Dr. Sheila Levitt, a physician from Newton, said she hoped for changes that would support primary care physicians who aren't paid as much as specialists.Like corporations and other moneyed interests, this good doctor wants to use the coercive power of government to violate the laws of supply and demand. Why are specialists paid more than primary care physicians? Because they are more scarce, and can charge more for their services. Why are they more scarce? Because it is harder and takes more time to become a specialist. What will result if Uncle Sam steps in and makes sure everybody is paid the same? A scarcity of specialists.
Why are unions so supportive of government-run health care?
One union worker said it would give them something to fall back on if something happened with their current plan. He doesn't realize just how close to the truth he is.
Generous health care plans negotiated by unions for its members are breaking the unions and the companies. A health care "public option" will shift this multi-billion dollar burden off of unions and companies and onto the backs of taxpayers. Union leaders and corporate heads know this, which is why they are mobilizing the rank-and-file. Union members haven't realized this yet, so they oblige by marching in support of what will surely be the demise of their hard-won, gold-plated health care plans.
Ain't politics grand?
Breitbart - Frank
6 comments:
If any form of Health Care reform is passed that contains any type of government control or involvement, then I would urge all Americans, who are against any kind of government health care, band together and see if we can get someone like Jay Sekulo to bring this before the U.S. Supreme Court and fight it on Constitutional grounds since the federal government has no Constitutional right or power to be involved in health care. What the government is doing, is a violation of the Constitution.
Why is a 400 year old document so important? Have any of you considered arguing this?
You treat the constitution like the bible, but don't really explain why its so perfect.
Actually, it's a little over 200 years old and it's not perfect.
Think of it as a legal contract between the various states (13 then, 50 now) and the federal governments these states vested with certain specific powers.
As Walter E. Williams asks, How would you like to play poker with me if the rulebook is a "living document" and I can interpret it at whim?
As long as the game is stopped and a majority of the people at the table agree to the rules, that doesn't sound like a problem.
We were bored playing home games and we decided whoever dealt the next hand decided how it was to be played. Omaha, hold'em, stud, high/low and he could also make certain cards wild if he wanted.
It doesn't make a big difference before the hand is dealt, so long as everyone knows the rules of the game. I don't really know how to relate that to the constitution, only that as long as the changes are well pulicized and don't affect individuals and certain groups unfairly, then changing doesn't necessarilly seem like a bad idea.
We have established Constitutional rules for "Changing the rules" or altering the Constitution. The Constitution is the Law of the Land here in the U.S.A., and no president, state legislator/senator or Supreme Court has the right or the power to change it at will even if they tell us ahead of time. That is NOT how it works here.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.