Socialist pipe dream: so-called "universal" health care...

All you fans of universal health care, have a look:



Sounds great, doesn't it? Do you think that the patient received "compassionate" health care from its brokers in Canada (aka, the government)? Just how compassionate do you think it is to make someone with a life-threatening brain tumor wait months for basic diagnostic examinations when time is critical to save his life?

Anyone with a piece of brain in their skulls should realize that so-called "universal" health care is neither universal nor compassionate. More than anything else, it is rationed. Much like food has been in times of famine. That means that everyone gets some, but generally not enough. That means everyone suffers, just like when Sir Winston Churchill said,

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

You want affordable health care? Improve yourself and spend less frivolously and/or vote for politicians that refuse to allow government to meddle in health care.

The United States has perhaps the greatest health-care system in the world, because it is driven mostly by individual responsibility (= freedom). This means that those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves will not receive proper health care. A single-payer system removes that individual responsibility component. Is that the kind of environment we want to foster? One where government-provided security supplants freedom?

Some people like to crow that, "every other industrialized nation has universal health care." Even if this is truly so, just because an idea wins a popularity contest doesn't mean that it's the best idea out there. This is exactly why our nation is a republic and not a democracy. Besides, there have got to be reasons why our health care system is the best as is.

BTW, who do you expect might be proponents of rationed health care systems? How about Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

As it turns out, I do have something else to talk about...

Imagine a fantasy world in which Hillary narrowly avoided throwing away her legal career for... wait for it... lying:

Read this article before it disappears.

And still so many people want to put her in office.

Apprently, Obama has a 10% lead on her in the opinion polls. Worse yet, most people would want Obama to pick someone other than Hillary for VP if he gets the Democrat nod.

I also read recently that some well-heeled Democrats are offering a consolation prize for Hillary if she doesn't get to be president: Governor of New York. This in itself might make me vote for Obama to prevent her from running again in 2012. Then again, maybe not.

Pants suit on fire...

So this time Hillary was finally called out on one of her lies, this one in reference to the tall tale of a spiral landing and canceled greeting ceremony in Bosnia. Videos of the event clearly show she was lying. Then she followed it up by trying to dismiss it publicly.

Folks... this should show you just how dangerous Hillary really is: this was a huge, outright LIE. And she would just rather cover it up and act like it was nothing. Just how many other lies has she covered up and how many does she plan to do that with in the future?

Don't get me wrong here. All politicians lie. But this one was pretty huge.

I guess even the lamestream media have gotten tired of just glossing over all of her "misspeakings" and "misstatings". Apparently, she misunderestimated her own protection as given by the news outlets.

Democrats at their best...

So I guess the Hillary and Obama campaigns can't figure out how to get a leg up on the other, since they've resorted to that Democrat stalwart of name-calling. Hillary's campaign likened Obama to their favorite Independent Counsel Ken Starr, and one of Obama's key advisors called Hillary a "monster".

This name calling happens regularly when a Democrat can't win an argument. How many times have you heard a Democrat call an opponent "Hitler"? Apparently, it's better to misdirect by criminalizing their opponent rather than exercising some ability to debate.

An older (but still applicable) definition of "Democrat" is "one who panders to the ignorant masses". What better way to do this than to sink to the lowest common denominator like this?

And the dust settles...

So it's apparent that the voters in Texas and Ohio are no smarter than the voters in Oklahoma, what with giving victory in the Democrat primary to an avowed socialist and all.

Anyway...

Hillary Hypocrisy... again!?

This was pointed out to me this morning by a good friend: remember when Hillary accused Obama of plagiarizing someone's speech? Just how is this any different than Hillary's copying of the 3AM commercial from the 1984 Mondale campaign?





I can't wait to hear this one... but I know I never will. Hillary's a member of the "protected" class.

FWIW, Mondale went on to get beaten like a narc at a biker rally against Reagan. Too bad today's voters aren't as smart.

I have to ask... just what is it that Hillary experienced at besides stealing from the achievers and giving to the lazy? And would I want her manning that phone at 3AM, or wouldn't I want someone that has actually dealt with crisis greater than a philandering husband?

weak

Putzing around the house today doing chores, and had to pause again at Cavuto. They had the chair of the Dallas County, Texas Democrats on, who was proclaiming that it was sexist for people to vote for a "new" candidate rather than for Hillary. She went on to say that this is largely driven by unflattering pictures of Hillary that have made their rounds in the media.

When advised that there has been much to do about McCain's age (and wrinkles), the chair stated, "well, agism is different than sexism."

That's it. The rest of her platform sort of disintegrated right there.

And let's not forget, now we have the "Obama darkening-scandal" before us, much like we had it during OJ-Mania.

Have we covered all the bases of class warfare in the Democrat campaign yet? We've had race, gender, religion, name-calling, income dragged in... all of this from the "tolerant" party.

Right.

The morning's anti-Hillary rant

I thought that conservative Oklahoma would have been smart enough to not vote for a socialist for the Democrat nod. I was wrong.

Anyhow, this morning I'm hearing that Hillary's campaign is tapped out. So tapped out that she had loan her campaign $5M from her personal funds. This leads me to two questions:

1. If she can't even run her primary campaign without having to make a moneygrab from somewhere else, how can we possibly expect her to not have to make moneygrabs if she's elected president?

2. If she's so worried about her vision of "equality" and making sure everyone has health care, why isn't she spending her millions buying health care for those that don't have it?

I'm also hearing that many of her campaign's top managers are working without pay, and have been for the last month. So, she's got millions, and people working for her aren't being paid? Don't Democrats usually complain about such income gaps? Hell, people that work for Hillary make less than the Walmart workers that Democrats seem to enjoying championing.

Think about it, people. It's not about what's right and what's wrong here... it's all about the big power grab. This women will stop at nothing to be elected president.

One more thing on my mind this morning: Hillary cries again

Last time things were close, Hillary cried. Then she won the New Hampshire primary.

She cried again last night before Super Tuesday. I know this is a pipe dream, but I hope the voters aren't as dumb this time.

Clinton's socialist health care scheme...

Don't think she's socialist? Look again. From ABCNews this morning:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

So, she would forcibly remove our freedom of choice oppress us. And still people will vote her straight to the Oval Office. Just why is it that people who take no responsibility to maintain their own freedom have any say in removing mine?

If the sheeple of the United States had any common sense at all, they would tell this power-hungry money-grabber to take her unconstitutional schemes and cram them up her ass. But instead, we have to get ready for long waits to see mediocre doctors who we didn't choose. We have to wait for our health care system, one of the best in the world, to fall comparably to that of say, Canada. Ever wonder why so many Canadians come to the US for health care? How many Americans leave the US to go to Canada for health care?

All so this woman can buy herself enough votes to grab her power. It amazes me that the very people she courts for their votes are the very same who this program will end costing the most in the long run. But since the US sheeple don't think about the future, since the don't think most of the time period, sorry they'll lose.

People wonder why health care costs so much. In a truly free-market economy, it wouldn't, even at our system's level of operation; competition would limit it. But since government interferes to such a great degree, costs are driven sky high. Kind of like gas prices.

Think, people. For yourselves.

So, remember a few posts ago when I spoke on the power of repetition as far as winning over popular opinion? This was in reference to so many people believing that the United States is a democracy (even though it is not).

So, what do you think happens when environmentalists and other weather folk with an agenda repeat their spiel about global warming over and over? That's right. Even those with government educations should be able to follow this one.

So, why does Hillary have to keep repeating over and over again that she's likable and would make a great president?

Folks, this is known as propaganda. Socialist and totalitarian regimes (and some that were/are both) have been using propaganda for years, long understanding the power that simply repeating the same thing over and over has over facts, logic, and reason. This is why such regimes take control of the press. Didn't this happen in Venezuela recently?

Think about it. Don't just follow along like all the other sheeple.

Hillary redux...

Again, those old enough to remember and geeky enough to care will recognize that which spawned this classic:



I can't think of a better way to sum up the direction of a Clinton presidency. I don't know why Barack Obama didn't take credit for this. It's genius.

Hillary

So, Hillary Clinton (self-avowed socialist), "anguished" over her loss in the Iowa Caucus, cries, and suddenly wins the New Hampshire Primary? Is this an example of how she would run government were we to make the mistake of electing her? Just throw an emotional tantrum when she don't get her way?

Hillary not a socialist? She was recently quoted as saying:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

This seems to be rooted in the very definition of socialist. From the dictionary.com definition of socialism:

socialism noun
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

So, taking things away from private owners (i.e., those who were free to work to earn what they have) and giving them to the people is what socialists do. Hmm. Sounds like I've heard this somewhere before.

Here's another beautiful thought:

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they [sic] have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home.”

Given roughly 4 million annual births, Clinton’s proposal would cost taxpayers some $20 billion each year. Taking money that private owners have earned and giving to the "collective good". Doesn't that feel good? Anything to buy a vote for the future. Isn't it hilarious that the very votes that she wants to buy are being paid for with money she wants to take from us to begin with. What kind of crazed sadomasochism is this that her constituency wants to foist upon themselves and us?

It doesn't stop there:

“I am a fan of a lot of the social policies that you find in Europe.”

Nevermind that the European countries are much more socialist than we are right now.

Hillary would provide every citizen a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government, which would cost $25B/year. This makes it her largest domestic proposal beside her plan for universal health insurance. She would fund it by taxing estates worth more than $7M per couple, which would help narrow the "gap" between the rich and those who didn't save enough for retirement.

There is a term for someone that believes that every whim and and individual need should be taken care of by the government, from cradle to grave: socialist.

Here's another good read.

Keep in mind that the world's socialist nations are splendid places to live. Places like the former USSR, Cuba, North Korea... where squalor and propoganda are the rules. What we see there today makes me want to move right in.

As an afterthought, I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's presidency. Y'know, those 8 years that Bill spent marching a string of lovers right past Hillary. Why were no tears shed then?