of a secular worldview, downplayed moral standards and societal norms and revised the historical nature upon which the Constitution was written.

The Constitution is a set of principles that transcends the natural ebb and flow of political power. Politicians have no business whatsoever attempting to "remake" this country by changing the roots of its foundation. They are not our rulers. They do not automatically know what's best for us by the mere fact that they managed to attain political office. They were not placed into to power for the purpose of treating people as marionettes that are bound to their will. Elected officials, at best, are merely public servants that are temporary stewards of power, and nothing more.

This entire debacle is proof positive that when the rubber meets the road, liberals do not care what a majority of the people think, what we want or even what the Constitution says.

Conservatives have to get it through their heads that they are not dealing with people who have a mere difference of opinion, nor are they ones who have taken some kind of path that will eventually intersect in some way with ours. Liberals do not share our beliefs, values or goals. They do not love America for what it was founded on. They do not love it for what it was, or even for whatever measure it still remains. They are only in love with the idea of a mythical Utopia where the wants and needs of people are provided for though the relinquishment of individuality in exchange for a collective existence - free from the burden and uncertainty of providing for ones own needs.

None of that is compatible with the principled foundation of this country. We have to stop kidding ourselves and call it like it is. It is un-American, and they all need to be removed from any semblance of power by any means necessary.