Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi co-wrote a column published in the Monday edition of USA Today. In it, she made a number of assertions:
1. An effort to obtain legislation that would provide for some form of universal health care coverage has existed since 1912.
2. A debate should be held on universal health care coverage.
3. “We” – our national legislators – should get universal health care coverage “right.”
4. Efforts to drown out the opposition are “un-American.”
I will not contest No. 1, although I do not concede it is true. It does not make a difference. I agree that at some point in our history, universal health care coverage was submitted as an issue and/or a proposal for legislation to the American public.
As to No. 2, yes, we should debate universal health care coverage. Implicit in Pelosi’s statement is that the debate be about how it is to be accomplished; not whether it should be accomplished. This is, of course, incorrect. Even liberal ormoderats (or conservatives for that matter) who may value a universal health care coverage ideal may believe it cannot or should not be accomplished in practice.
The debate is both whether universal health care coverage should be legislated and, if so, how it should be practiced. In this substantial disagreement exists, particularly now that details of the plan have become available in the deliberately thick and complicated legislative proposals that not evenPelosi has read.
A majority of Americans, and I would suggest a vast majority, do not want to pay for medical coverage for illegal aliens. In fact, Americans do not want to pay to educate or to anything for illegal aliens. Congress has deliberately avoided this issue, though the will of its People is clear. Until the illegal alien question is settled, paying for universal health care coverage that includes them is and will be objectionable and without enough support.
A majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions, which they consider to be unlawful killing. The inclusion of this item is spiteful and dismissive of the facts and of the will of the American People. Nearly all abortions are performed for convenience – and that is NOT a medical reason, nor should it be treated as if it were cancer or kidney failure or arthritis.
When Americans gravitated favorably toward the issue of universal health care coverage during last year’s election, they never – ever – wanted to lose or suffer adiminishment of, the benefits they already had.
I may want or wish that all people enjoyed employment, but I am not willing to give up my full-time job so that someone else may have some hours. I need and want my full-time job, and I have worked for it. To simply give someone my hours by arbitrary government fiat to “make things more equal” would be wrong and never anything I would support. Nor do I support the deliberate deprivation of benefits for some, in fact a vast majority of Americans, to provide benefits to a small minority.
If the American People want to allow their government to use their tax dollars to pay for those without – and who cannot afford – to have insurance, that is one things. But to force citizens to turn over their medical coveragedecision-making power to the government or some panel of government bureaucrats while losing benefits is not something anyone bargained for.
To sum up my reply to Pelosi’s second point: If there is a debate on universal health care coverage, then prepare to obey the will of the American People. That means you may lose. You should be willing to accept that. I think it is clear to most people, even those who agree with you, that you are not, that you do not care what the majority of Americans think and want. You are going to make them accept what you want. That is wrong. That isun-American.
No. 3. Yes, you should get it right, if that is what the American People want. However, you are part of Congress, a legislative body notorious for its deceit and failure to listen, as well as its propensity for exempting itself from the legislation it deems so important.
No. 4. The answer to this question depends. If a small number of people are plugging their ears and screaming so they do not have to listen to those who disagree; sure, that would be childish and unproductive, to say the least. That is not debate.
If, however, the drowning out is the result of an ocean of hundreds of millions of people sounding louder than the 15 or so million who may support universal health care coverage, then the problem is the deaf ears of those who refuse to listen to the American People. Pelosi is a member of the tone deaf.
The funniest, as in queer, thing is that some of the objectives Pelosi listed in her USA Today piece could have been accomplished without a universal health care proposal that runs a thousand pages long.
For instance, Congress could have legislated a ban on the use by insurance companies of the pre-existing condition disqualifier. Nearly everyone would love that! It would be a simple law everyone could understand. Coverage would have been expanded for a vast majority of American citizens and their health care costs diminished. So why hasn’t Congress done it – ever?
It’s sickening. Americans agree on so many things, but Congress ignores those agreements. Instead, they dredge up these monstrous, ginormous proposals that stir controversy and strife among the People. They try to change the Universe by setting off an earthquake and a tsunami instead of in steps, allowing Americans to get their feet wet to see if THEY like what is happening.
Pelosi cannot emerge from the prison of her partisanship. She cannot lead. Neither can Obama. They will only create bitterness and discontent. They do not respect the nation’s traditions and foundations. And they do not respect the will of the American citizenry.
How disappointing our national leadership, or lack thereof, has been the last several years, be they denominated conservatives or liberals. They are Americans first. They have forgotten that. It’s all about winning, not about governing.
