Facebook
RSS![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (5)
Yesterday I note that our President Obama has indicated his long time goal of single source government health insurance, latest iteration "public option," may be off the table. I suspect that Senator Nelson has been working behind the scenes to keep his independent health care insurance industry viable. We his constituency should be encouraging him to keep up the fight against totally socialized medicine.
I do have a couple of questions for McCook's favorite son when or if he comes to McCook during his August break. I'd like to hear his justification for voting to strike additional funding for needed F-22's from the Defense Appropriations Bill and then voted to include an amendment to protect pedophiles. The Hate Crimes Provision had no place in the Defense Appropriations Bill anyhow but then that is the way Democrats in Congress have chosen to do business. Still I am open to changing my opinion if Senator Ben has a reasonable explanation. I know that there are tradeoffs made daily in the legislation process and surely Senator Ben didn't willingly vote for that horrid amendment.
Somehow in my reading of the Constitution I can't find any provision for cradle to grave federal government managed healthcare. I do find enumerated powers which again do not include any requirement for the federal government to stick their noses in everybody's personal decisions regarding healthcare but I do find an individual's right to "pursuit of happiness" writ loud and clear. But then I was taught to read by a mother and two older sisters before attending country school, so haven't had the scholarly training of the esteemed justice Sotomayor (Senator Nelson voted FOR her confirmation) or the packed liberal courts of President Franklin D Roosevelt, Democrat.
Speaking of President Roosevelt remember he was the father of Social Security. With Congress getting its mitts into what was originally set up as a trust fund, Social Security has become a ponzi scheme that will run out of money before my grandchildren become eligible. Then too there is Medicare and Medicaid both slated to be broke before my children reach the age of eligibility. Both are government run social endeavors headed for bankruptcy and we are supposed to believe that ObamaCare will get it right. I don't think we can afford the experiment.
Ordinarily my bride watches the political scene with rather detached disinterest. She isn't timid though in countering my strong opinions on happenings in Washington, or Lincoln, or in McCook and I appreciate her calm reasoning. Ann is fired up though watching the manipulations of our president trying to get Congress to ram his ObamaCare Legislation through Congress. To say that she is against Socialized Healthcare for us, our children and grandchildren is to understate the fact.
Ann suggests that each of you dear readers write a personal letter to our two Nebraska Senators Nelson and Johanns plus our sole Third District Representative Adrian Smith. You need explain, in your own words, your concern in the matter of Socialized Medicine. Ann has already written to each to express her fear of their ruining our own present excellent health care insurance.
It is my understanding that personal letters from constituents is the most effective way to inform your legislator. Emails are reputed to be less effective though I received responses each time I personally e-mailed my Senators and Congressman. On down the line of effectiveness are form letters run off and signed before mailing. Least effective the daily email requests to "Attach your name here and we will forward this "form" letter to your congressmen so he/she will know how you really feel."--not worth the little effort required. The winner, a flood of personal letters from constituents.
I happened upon the following and think it is appropriate: "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."-- Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
Earmarks and ObamaCare anyone?
That is how I saw it.
Comments
HR3200 1000 PAGES SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR ALL LEGISLATORS. THEN A TEST AS TO WHAT IT REQUIRES SHOULD BE GIVEN BY A PANEL OF EDUCATORS APPOINTED BY A PANEL OF JUDGES BEFORE THEY CAN VOTE ON THE PROPOSAL.
THAT SHOULD DELAY ACTION FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS
Re: The F-22 contract. I watched a documentary recently (Discovery, I think) about drones. What do you think? Maybe the money would be better spent on more drones. Just saying.
Mr. Trail, it is a discredit to your argument when you begin your grievance with the incorrect assertion that any of the viable current reforms in the house or senate call for "totally socialized medicine." This of course, is completely false. You also make a rather common, but distinctly important mistake about the United States Constitution. As I do not like to think ill of my fellow Nebraskans, I instead chose to believe you are merely misinformed and task myself with showing you the truth using evidence, logic, and the greatest book ever written, the Holy Bible.
Summaries as well as full versions of the healthcare reform bills are available online, just as they were with legislation during the Bush administration. A citizen who wishes to be truly informed has a duty to go and investigate these matters for themselves. It is lazy and irresponsible to rely upon Rush Limbaugh, FOX news, CNN or radio and television advertisements (from the left or the right) to inform one of the contents of any legislation that concerns them, as all of these entities have their own selfish interests in the matter which concern them far more than your own.
Most people will be surprised to find out that this public option, so demonized by the insurance special interest groups and their friends on the far right, will not even be available to many of those working for Nebraska's greatest employers who already offer affordable health insurance. The public option is available as an affordable option to the working poor, the self-employed, small business and their employees, and those who must pay more than 12.5% of their adjusted gross income for premiums. Being available to such a limited, but needy constituency, it thwarts reason then that the public option could in any way constitute "totally socialized medicine." The best way to review this information for yourself is to do an internet search for "HR 3200 Library of Congress." Your local Library (a socialized institution, by the way) will be happy to assist you if needed.
Mr. Trail, you, like all of us hopefully, will one day reach the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. When you do, you will undoubtedly be relieved, even delighted to know, that you are not obligated in any way to benefit from what you believe to be a politically objectionable ponzi scheme. It would seem to me that a person of such moral conviction would certainly refuse to do so, as it is statistically unlikely that you could have possibly contributed as much to the system as you are likely to draw out, given the cost of healthcare without reform in America today. To draw a benefit from such an objectionable scam would seem to make one a hypocrite, I would think. Thank goodness you don't have to do that.
The even better news is, if President Barack Obama and our good representatives' reform measures ARE successful, your children's and your grandchildren's and their children's healthcare futures will be secure. I'm sure you realize that Social Security has been used as a political football by both sides of the aisle, and that Democrats and Republicans alike have employed fear tactics to paint the other side as a threat to the programs which have undeniably relieved the suffering of our most vulnerable elderly citizens - our mothers, neighbors, former pastors, grandparents and others.
I notice you seem to worry very much about what the letter of the constitution provides for. I'm willing to bet however you have often availed yourself of the not constitutionally provided for United States Postal Service which has been available to you from your days of the cradle and will remain unto your grave. The same may be said of the local and state police who keep our communities safe, the schools which take our children far beyond their abc's and 123's, and many other socialized institutions.
We do not limit access to the life and property saving services of the fire department based on ability to pay. We do not limit access to a basic education based on the ability to pay. We do not limit access to rescue service based on the ability to pay. We do not limit access to public libraries based on the ability to pay. We do not restrict access to public roadways based on the ability to pay. We do not limit 911 service based on the ability to pay. Our fighting men and women do not defend and protect only those Americans who are able to pay. They protect and defend ALL Americans and the Constitution of this great country.
In your column, Mr. Trail, you state that the constitution speaks of a right to the "pursuit of happiness." It does not. The document you refer to is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is a legal document, the Declaration of Independence, however, is not. The Declaration remains though a pivotal document that lends us great insight to the spirit that founded this nation. The Declaration speaks of a universal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this, the richest country in the world, we deny 47 million -- that's 47 MILLION -- of our fellow American citizens all of those rights. A poor working American who contracts, say, cervical cancer at the age of 25, has only the liberty to go home and plan the premature end of her life -- for without very a very robust health insurance policy, her pursuit of happiness is over.
I leave my fellow Nebraskans and Americans with a few simple contemplations from the bible. We are charged to love our neighbor as ourselves. 47 million of our neighbors are in need. For the most part, they aren't really asking for much. They want to take their daughter in to the doctor if her fever doesn't break. They want to go to sleep knowing if they get hurt in an accident tomorrow, they won't have to lose their home and their business. When they are sick, will you help them? When your time on this Earth is done, will you find yourself at the right hand of the Lord, or his left, asking, "'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you? Then he will answer them, Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'" (Matt 25:44-45)
Mr. Trail has some very real problems with definitions. No bill passed by any congress anywhere wants to protect pedophiles. Pedophilia is an illness; acting out in response to that illness is a crime. I guess that Trail is confusing pedophia with homosexuality. Heterosexual people can be guilty of pedophilia, too.
If Trail can't understand simple definitions, can he understand issues surrounding health care, the Constitution and military issues? Reading his entire diatribe, I don't think so.
Kearney Mom,
Since you took it upon yourself to show the truth using "evidence, logic and the greatest book ever written, the Holy Bible" to correct Mr. Trail, I thought I might try a similiar strategy.
"I'm willing to bet however you have often availed yourself of the not constitutionally provided for United States Postal Service which has been available to you from your days of the cradle and will remain unto your grave."
You felt so compelled to "correct" Mr. Trail about his misunderstanding of the Constitution and well... what goes around, comes around.
The Post Office is provided for in the Constitution specifically under Article I Section 8 where it clearly spells out one of the purposes for which Congress may lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. "To establish Post Offices and post Roads". By reading your post, I would be led to believe you have a thorough understanding of the Constitution and what is in it but alas, twas not the case. Oh yeah, the bible part, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."