Come on. Tell me you’re surprised. Even a little.
March 24, 2010
March 24, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Not surprised at all. Now that it's passed, they can admit what they vehemently denied before the legislation came to vote.
March 24, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Controlling the people is like squeezing a firecracker in your hand to prevent a loud noise. Hopefully there is a finger replacement clause in the congressional healthcare plan.
March 24, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Okay, so excuse me while I formulate a thought here.
So this Obamacare all comes down to abortion. Not just the fact that it got passed through much to pro-lifers dismay and will increase abortion. No, the same political roots that made abortion legal have their roots in this entire health care legislation. When we can take someone's life, and nullify their value, their inherent worth, with political terms like "choice" and "privacy", it makes sense then this would come about. That the government can control which lives are to be brought into existence through the "personal sovreignty" of a woman's body. The corruption in this is beyond anything human, as we all know. But its deeper than that too, its the power to control (as stated above). If a woman can control her unborn baby's destiny – whether that precious little one can even have the chance at life, then those in power would seek the same control on this woman and her destiny. Make the choice for her, as she has for her offspring. It has the same roots from the river of lies, doesn't it?
Sorry to be slow in coming to this point. I know all of you have courageously fought this, mainly to that effect, but I had to get this in view, to fully understand this turn of events in the cycle of destruction.
*sigh, goes back to praying*
March 24, 2010 at 3:24 pm
The congressman was on a local Detroit radio program this morning – not more than 30 minutes ago – and he was asked about this quote. His answer (paraphrased):
"What I meant was that the people who will be administering the programs will need to be controlled and guided – I wasn't referring to the American people."
His explanation – he had been up until 1 or 2 in the morning (after the votes in the House) and then got up at about 6 AM Monday to be interviewed (from where the "control the people" quote was taken) – he said old people with little sleep sometimes misspeak.
I'm not saying this to defend his statement, and there's nothing more I'd like to see than to have this guy voted out of office (being a Michigander myself). I'm just putting out there the 'damage control' that's being offered. I'm not buying his explanation though – this guy, and his father who served in Congress before him, have been proponents of single-payer for decades upon decades. "Controlling the people" is what it's all about for liberals like Dingell.
March 24, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Probably because if you can control the people, you can control the vote right?
March 24, 2010 at 7:25 pm
I'm not sure that the legislation in its current form would give the government much more control than it already has, because, ultimately, we would all still be purchasing insurance from private insurers. However, look down the line at the inevitable next step. I don't think it's too slippery a slope to reach the conclusion that this is the first step towards establishing a universal single-payer system. Once the government is acting as the insurance company, instread of merely handing them a set of rules and regulations, they gain complete control over what is and what is not allowable.
10 years ago, the notion that our government could ever establish restrictions on family size would have been met with laughter. However, today that idea seems more real than ever. Although the government could (probably) never enforce a strict policy on family size, they could certainly say that the system will not provide any benefits beyond the second child (or third, or whatever arbitrary number they choose), which would most definitely be enough of an economic disincentive for families to have more children, because it would be simply unaffordable. And if you think for one second that NARAL, PP, and the like wouldn't be on the front lines in full-throated support of such policy, think again.
And these are the sorts of "doomsday" scenarios that draw snickers from the opposition now, but you have to imagine that at least a few of them have had this thought already. After all, didn't the Crypt Keeper (err, Nancy Pelosi) say that this was just the first step?
March 25, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Perfect example of why we need term limits. These people stay in power too long.
March 25, 2010 at 3:25 pm
March 25, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Jonathan, under this bill the Secretary of HHS gets to determine what is in the plans that are available from those private insurers.
I agree with you about limiting family size, and take it one step further. They will deny coverage for a 3rd pregnancy (or whatever), but will cover an abortion at that point.
I do think it probable that Dingell was talking about "controlling" the people who would be filling all of the new bureaucracy positions. There's a lot of work involved in setting up the whole boondoggle of a system that is going to be implemented, determining roles, defining work requirements, setting limits, creating guidelines for the workers. It could be called "control". So I can see it.
March 25, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I can see Dingell talking about the insurance companies.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
© 2021 Creative Minority Report — Powered by WordPress
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑