Thursday, August 20, 2009

Bishop Harry Jackson Tells The Truth About Healthcare Reform But Liberal Bloggers Are Truth-Resistant

H/T to "Donna" one very condescending reader for dropping the link for this great video in the comment section of a previous post....

Liberal bloggers at Huffpo and blackpoliticalthought (because we are all supposed to think the same thoughts, you see) are busy disparaging Bishop Jackson and accusing him of perpetuating "misinformation". Matthew Palevsky (Huffington Post) writes "Bishop Jackson continued by picking up on a common misnomer that the right invented and then railed against, spending tax dollars to pay for abortions." Good grief...I guess Mr. Palevsky and "DAD" (Dumb-AZZ-Donna, the condescending elitist reader), typical Obama drones have fallen for the semantic tricks of President Obama and the leftist demon-crats. Yes, it is factual that the Senate's healthcare proposal does not specifically mandate abortion but what these deceptive azz-wipes fail to mention is that anytime Congress fails to exclude funding for abortion it is always included. Case and point, for the last 13 years no federal dollars were have been used to fund abortions in the District of Columbia because pro-life lawmakers specifically excluded abortion funding in the DC spending bill -- that is until this year. The demon-crats successfully removed the exclusion so now your tax dollars are being used to kill off black babies otherwise known as genocide. Yes, I'm aware that I'm not suppose to follow the ramifications of that through to the logical conclusion because that makes me a "right wing loon" or worse. It fascinates me how this is lost on the "fight the power" "power to the people" types. I guess they trust the government now....because we have a black(ish) president and all.

I wonder how many religious leaders fell for President Obama's "ethical and moral obligation" crap yesterday as he urged them to get behind this abominable plan? Too many I fear. But Obama is right it is a moral obligation. We are our brother's keeper -- so the government should leave it to us.

President Obama and his leftist posse should also tell the truth about the 47 million uninsured....

47 Million Uninsured: Truth or Propaganda?

President Barack Obama claims there are 47 million Americans without health insurance. A simple check with the U.S. Census Bureau would have told him otherwise.
The President said: “This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance.” That assertion conflicts with data in the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007.” The report was issued in August 2008 and contains the most up-to-date official data on the number of uninsured in the U.S. The report discloses that there were 45.65 million people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance in 2007.
However, it also reveals that there were 9.73 million foreigners — foreign-born non-citizens who were in the country in 2007 — included in that number. So the number of uninsured Americans was actually 35.92 million. And of those, 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year did not choose to purchase health insurance. That brings the number of Americans who lack health insurance presumably for financial reasons down to less than 27 million.
The Census Bureau report also shows that the number of people without insurance actually went down in 2007 compared to the previous year — from 47 million to 45.65 million — while the number with insurance rose from 249.8 million to 253.4 million. The next Census Bureau report disclosing health insurance data, with 2008 numbers, is scheduled to be released in August, and could figure in the healthcare reform debate.
Part of the apparent over-counting of the uninsured in the Census data is likely due to a serious undercounting of Medicaid enrollees. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported Medicaid enrollment of 51 million in 2002, the Census reported only 33 million, a difference of 18 million people. This trend continues in 2003 with a .7 percentage point increase in Medicaid enrollment by the Census Bureau, putting that number at 35 million, but CMS reports 53 million enrollees. This discrepancy is, to say the least, problematic.
So what can we say about this number, that seems to have been accepted on face value without any critical analysis.
The Census Bureau data is misleading. The Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) is a misleading measure of those who lack health insurance in America and an imprecise tool for analyzing the dimensions of the problem. Analysis of data from earlier Census Bureau and other government reports shows that roughly 7 million are illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million are persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million are persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.
Most of the uninsured are in and out of health coverage. The professional literature also shows that, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the uninsured are persons who are in and out of coverage, largely as a result of job changes. Only a small number of the uninsured are chronically uninsured. For most of the uninsured, the problem is fixable if policymakers simply take steps to make health insurance portable, so the insurance policy sticks to the person, not the job.
Current Federal Tax Policy Fuels Uninsurance. A substantial portion of uninsured Americans are not poor but rather middle-class working Americans who are forced to face a major tax penalty, resulting in premium increases of 40 to 50 percent, if they do not obtain health insurance through the place of work. For millions of Americans without job based health insurance, both the tax policy, and the excessive regulatory burden on health insurance in the states, prices families out of coverage. Current federal tax policy then unnecessarily drives millions into the ranks of the uninsured. (Source)


MKotyk88 said...

Not surprised they attacked him. He was a religious figure and liberals just enjoy attacking religion, priests, dogma and the Bible in general. Someday, atheists will have to meet God in Heaven and explain themselves to Him. On that day, I don't think God will be listening.

Linda said...

I read this, and thought it very thought provoking concerning healthcare.

BLACK INK said...

Bishop Jackson is right on point. Ironically and sadly those who most fervently support Obama will be the ones most adversely impacted.
The government's so called health care plan will decimate our black brothers and sisters more disproportionately since our emancipation than any other program in American history. The plan promotes the killing of our black babies and our black elders at an alarming rate while we, as a people, are the greatest proponents of our own self destruction. How pathetic is that?
Our black "leaders" have not only applauded a welfare system that relegates too many black folks into government housing and total dependence but also now they have the audacity to advocate our systematic extermination.
When will back America elevate themselves above being the mere proxy for a racist regime AKA the Democratic Party? Are black folks really that stupid or are we merely that lazy? How dare we fulfill the stereotype as programmed by the poverty pimps on the Left!

MrsGrapevine said...

Just as you believe in your views, liberals have the same intensity in our views. Just as your views come from your religion so do my beliefs.

My beliefs are Christian driven, and I believe as Christians we have an obligation to take care of those that need help.(Something I know you don't disagree with).

Unfortunately, I feel we are not getting it done, mainly because it's not enough of us, and also because we have become more concerned with the word, "mine" and "my". I feel like the interest of the private sector when it comes to health care is in conflict with Christian principles. In the bible I feel Jesus just help those that he could no matter what, even those with questionable behavior.

I don't want the government doing everything for me or anyone else, but if there is a need, and us Christians can't get it done, then that's when government should step in.

I don't believe this bill was designed to kill anyone, what's the point of insuring more people just to kill others. The concept is illogical to me, especially when a conservative suggested it.

When medicare was passed we had these same debates, and now the majority of America agree it was good thing to do.

There are 47 million (45.6) people uninsured for whatever reason at any given time. And those people, when they're in need of health care within that period of time is putting a strain on the cost of insurance premiums.

I agree the language of the bill is not where it needs to be, but I disagree that liberals are evil, and trying to destroy America. It's crazy, I love this country just as much as anyone else.

This debate has been going on since this country has began, and progressives and conservatives have both contributed to this country.

Anonymous said...

MS. Grapevine,

I don't doubt your sincerity, but your error in judgement begins with the belief that gov't is a nice beneficient entity. This will require you to learn something about the history of the world. You will see that the history of human gov't has been that of tyranny. America has been an imperfect exception. It is important to understand this. Take the time to review what the constitution gave us here in America and our role in the world.

Whatever sources you usually listen to, be courageous and challenge yourself to listen to those that you think are so wrong. Based on your comments, you believe those people to be conservatives.

You obviously think that the healthcare reforms are a good thing. What in your opinion is the downside to covering 47 million people? BTW, census and CBO reports say that the correct count of those chronically uninsured is closer to 12 million. I want you to think about this and respond. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

BLACK INK said...

Tough love is just that.
There must be consequences for behavior. A responsible society requires responsible behavior. Jesus preached that we should love and help one another; but He also implored us to act morally and responsibly.
An overly permissive parent who coddles his/her child at every turn while making excuses for any and all failures of that child, notwithstanding the parent's best intentions, stifles that child emotionally, spiritually and productively.
Tough love requires parenting. That requires taking the time to say no even when the child cries. It requires a parent to teach a child that there are bad consequences for bad behavior and rewards for good behavior. A good parent must lead by example and be there. A good parent must instill in their child that success requires hard work and sacrifice. Success is not an entitlement but rather an accomplishment.
The permissive parent's job is so much what you want kiddos there are no consequences only rewards for bad behavior.
At the end of the day the kids who were raised under tough love appreciate their parents' lessons of life as they grew into adulthood. Whereas the offspring of permissive parents grow to have smoldering resentment, animosity and disdain for their parents. The permissive parent who is more concerned with being their kid's friend than their parent (or is too lazy to parent) raises a dependent crippled adult who is ripe to exist as a victim.
The same can be said for a government that is overly enabling to its people. Albeit the enabler's best intentions, he is destroying the very one he seeks to protect.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Anon:

I live in Texas, and have been here since I was 3. I am very aware of the conservative platform, and some things I can agree with and others
I just don't.

What would make you think that I don't know the history of the world or America? Because I don't draw the same conclusions as you.

If by your words America is the imperfect exception, then you're admitting that regardless of political party, our government is quite capable of doing good, and has done so through out our history. I am very aware of the Republican party's history in slavery and civil rights, but somewhere doing the 50's and 60's the two parties crossed paths.

Now when you think of the Klan, you don't think of the Democrats in the post reconstruction era, you think of the Republican South.

That's why I said, both parties have contributed to this nation. America is fortunate to have government that tries to perfect itself.

2) If someone gets sick now who doesn't have insurance and can't pay, my premiums go up, so that the private companies can make more money. When your rights to not choose affects other peoples
pocket books, then it's also affecting their liberties, as well. That coin flips two ways, not just one. You don't want the government infringing on your rights, and I don't want other people, plus the private sector, and government infringing on my rights.

The status quo leaves limited choice for those working people, either put up with high premiums or don't have insurance.

In the bill of rights, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When I read life, I don't think it just means the right to be born, it means to the right to live. If we have great medical advances in this country, then it also includes the right to live a quality life.

It is very hard in this country to have quality of life without health care.

If we extend medicare and medicaid, it's still more government, and it will still cost.

The only thing I agree with you on, is no government mandate for the public option, but everyone needs to be insured.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Grapevine,

Another thing, you said you don't believe the bill was created to kill anyone. Your beliefs should be based on facts otherwise beliefs aren't worth much. Have you read any of the bill? Why don't you believe that the bill was designed to kill anyone? The bill was designed to consolidate power into the hands of gov't. Gov't doesn't make money, people do. When gov't has to provide health services to 300 million plus people, know that this will be expensive for gov't. They can only pay for your healthcare by raising current taxes and taxing every little thing. They will try to save money by limiting the amount of money that is spent on healthcare. This will mean that the people who use healthcare services the most, meaning the sick and the old, will not get the newest or best treatment available because they cost money and gov't will be trying to save money. That's just one problem with the whole idea of the "public option".
Healthcare can be provided to the approximately 12 million uninsured without putting gov't in control of what another 15% percent of the economy? The banks and auto industry are now gov't owned due to the bailouts. What is being conducted by the administration is straight out of Marxist/socialist playbook. I believe the reason you don't see the danger in this is because you don't have the historical knowledge and perhaps not the spiritual or biblical understanding to corrctly discern what is happening. Do you know that there are people and organizations pushing for one world gov't right now? Since you are a christian how does this fit into what the bible says? Does gov't control of the economy and by proxy, the people sound benign to you? Does Jesus seek to control us, or does he gently knock on the door of our hearts? God is a God of freewill. Should we not have the discernment to be wary of those who seek to consolidate their power over others? Whenever any entity seeks power, they necessarily will be evil intentioned, even when they present themselves as angels of light and tell you they mean it for good. You can find some basis for this stance in the bible, right?

Please don't fall for this "we are trying to help everyone" lie. It is very important that you get the simplistic divisions of "conservatives bad, democrats good" out of your mind, and think more about policies, their causes and their effects. Buying into destructive and dangerous policies on the basis of sentiment just doesn't cut it anymore girl. It's going to require you to know something about history, pyschology, ideology, Christianity. In other words it is time to think. Learn and think. Don't just listen to anyone, go to the sources. It takes effort, but it is necessary.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Black:

I know we will go back and forth because of our ideology, but I agree with you here. I don't see anything wrong with tough love, however, I believe health care is a right, and is not based on circumstances.

There is a proverb that says give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time.

On the other hand, you have a story in the bible of Jesus feeding the masses with fish and bread, because they were simply hungry.

The point here: It takes both compassion, and tough love to raise a kid. It takes both compassion and tough love to perfect a society.

We believe in the belt in this household, but we also believe if you work hard, you get to play.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Grapevine,

You said, "If by your words America is the imperfect exception, then you're admitting that regardless of political party, our government is quite capable of doing good, and has done so through out our history. I am very aware of the Republican party's history in slavery and civil rights, but somewhere doing the 50's and 60's the two parties crossed paths."

Regardless of political party is right. But don't we have to look at the tenets of each party today? Are the democrats honestly pushing anything that is life giving, or anything that encourages independence in the American population? No they aren't. Today, the democratic party is behaving like the socialists of Russia and Latin America. Look what Chavez did in Venezuela, look at what our President did so far in his presidency. Free markets can take care of the uninsured problem. Heck, if the gov't wanted to take taxpayers money and give all 12 million of the chronically uninsured $5,000 to buy policies, for 5 years, I might even go for that. But to put gov't in control of healthcare is not good, by any stretch of the benevolent imagination. You are not getting what you think you are buying into.

Secondly, you stated,"If someone gets sick now who doesn't have insurance and can't pay, my premiums go up, so that the private companies can make more money. When your rights to not choose affects other peoples
pocket books, then it's also affecting their liberties, as well. That coin flips two ways, not just one. You don't want the government infringing on your rights, and I don't want other people, plus the private sector, and government infringing on my rights."

I say, the thing about gov't infringing on your rights is that it has always and will always be far more dangerous than having others and the private sector infringing on your rights. Gov't is able to infringe, enforce, imprison, persecute, murder, take away your rights, silence you....It is a far larger and dangerous enemy than other persons or corps. You can stand up to others and corps. unless they are subsidized by the gov't are beholden to the citizenry if they want to stay in business. That's just one reason why gov't bailouts of businesses are a bad idea. Also, it is a bummer when other people's irresponsibility costs you anything, but it it the price of freedom. Irresponsible people will always exist. For those who don't have healthcare, those who absolutely chronically don't have healthcare, let them go on the gov't plan. Let the number of those people remain as small as possible. Our economy can handle a relatively small amount of people on gov't healthcare. If people don't have healthcare, that means they don't have insurance and I don't understand how that will raise your premiums.

One more thing, the KKK was a function of the democrat party in the south, not the republicans.

Anonymous said...

One more again Ms. Grapevine,

Healthcare is not a right. It is not in the constitution. It is a service that is bought and paid for like any other. We are compassionate in this country, and so we don't let sick people who have no way of paying for a doctor just die. But don't think of it as a right. As things stand now, no one gets turned away from a hospital when they are sick. There are non profits to turn to(let's hope private industries still exist by the time this administration is through)that will help with medical expenses. The entitlement mentality is so entrenched in this society it is destroying us.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Anon:

The same thing was said about the postal system, and about auto insurance, and both have competition from the private sector, they even charge more because they found a way to capitalize by finding a niche. Don't forget ma bell, they have more competition than we can imagine. Government has pushed the market to come up with ways to compete that has benefited us in the end. Now I can get phone service for $14.99 a month, or less. Public radio can't compete with private. The list goes on...

Is the government so good they can't compete, or are they so bad they can't run it?

Health insurance is a commodity, designed to sell health care. In an idea world, you would just pay the doctors for a service, and let the doctors compete fairly and control cost, a lot like we did in the olden days.

Instead you have this giant entity of private insurance companies, who puts a price on care and they are selling both the American people and the doctors short. Your life is worth what you can afford to buy! (Don't let me get started on the pharmaceutical company doping up our children, and putting drugs in our system for profit.)

When companies get to big in this country we have a history of breaking them down to make it more fair. In the end their is a government option, and the market place has to find better ways to compete, which traditionally allows the American people affordable choices.

If the insurance company takes over, it's the same type of "evil", and that type of greed always leads to the government stepping in and regulating.

BLACK INK said...

The constitution guarantees that an individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not that it will be provided for by the government. So with the exception of your assertion that health care is a fundamental right, I agree with the balance of your post at 4:34.
I did not mean to imply that tough love precludes compassion but rather that it embraces it. It is compassion that drives tough love both in meting out punishment as well as reward.
As you would probably agree, it often hurts a parent more to punish his/her child than it does the child. But we do so in order to teach life lessons to our youngsters out of compassion not out of heartless anger or meanness.
It takes the inherent compassion of tough love to prepare children for a successful future.

Excellent posts without exception!

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Anon:

See you are not reading my words, I said,

"Now when you think of the Klan, you don't think of the Democrats in the post reconstruction era, you think of the Republican South".

Yes, I acknowledged that the Klan originated from the Dems of the South, but today, people associate them with the Republicans".

emptysuit said...

Rep. Lois Capps submitted a version called the Capps amendment on July 30. Under that Abortion coverage would not be part of the required minimum benefits package. The public plan could include abortion coverage, but the cost of the additional coverage could not be paid through public subsidies (tax dollars), only through the premiums paid by the insured. And with private plans in the exchange, again, federal subsidies could not be used for abortion coverage. Public funding would only be permitted for abortions allowed under the Hyde Amendment. The amendment mandate coverage for unspecified “preventive care and screenings” for pregnant women, and direct insurers participating in government-subsidized plans to include in their networks unnamed “essential community providers.” Federal funding for abortions has been prohibited by legislation known as the Hyde Amendment since 1976. The public healthcare option could cover abortions that the government is currently barred from funding by way of the Hyde amendment. Obama need to start reading these bills.

MrsGrapevine said...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is not unconstitutional for the government to provide a public option. It falls well within the preamble, "to provide for the general welfare".

BLACK INK said...

The US Constitution does not prohibit a socialized health insurance scheme but it does not require it either. That was the point.

BLACK INK said...

I am waiting for you to argue that all Americans have a fundamental right to be happy as well and that we should have a Federal "Happiness Insurance Plan". When will you and the great Obama push to guarantee that all Americans are entitled to be happy!
When will it end?

Phil said...

Good article - Bishop Harry Jackson spoke with truth, honor. I wish that more people could understand what is going on with the abortion mills, especially as regards the African-American community in what I would consider essentially to be a eugenics issue - with Planned Parenthood acting as the principle culprit. It is a horrible crime.

Smile said...

Black Ink,
Please take a look at what our U.S. Constitution prohibits. Yes, it does "prohibit" and quite severely. I won't go into the specific details (another discussion) but it is our civic duty to always be familiarizing ourselves as "ignorance is no excuse" is another LAW we pay little attention :)

If one is not a Constitutional scholar they can study the information from those who are.
What is very clear from our founding documents and the law, the Constitution was written in such a way as to restrict the gov't (and plural), purposely the powers of said gov't. This is the premise and starting point of all reason on this matter.

We have agreed previously that we are a country based on the rule of law, elsewhere on this site (and in previous thread) and in this thread. The rule of law has obviously been refered to by MrsGrapevine as she quoted it and submitted it in reference to it as the law. Yes, the Constitution is the law, I concur. We should also consider that the rule of law is a demand and binding on the gov't and citizens. Example: If I have the privaledge of driving on a public road there are speed limits posted. They are a posted (speed limit sign) law of the land. It isn't something that is subject to precident (regardless of how many times it has been used otherwise, aledged to have been used thus but not holding up in court due...any number of reasons) or subject to amendment for 'larger' speed limit signs in order to explain (any heretofore) exceptions. The law is there to protect each of us from one another, regardless of my copious good reasons in my personal pursuit of situational life, liberty, and happiness. This is what the rule of law is not: I'm running late while useing my privaledge to drive so, I decide to speed a bit. I'm in complete control of my vehicle and am on my way to get my diabetes prescription refilled as I won't have time later because I have to take my Mom to the hospital for a life saving operation. While in transit, if I am pulled over for exceeding the speed limit, my 'reasons' do not change the law of the speed limit. The law is absolute regardless. It isn't a living thing, subject to someone's whim or interpretation. This is a very simple way to reflect on what The Rule of Law means when refering to it. If a law is subject to my whim, it can't be referenced as a law. A law (using "law" here is an oxymoron) allowed to be subject to my whim is actually lawlessness and will lead then to other laws that could be perverted. If we think of laws that protect 'you' from 'me', we can see how important the rule of law is. It would be tragic for me to be able to pervert the law and thereby do you harm due lawlessness.

The Constitution can't be interpreted by anyone's whim or preference, though we all have them; they are usually not a good/bad thing, they just are. It must be viewed as the law (sometimes called The Law Of The Land), else we would be lawless and chaos would prevail. So, our "more perfect union", (more perfect then the previous) isn't alive and subordinate to change. The Constitution itself makes it very difficult to modify, as individual state constitutions do as well. The Constitution isn't alive and subordinate. Everything is subordinate TO it. It is The Law.

Please watch this youtube clip for a mini discussion on the Constitution.

BLACK INK said...

Why is it that we have Medicare and Medicaid? Why are those Federal health plans not prohibited my Constitutional scholar?

Smile said...

@Black Ink
You have asked of the padawan a very good though complicated question.

If you don't mind, please read my post again and also spend a bit more time on the link. As I must do as well.

I can't answer your question, at least not concisely. Truly, it is one question that would require many answers. We can all study to show ourselves approved (as your posting predominately shows that you do) and we will/can contribute various yet different answers to the question.

Together we are looking at and for the answers. Here is another aspect of gov't and Constitutional study, well worth the time. It's a start, I'm starting :)

Smile said...


In comment format, my appreciation for the input from others is often lost or goes unmentioned.

I hope all can understand this doesn't indicate my level of appreciation or detract from my respect for the comments. My heart is genuinely appreciative.

It's my quest to contribute in helpful and provoking ways that encourage all of us to thought and second thought, as your comments do for me. I trust this is perceived of mine as well.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Smile:

1) It does not "prohibit and quite severely" from having a public option. That is your interpretation or your theory for setting an interpretation for a precedent, don't confuse interpretation as absolute because it's quite arbitrary.

Language is arbitrary, no matter how precise you try to speak, not everyone is going to understand it the way that you intended them to understand it. Thus the reason, we can say the same thing and still argue.

It's not that the law is ever changing, it's just new ways to interpret the law, within the constraints of the law, changes it's precedent for that point forward.

DOI has always said "all men are created equal", but that doesn't mean the rule of law interpret it to mean "all", or to include women. Those new interpretations came from challenging the law, and working within the parameters set by the DOI, to create new precedent.

Technically if it was absolute women would never have been given rights because it's specifically says "men". People now say men means "mankind" but that's not the way it was written or practiced when that very sentence was created.

2) To use your speed limit analogy:

Some people feel the speed limit violates there freedom to decide what speed is best for them, and so they speed. They have the choice to continue to speed, but they have consequences for breaking the law, especially when it leads to the injury of others.

In your analogy the public option is the choice the driver makes when getting on the road, in my analogy the public option is the speed limit, there to protect Americans against private sectors when greed is dictating health. Which makes for a very different interpretation.

I agree with you: "the constitution can't be interpret on a whim". No one is advocating bending or changing the constitution in their favor. It's we the people, not we the private insurance companies.

Unfortunately, we the people have opposing views.

When the private insurance companies are infringing on my general welfare, then it's time for the government to step in, well within their rights and well within the law.

I don't believe in a single payer option, and I don't believe in a government mandate of public option because those things affect competition and choice. However if all people have insurance (public or private), so that they can have well visits without going broke and leaving us who can pay to foot the bill, then there is a benefit to us all.

Lastly, If small businesses jump on the public option band wagon, then private insurers will find new and better ways to compete, that will benefit us (the people). History has shown that to be true.

There use to be a time when people in this country if they got sick, they just went to the doctor, and worked out the bill with the doctor. All people had access to care, without a bureaucrat (public or private). However, insurance companies have changed the choices of the people and the doctors to the point that no one wants to be general practitioner anymore because the money sucks.

If this continue we will have more plastic surgeons, than we do family doctors.

uptownsteve said...

Harry Jackson is a lying, hustlin' TOM.

End of story.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said...

Thanks, CBW, for the link.
Two points:
1) I'm 60 and uninsured. That's my choice. I haven't seen a medial doctor in a professional capacity in 20 years. If I could find a policy with a high deductible (say, $10,000) that covered catastrophic events, I might buy it. Otherwise, I'll pay my way as I incur medical costs.
2) "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master"--George Washington.

"Political power grows out of teh barrel of a gun"--Mao Tse Tung.

The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. The goons with the guns (the government) have nothing useful to contribute to medical care, education, or charity, beyond what they contribute to other industries: assignment of title, a stable legal environment, and enforcement of contracts. To a free marketeer the argument: "Medical care (or "education", "nutririon", or "housing") is important THEREFORE the State should provide it" makes as much sense as "Medical care is important THEREFORE we should all hop in clockwise circles on one foot while holding our breath".

It's nonsense.

Amendment Ten
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Agricultural subsidies, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are unconstitutional.

Smile said...


The "public option" is single payer, and is a government mandate of public option that would supposedly compete with private. So, on the one hand you say you don't want it, yet you go on to say you do. Government business is always NOT private business.

I think (not positive though, sorry) I can read between the lines and see what you're trying to say. The thing is, it could be that you feel I would keep you from having what you would like to have and vice versa. I don't believe this is the case, intentionally. I would suggest we study to make sure of the unintentional aspects, if you will.

The difference of opinion isn't a problem, imo. My point is that the law doesn't provide a legal provision for me to infringe on your ability to pursue what you are saying you want. Likewise, it doesn't provide that you can infringe on mine. The problem arises where we tend to insist that everyone have the same pursuit.

Business isn't in a place to compete with gov't. That is more like a monopoly and pyramid system, where only the entity at the top wins. Apples don't compete with oranges. It does nothing for consumers and business owners. We are perhaps lumping business into an antagonistic relationship with the public. If you own any size business (or ever want to) you'll see what I'm trying to say.

In our pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, our freedom to make our individual choices as pertains, there are consequences to all causes. That's just the unfair truth. Truth isn't a "right" any more then "fair" is a right, but we're free to pursue them.

The insurance business, choices for which business we want to interact, what causes rising cost for consumers, gov't business portrayed as the same as private business, are things we seem to have differing understanding.

It isn't my intention to try to force you to change your opinion to match mine. I would rather encourage us to not be afraid to inspect our opinions so as to be free to retain them. It is my opinion that I would rather shop for an insurance provider from a smorgasbord rather then be limited to an gov't restriction such as employee based or those that are recently proposed.

The above shopping reference is something we all do, sometimes we do it quite well. Some businesses even remind us to do this. Many have taken advantage of an offer to beat the price of a competitor. So, if I can find the product for less, such business will sell their product to me at that price or less in order to get my business. Now, if a business comes along that has unlimited funds to beat any and all, that's hardly competition. It might be obvious what would happen. As consumers choose the best price, those that can't compete (whatever reason) will go out of business unless people want to pay more costly amounts, which we won't. The well funded business (see Blue Cross...) will cause the others to go out of business. We then see the various problems of this, such as unemployment. As for the Gov't being said business, if there are legislated fees, taxes, licensing...the Gov't gets to pick which business 'wins'. This is the case now. This is the case as proposed. The point is, we must be free to shop, businesses must be free to compete for us, the consumer. Positioning business to further compete with the gov't isn't working now and won't work better with more of the same. Multilevel companies are well able to mask the fees. Eventually, we see results. Let us look at these results, is all.

I hope we're on a discussion mode and resist feeling like we're not in the same boat.

I would challenge others to look at what insurance companies are (actually) doing that we don't like. Pin point it to the action exactly, find the cause of that action, then find what this 'cause' means for the other end - consumers. This will lead us to see valid options for improvement.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Malcom:

The rest of that George Washington quote is: " Never for a moment should it [Government] be left to irresponsible action.”

Meaning government, can be good or bad, but it must be responsible. Keeping things in context helps a lot with understanding.

George Washington, has said a lot of things, including the following:

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Taken out of context by many to thing he wasn't a Christian.

BUT, then he also says:
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

At face value it seems these two contradict, but they don't. US is a country with freedom of religion, but our moral values come from Christianity.

George Washington believed in government and that it can be used for good, if it does so in a responsible manner.

Providing health care to all, is responsible, and it's a Christian value. You may not agree with that, but unfortunately there is evidence to support this notion in the constitution and in the bible.

I understand your point about not funding abortion, and that I can agree. But you will not convince me that health care is an evil government take over with death panels. This is a Christian nation, with Christian values, and Christian leaders. And Yes! Christian "liberals".

When Jesus tells me the greatest command of all is to love God with all my heart, and to love my neighbor, that's what's driving my belief in the public option. If I can't get it done with just the Christian nation, then it's time for government to step in for our general welfare.

I'm not an evil liberal who wants death panels and to ration health care, but when it's being done for greed and profit, and not for general welfare, then Houston we have a problem.

2) States are also going bankrupt trying to battle the private insurance industries and carry the load. If we really thought as a nation health insurance was a privilege, then we wouldn't be doing all we can locally, state, or nationwide to help those who can't afford it, or to control cost.

I'm not saying Public Option is the only way to fix it, but it's the greatest compromise that we've seen in decades that allows the government to help and that allows the private sector to compete.

MrsGrapevine said...

Let me explain my situation so you can see why I support a public option.

My husband and I own a party rental company in the Dallas/Ft.Worth area. It makes way more money than his job at a bank. However we have a son with asthma, which is a pre-existing condition. We cannot get a group plan without paying an unfairly disproportionate amount of our income toward health care because of his asthma. Ridiculous! So, instead of growing the business and providing more jobs and taxes revenue to the great state of Texas, my husband has to stay at the bank so that my child has health care without us going broke. Even with the group plan, our out of pocket expenses are great.

My choice is being made for me. I have to considering going bankrupt if I pay directly with cash, or stay at a company for their group plan when we have a business that we really need to grow.

It's not just poor welfare people, it's hard working Americans like us, who are giving back and providing jobs, but can't afford to do so, if health care cost aren't controlled. A public option, can mean more choices for me.

Without insurance, my sons medicine, a six week supply is $500 (that is a car note). Most prescription plans excludes his medication because asthma is expensive. We can go with a high deductible plan, but he goes to the emergency room quite often, and we cannot see paying $10,000 every year for a deductible, plus medical cost and prescription out of pocket. It's just not sustainable.

With insurance our medical expenses is already high. We don't live above our means, and carrying insurance is like paying two mortgages. It's just not right

Anonymous said...

Ms. Grapevine,

You have a tough situation, but don't you think that part of the problem with healthcare is the fact that there are gov't mandates that limit services, skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates for doctors because no one in gov't wants to tackle tort reform. Also, we've allowed the employer based healthcare to evolve where we are using it for every visit to the doctor. the HMOs have turned into a controlling mess of its own. My preferred system would see us pay cash for our services, barring catastrophic illness. I've heard over and over again of people willing to pay cash and getting significant reductions in the price of the services. The high prices are tied to hmos and not reflective of the real price of the service. Hopefully, this made some kind of sense-I'm rushing through this. Also, because your son has continued medical issues, he is expensive to the system. May God forbid it, but under single payer, he might be told he has to take some medication that doesn't work as well but is cheaper. Gov't healthcare, as put forth in the senate version, is set up to eliminate private options over time. I understand the difficulties and wanting some aid (I'm unemployed with no health insurance plan) but the benefit up front does not justify the position we will find ourselves in down the road with this plan.

And have you shopped for independently run groups that come together to get group plans? I've heard of Freelancer's Union in several states. Don't know if it's in texas.

Smile said...

What does a troll do?

A troll asks questions but doesn't follow the answers. Asks more, continues to not follow answers.

A troll presents their choice while pretending to want more info about another choice. They never look into the other info. They are only interested in talking about the choice they are already convinced of. IOW, they think they are getting their message out by hijacking the conversation.

The answer to their personal problem/business problem/health insurance problem has been provided but they actually are not interested in this answer. They refuse to look at it. They want to evangelize the ideas they already have.

Because gov't is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master and never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action, we can understand why we need babysit it in so vigilant a fashion.

Because we haven't done the tedious babysitting, we see the conditions we have now. Our educational systems indoctrinate rather then educate. You can see this exampled in comments that a TROLL makes, they are CONDITIONED and dumbed down. This is what CBW is talking about saying they are truth resistant!! This thread examples that PERFECTLY...thanks to the latest troll.

So, now we've allowed the TROLL to prove themselves in order to example the resistance to TRUTH, we are done with them as they've served the purpose.

Now we are done. BACK TO THE RULE of thumb:

LEAVE TROLLS ALONE. DO NOT FEED THEM. Be done with them. Do not be FOOLED by their endless whining, it only encourages the troll to evangelize.

After this comment that I'm making, you will see a troll try to GUILT trip me for not caring, WHINE about their problem, present QUESTIONs, and ARGUE with their TALKING POINTS...yet these things have been answered and info provided that they have no intention of looking at. They just want to evangelize. Watch and see, this is EXACTLY what the troll will CONTINUE to do. So, to the unaware, remember to not be FOOLED BY THE TROLL METHOD.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote] I believe health care is a right, and is not based on circumstances.[/quote]

Ms Grapevine. Can we journey through your notion that "Health Care is a right"?

Where as Free Speech is a right - I can point to the force that has prevented me from doing something that is thought to be an intrinsic property that I have which flows from God.

With Health Care as a "right" - what you are arguing is that your ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE should supersede any notions that those who pay for YOUR HEALTH CARE should have a RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY from YOUR desire for funding for care.

Health Care IS NOT A RIGHT.
Health Care is a PUBLIC GOOD.
I support the government having a safety net of services so that no one will die on the streets in want of care.

Where I strongly disagree with people who have your line of reasoning is that I am under no assumption that your RIGHT to care as provided by the government should have its properties of QUALITY indexed to what people who have PRIVATE health care are afforded per their money.

You all try to put a stake in the ground over this RIGHT yet have no respect for private property.

[quote]There is a proverb that says give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time.On the other hand, you have a story in the bible of Jesus feeding the masses with fish and bread, because they were simply hungry.[/quote]

Let me ask you Ms Grape - is our GOVERNMENT a Christian government and thus this biblical passage should bond THE GOVERNMENT to that which Jesus has said?

I heard Maya Angelou say "A corporation that gives money to charitable causes for the benefit of a tax break has NOT GIVEN CHARITABLY because charity is the giving of your excess to others without expecting anything in return". As I saw a room full of Black folks clapping at her words and then noted the irony that her birth day celebration had been sponsored by Delta Air Lines, Coca Cola, and UPS I knew that this was an incomplete and left biased analysis.

I agreed with her but completed the circle:

A politician who uses TAX MONEY to "feed the poor" in the name of charity and morality has done NEITHER. He used funds that were provided to the government that are ultimately backed by force. The politician did not use his own money yet receives tremendous adoration as a "champion of the poor".

In truth as Christians we are better served by the notion that "GOD CREATED MAN IN THE IMAGE OF HIMSELF".

From this we should REBUKE those who look to God for praise over there LONG, LONG SOUP LINES that they have at their front door. Instead MY GOD asks this person: "Since I made these people IN MY IMAGE.......what have YOU DONE to show them how to GROW INTO MY FULL FORM? Instead you have made those of them who are otherwise healthy adults, DEPENDENT upon you as you look to me for adoration for the perversion that you have committed."

Anonymous said...

Excellent, Excellent post CF!

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Smile:

What you wrote just makes everyone in here a troll, including yourself. Now are you going to write a long reply of how you are not a troll, but I am because when you did it was somehow justified, and when I did it was just wrong.

I really can't wait to see this long reply of why you are not a troll.

So now that we are done with the name calling, again,can we just say every one is a troll, now, let's move back to the argument.

Beyond The Political Spectrum said...

By extension of (the) logic of the Bishop, it's ok for me to "pray" for a "healing," I just shouldnt expect the government to make it easy for me to pay for one via affordable health care. The abortion issue is a Red Herring as well as a side track issue; the realt issue is people's access to affordable health care. I really do not believe that the religious beliefs of one group or individual should play a role in anyone's health destiny (and for who are chomping at the bit to engage in labeling, NO, I am NOT "liberal" nor am I a proponent of abortion).

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Bishop:

I understand, and seems like logic to me, but I have been called ignorant, a fool, and a troll because I don't buy into the Bishop rants. The Bishop gave his sob story for not wanting health care and he's been praises. My story isn't a sob story, and now I'm a troll. Double standards!

I've been told I don't read the facts, but what is really meant is that I don't read the facts with a conservative spin.

In one breath this is the greatest country in the world, except for our government when it's dominated by Democrats, then all of sudden the greatest nation becomes evil.

We have the right to life when we're in the womb, once born then our value is based on how much money we make. In the greatest country in the world, we should buy our health care from private insurance companies, who are not evil, but yet, our government is. [Correction] Our government is only evil when "liberals" run it.

MrsGrapevine said...


1) The abortion rate is NOT 41% in D.C., it's 41 per 1000, not 100. Which makes the rate 4.1% not 41%.

2)34% of all abortions are performed on blacks, and not 34% of blacks have abortions. That a huge difference in numbers. I'm against abortion, but if we are going to argue then the information provided needs to be accurate.

3) The abortion rate has been declining over the last 9 years, and thank God. We are turning into a pro-life society and I think abortion will be challenged, and pro-lifers will have a big win.

4) These stats only include publicly available information. People with money are having abortions, and they go to private clinics where their information remains sealed. It's more common that the public records reveal.

5) I don't understand how people can't see that private insurance is rationing care. Those with "good" plans, get the best care. If the bishop was honest with his assessment, then he would also question the intentions of the insurance companies. Because they do have wait list, and they do exclude pre-existing conditions, and they do promote certain medications over others, and they do drop medications that have proven to work better because of cost.

All the things you accuse the government of doing, is already being done to you, and if not you then your neighbor. You may not agree in a public options, but you can't have a double standard, if it's wrong it's just wrong. The big difference is that you and your employer are paying dearly to fund this system of hierarchy.

BLACK INK said...

Constructive Feedback on 22 August 2009, at 1029 hrs:
Phenomenal presentation.

Humility and grace would be worth studying.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ black Ink:

"Humility and grace would be worth studying."

Once again you are just proving my point, and quite frankly I'm tired of the hypocrisy. Here is a list of things you have said about me, and I kept my restraint until now. I can't believe you can type those words, and not see how they apply to you.

Quote 1: "I'm afraid you have overdosed on the Kool Ade." Because anyone for Obama is obviously brainwashed, or incapable of thinking. Although the majority of this country is center right. How dare you have a mind of your own to think left.

Quote 2: "To argue with a fool renders one a fool as well; so with that I bid you farewell madame.....may you dwell blissfully in your ignorant fog." Although I have proven some of his arguments have no merit, and others had to step in to help him, I'm still the fool. Fine by me, I rather be the only fool on here.

Quote 3: "It seems your logic is as dried up as a raisin." Because it contradicts his logic.

Quote 4: "Next time stay awake in class....a brain is a terrible thing to waste." Regarding a comment about gonads, when we both know the what was implied. The connotation sweetheart not the denotation.

Quote 5: As for Ms. Grape's nonsense: Whether or not people agree or disagree with one another is one thing; but Grape's position is not supported by the facts and her grammar, syntax and content are grossly lacking in form and substance. She is a fool, not because of her position, but rather because of her very illogical and poor presentation." Trying to criticize my writing on a blackberry, after he already admitted I was a fool because of my logic.

Quote 6: "I am waiting for you to argue that all Americans have a fundamental right to be happy as well and that we should have a Federal "Happiness Insurance Plan". Funny, but way off the subject because he was challenged.

Once again, you keep calling me names, only to include yourself. My first comment on this blog was to challenge the argument that Obama was liar because he supports single payer. Instantly, I was an ignorant Kool Ade drinking drone.

I hope you have your humility and grace book out, and that you are studying carefully.

I will continue to debate you, but seriously, isn't the name calling a bit...childish. Just challenge my arguments, and if you don't understand them ask for clarification.

Seriously, all the names you have called me, I probably thought the same about you. However, I try not to go there because I don't know you personally, and I will not judge you as a whole from an excerpt.

MrsGrapevine said...

Hopefully you can appreciate this debate between Jon Stewart and Betsy McCaughey:

Anonymous said...

Ms. Grapevine and everybody else who shares her line of thinking:

Allow me to ramble:
I don't believe anyone here thinks that gov't is only evil when it is run by democrats. What we know is that gov't control is not a good thing, period. The party that pushes for gov't control is the democratic party. President Bush, with his "compassionate conservatism" got into social engineering with his no child left behind, and massive entitlements with medicare presciption coverage that wasn't good. He expanded gov't power in some instances in response to crisis i.e.-911. Again, not good. It is always easier to swallow these things if you have a president with whom you feel ideologically kindred, but large gov't is bad, bad, bad.

Maybe you honestly believe that gov't doling out endless goodies to the populace is a benign act, but it is not. What you end up with is a population that is the equivalent of serfs or slaves. You can't fight the gov't when it's taking care of your basic needs. Trust me, when gov't consolidates enought power, you will have the need to fight them. Gov'ts throughout history turn into tyrannical dictatorships. Apart from what happens down the road, the current spending will cause this country to collapse, are you so lacking in understanding that you don't realize that? Or do you only see your short-term, shortsighted needs.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
- Alexis de Tocqueville

What Obama is, is a socialist. the goal of socialists is to create chaos by spreading fear, manufacturing crisis(or wouldn't that be taking advantage of crisis as 'let no crisis go to waste' Geitner would like) and fostering class warfare(the left has been suceeding at this for a generation or so)so that a new hard socialist structure can be created.

Smile said...


On both counts you're wrong and will be disappointed. This won't take long.

You, silly woman, are HERE! On a site titled CONSERVATIVE. I am here where I fit in nicely.

I would be a troll if I were insisting on my opinion (as you're doing here) on a site where you would fit in nicely. Perhaps you can claim to not understand this as well. So then, teach us your new meaning of troll or some other excuse.

Regardless, I trust this was concise enough in saying, I don't give a rip.

BLACK INK said...

Anon 2;35,
Your post was to the point and not rambling. However, I'm afraid that the Grape is so blinded by the Obama mystique that she will never accept criticism of any policy associated with him regardless of her core beliefs. Therein lies the danger of the "Pied Piper" mentality. It defies logic and reason.
When the government gives you everything it can also take everything from you.
The socialist state Obama envisions will enslave not only the enamored grapes but us as well.

Anonymous said...

Someone needs to get Mrs. Grapevine's crack pipe and beat the nonsense out her with it.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ smile:

I didn't realized this blog was for only liked minded thinkers. I like hearing opposing views, and I like challenging them. I'm not here to convert you into a liberal. I have not been battling the blog owner, or disrespecting her. I'm also not here to be converted into a conservative.

Sorry, I'm not easily intimidated.

So by your definition, I didn't realize a troll was only a person with opposing views. So you're not a troll because you agree with everything written here. I see, that really clarifies it.

It's seems like the debate was on track, and every time I challenge your point, you act like a liberal and start whining and name calling. I guess liberals aren't the only ones who like to whine.

I am the only self-proclaimed liberal on here. I'm not leaving insults in the comments are calling the blog owner names because of her views. I argue with you on the terms you set and I stick to the principles of the argument.

So, sorry you are wrong about me, and out of line. I wouldn't expect you to admit it, but you are and it's very clear. You can't have double standards.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Black Ink:

It's not true that I blindly follow Obama. I agree with him on this particular issue, but there are issues that I don't agree with him on.

I was a devout pro-choicer and after many debates with my conservative neighbors, I now consider myself a pro-lifer with choice under very limited to circumstances.

I use to argue that life didn't begin at conception, but now I think that's a load of crap. The only point of an egg and sperm's union is to procreate, and establish life.

I now believe that the constitution guarantees that life. So, if you have a valid point, I will give you props, and I believe I have given you props on a few things.

(Props: praises for something well done).

What I don't understand is why you consider health insurance a government hand out, and why you support the private insurers who are doing the very same things you accuse this bill of promoting?

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Anon:

Crack is so 80's and so urban. I live in the suburbs, so the drug of choice here would probably be meth. Have you tired beating a person on meth, not as easy as it sounds.

Isn't it nice to have an anonymous option so you can say things behind your little computer, that you can't say face to face.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Black Ink. BTW, Anon at 2:35 isn't the same Anon at 5:02pm.
I better get a screen name.

Xi said...

Hey Inkman,
Based on Grapehead's poor writing skills it looks like she's "back on the old Blackberry excuse maker". She's a head trip and we all know it. She buys her own excuses and really is that clueless? No, really. So don't try and fix what can't be fixed. People like her explain the mess we're in.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Xi:

You are too late to the conversation, and it sounds like you're the same person, just using another screen name.

I don't have to explain the mess we're in, I think someone else is better equipped to explain Bush.

Can you at least contribute something before you start calling me names? You are not following the pattern, facts first, name-calling second.

Did you understand that? K.I.S.S.(if you don't know what it means ask someone please or Google it.)

(Google It: new term for searching on the internet using the google application)

Xi said...

1. You still need help with your punctuation.
2. I appreciate the flattering comparison to Inkman.
3. I am so sorry you don't like my new screen name. I took the lead from another anonymous blogger who suggested the idea for himself/herself for better identification.
4. Big government is bad.
5. Always question authority.
6. Never settle for mediocrity.
7. Knowledge is power.
8. Debate improves understanding when it is supported by facts and sound reasoning rather than pure emotion.
9. I have to get to work now...catch you later for #10....

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Xi:

My punctuation is intentional, I use commas and "..." (ellipsis) as style and not grammar of syntax.

Commas = pause (not grammatically pausing, but phonetically pausing)

... = link or follow through, not skip and continue

That's how I stand out and create an online personality. Celebrity Blogging is very competitive, must have style or "internet" voice.

I will try to tone down the comma slices for purposes on this site.


Big government is bad, but moral obligation supersedes.

1) "I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the
rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." -Jefferson

Who are the rich in the case of health insurance? The insurance companies. Who are the people the government?

2) "Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to
the higher classes of society."

The more money you have the better insurance you can afford. The bigger your company the greater ability to control health care cost. Small business and hard working Americans are being pushed out, so that the privilege benefits.

3) "There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and
birth, without either virtue or talents... The artificial
aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and
provision should be made to prevent its ascendency."

Private insurance companies have a hold over the liberties of hard working people. Health insurance is becoming a burden on household budgets. How do you rid the system of lobbyist's influences in government?

It's clear from Thomas Jefferson, that wealth and influence have no place in policy. Insurance Lobbyist have no place in government because their only goal is to bend the will of the people toward that of wealth and affluence, which is not driven by a moral nature.

4) "Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours
his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to...the general
prey of the rich on the poor."

Who are the prey in the health insurance schema? The poor.Even Thomas Jefferson understood the power of the haves over the havenots. The poor and needy have certain rights granted to them by nature. Of these rights is the right to life. In this country life is health care, and not just when there is trauma.

People can chose not to go to the doctor when they are sick for religious or personal beliefs. But they shouldn't chose not to go to the doctor because it's too expensive or because it takes away from other necessities in their lives. When some of these people can afford the care, they can't afford the prescriptions.

Sorry people: This is a moral outrage. Government of the people has a right to step in.

I argue private insurance is the authority; it's a system of mediocrity; the more you know about the abuse of this power and their influence in the government of the people, the more you will be against them;

-The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007, with family coverage costing employers around 1,000 dollars a month

-Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent in 2007, while wages went up by 3.7 percent

At this rate even employer sponsored insurance will be on its way out the door.

I'll wait for #10

M. Minnesota said...

Thank you for Posting Bishop Harry Jackson!!! God Bless Him and Alveda King!!!

It would be great if A Thomas Sowell, Ken Blackwell or Micheal Steele could come to the aid of Glenn Beck against the Czar who is associated with "Color of Change."

Ziggy said...

@ Ms. Grapevine,

"Private insurance companies have a hold over the liberties of hard working people. Health insurance is becoming a burden on household budgets. How do you rid the system of lobbyist's influences in government?"

It is a problem of HMOs, the idea of uber liberal Mass. senator Ted Kennedy. HMOs are held captive to gov't mandates. For instance, state and fed gov't mandate things like acupuncture, nutritional counseling, mental health counseling etc. be covered by the HMOs. That drives up costs. See, it's the gov't interference that increases the cost of things. In addition, ambulance chasers need to be stopped. Trial lawyers are a menace. Bush had an excellent plan to cap awards at $250,000 for malpractice suits. That got shot down by congress. Many doctors are paying as much as 300,000 in malpractice fees alone, just to practice medicine. That's injustice. They have to pass he costs on to the consumer. Doctors may make mistakes, and God forbid any of us find ourselves on the receiving end of that mistake, but they don't head to surgery with the intent to kill or remove the wrong limb.

To neuter lobbyist interest in gov't, we the people need to stay vigilent and continually make our voices heard. Form coalitions of our own, and when the leaders of those coalitions sell us out(as AARP has down by joining Obama in this outrage), get rid of them, or cancel your membership.

And someone please feel free to answer this for me: Do life and homeowner's insurance companies have powerful lobbies? I think that in the same way we select the type of life/homeowners insurance policy we have based on our need, we should have that for healthcare as well. Those who need a basic catastrophic plan will pay less for a basic plan, those who want the works with acupuncture, yoga, etc. can pay for that. People have to be able to use their money for the things that are important to them. Truly poor people and the merely unambitious can keep the state funded medicaid. Somebody give some feedback on this.

BLACK INK said...

As stated earlier, here is a huge difference between health care and health insurance.
No human being is denied basic and often heroic health care in this country. Period.
Everyone does not receive a liver transplant or brand name meds but everyone doesn't drive a Bentley or live on 5th Avenue either....nor should they. Compassion is not synonymous with coddling.
Rather than use class envy as a manipulative tool to dumb down America to a 3rd world socialistic failure; promote responsibility instead.
Everyone is not entitled to the same of everything merely based on their ability to breath.
America is the greatest country on earth as demonstrated by the hordes that continually flock to our shores....I don't see the same exodus from the so called blighted victims of our society. Rather, they and their representatives cry foul and "whoa is me". Time to stop the blame game and stand up to your responsibility as a human beings.
Free enterprise capitalism will always provide the highest standard of life for all of its people regardless of class; but by definition there will always be rich and poor under this structure. The poor can make excuses that Mr. Charley has his foot on their throat precluding his advancement or instead he can emulate those aspects of the affluent class to the best of his ability and trade excuses for self sacrifices and the resultant successes that follow.
The health insurance industry in America has had skyrocketing cost increases and plummeting delivery of care since Hillary's promotion of HMOs. HMOs are bureaucracy heavy with an emphasis on rationing and a de-emphasis on personal responsibility.
So let's fix what's friggin broken and not throw napalm on a burning building.
For the Grapes out there---it's time to smell the coffee and trade destructive rhetoric for common sense responsible behavior; if not for you, then for your children and your country.

BLACK INK said...

As stated earlier, here is a huge difference between health care and health insurance.
No human being is denied basic and often heroic health care in this country. Period.
Everyone does not receive a liver transplant or brand name meds but everyone doesn't drive a Bentley or live on 5th Avenue either....nor should they. Compassion is not synonymous with coddling.
Rather than use class envy as a manipulative tool to dumb down America to a 3rd world socialistic failure; promote responsibility instead.
Everyone is not entitled to the same of everything merely based on their ability to breath.
America is the greatest country on earth as demonstrated by the hordes that continually flock to our shores....I don't see the same exodus from the so called blighted victims of our society. Rather, they and their representatives cry foul and "whoa is me". Time to stop the blame game and stand up to your responsibility as a human beings.
Free enterprise capitalism will always provide the highest standard of life for all of its people regardless of class; but by definition there will always be rich and poor under this structure. The poor can make excuses that Mr. Charley has his foot on their throat precluding his advancement or instead he can emulate those aspects of the affluent class to the best of his ability and trade excuses for self sacrifices and the resultant successes that follow.
The health insurance industry in America has had skyrocketing cost increases and plummeting delivery of care since Hillary's promotion of HMOs. HMOs are bureaucracy heavy with an emphasis on rationing and a de-emphasis on personal responsibility.
So let's fix what's friggin broken and not throw napalm on a burning building.
For the Grapes out there---it's time to smell the coffee and trade destructive rhetoric for common sense responsible behavior; if not for you, then for your children and your country.

ziggy said...

Come to think of it, the whole argument that 47 million people are without health insurance is a strawman argument raised by liberals anyway. The more I consider who these people are, the more I realize that they truly are desperately sick, hopeless people. They claim to be so concerned with the underdog, so much for freedom and justice, but their whole worldview precludes either of those things. They instinctively choose those things that bring destruction, bondage, poverty. Every issue raised, they will choose the side that makes the least sense.

The fear of the Lord truly is the beginning of wisdom. It explains why their understanding of things are as they are, the left despises the very idea of God. When they do ackowledge a god, it is one of their own making that they can be comfortable with.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ ziggy:

The left does not despise God. 2/3 of Democrat party are Christians, and 1/3 is divided by other faiths, and those that don't believe.

The majority of the left are Christians, too. To say our values are more aligned with atheist minority of our party, would be for me to say your values are more aligned with the Klan and Neo-Nazis of your party.

If you're not a liberal or a democrat then don't presume to know what spirit I am guided by.

It's really a double standard. I went to Southern Methodist University, and the kids of Christian Conservatives had two faces. Drinking, drugs, and premarital sex were prevalent. It was part of the campus culture, and so were abortions.

Publicly they were preaching conservative politics, but privately you would think it was Woodstock all over again. Surprisingly, minority children were the least likely to drink and do drugs, but you wouldn't know that according to statistics.

I'm not saying the liberal kids weren't wild either, but there was a level of propriety expected from the children of conservative Christians, compared to the children of liberal parents. I hear people say oh college doesn't count, but it was a turn off to see "Christians" behaving that way. If I was caught doing those things, even though I was "grown", my mother still would have put her foot in my you know what.

So to stereotype liberals based on the fringe is not an accurate portrait of the Democratic party. Or to say the republican party is the "Christian Party" is a misnomer.

The fact is each party have their share of loons. The majority of America is not on the fringe, but somewhere in between.

Here is very good read on why some Christian chose to be democrats:

(WARNING: It's not to convert you, it's a thoughtful essay on why Christians can be democrats, too.)

-P.S. I found this site on a liberal leaning blog: "Field Negro"

BLACK INK said...

The predominantly spoiled brats that attend SMU are anything but bright or representative of the conservative heartland of working America.
The Klan was and is run by Southern democrats. Sen. Byrd was and probably still is a Klan bastard.
The abolition of school prayer and the vilification of Christian values are the mainstay of the Democratic platform.
The Nazi party represents a socialist organization with a plethora of striking similarities to the Obama regime.
So after finishing your basic science refresher courses it's time for you to study basic political science and word history.
Matriculation at SMU explains a lot about your issues.

Amen my brother....your comments are heartfelt.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Black:

If you are trying to tell me that the Klan and supremacy groups haven't shifted to the Republican party, and that the Republican party isn't predominately in the South where those groups were created, then you need to study history right along with me.

You can't just go back to the glorious days of Emancipation and Reconstruction, and act like there wasn't a shift in the make up the Republican party.

Get your books out. We are going to study together. Give me a list of sources you read. Let me guess only conservatives write in truth. No propaganda there, right?

Isn't SMU where your President will have his library? Isn't SMU the Alma Mater of your First Lady? Didn't the Christian Conservatives endorse President Bush and voted for him in record numbers?

Something tells me the heartland didn't want his library. I guess he was like your Obama, he told you what you needed to hear, and then charged two wars on the credit cards of future generations.

I thought not paying your bills was a liberal thing, and a violation of conservative principles. Historically you raise taxes to fund war. Isn't Jefferson the one that wrote:

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a
right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."

You can see the evil lies of the liberals, but you can't see the ones you're propagating. Unless the Republican party is made of angels and super-humans, I'm going to bet you have your share of lies, corruption, and evils.

BLACK INK said...

Texas Presidential Library History 101:
As you know, native Texan LBJ and Ladybird are from the Hill Country and therefore the University of Texas in Austin appropriately houses the LBJ library. LBJ did not attend UT Austin. Texas A&M in College Station houses George Sr.'s library. George Sr. is a naturalized Texan living in Houston and never attended Texas A&M. Perhaps Rice University would have been a more appropriate location for Daddy Bush's library since he hails from Houston; however, with the Baker Institute established at Rice I can understand its deselection. George W. Bush as the 3rd Texas POTUS resides in Dallas and selected the Dallas SMU campus for his library. W did not attend SMU. Laura Bush was never POTUS. Since neither you nor I were privy to her lifestyle at SMU it would be speculative at best to say she fit into the stereotypical SMU mold, perhaps neither of you did. Perhaps both of you did. Notwithstanding, W did not attend SMU and it is not relevant to any discussion on the selection of presidential libraries.
SMU was an appropriate venue for W's presidential library, regardless of the student body and alumni's reputation.

W is a devout Christian man and was so when he 1st ran for POTUS.
His overwhelming support by American Christians was more about their appreciation for Christian values than party affiliation. W happens to be a Republican but more importantly he is a Christian.

There is prejudice on both sides of the aisle, no doubt. However, the covert insidious effect as well as the overt actions from the Left is far more damaging to our people today than ever before. The liberals have crippled generations of black brothers and sisters under the guise of federal aid. The American poor, a disproportionate number of which are black, are warehoused outside of the mainstream in Federal housing projects and enslaved there in perpetuity compliments of the welfare state.
This touchy feely crap might sound good to the liberal elite but the proof is in the end result. Unbridled government control of our people through subsidies renders unto Black America a tradition of government dependence and failure. That, Madame, is covert insidious racism at its worst.
As for the Klan, it is predominantly composed of hateful and ignorant white southern democrats. How horribly ironic, given black America's proxy to the democratic party; but nevertheless a pathetic fact. My facts are based on very credible intel. I do apologize for the inherent appearance of arrogance in that statement, albeit its sound veracity.

W made good and bad judgments.
The war in Iraq and the Federal bailouts under his administration were both wrong in my opinion.
I am even more disheartened that Obama's Afghanistan fiasco will, at the end of the day, dwarf our Iraq tragedy and the Obama bailouts and massive government bureaucracy buildups and spending will make W's irresponsible spending look like peanuts.

There are no super human angels running either party and I have never alluded to that. Rather, I have tried to promote Christian values and responsible behavior; regardless of party affiliation.

Digital Publius said...

Uptown Steve I implore you to read my latest article "Of Toms and Sambos"
in hopes that it will dissuade you from using the pejorative Tom.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Black:

Those Southern Democrats crossed lines between 1960 -1964, at the same time blacks switched to the Democratic party. I know you know that. In fact, you know one of the most famous of them all James "Strom" Thurman.

Strom Thurman was one of those "dems" who supported segregation and became fed-up with the Democrat party for supporting desegregation and decided to shift parties; while he had a bi-racial child out of wedlock that he hid from public until his death.

Blacks voted for LBJ in record numbers during 1964. A record, not even broken by Obama-- 94%. Something must have happened. I'm not buying that all black people were ignorant and duped, or just looking for handouts. 94% is pretty high, not even Obama could fool that many blacks. ;)

"W made good and bad judgments.
The war in Iraq and the Federal bailouts under his administration were both wrong in my opinion.
I am even more disheartened that Obama's Afghanistan fiasco will, at the end of the day, dwarf our Iraq tragedy and the Obama bailouts and massive government bureaucracy buildups and spending will make W's irresponsible spending look like peanuts."

Oh! looks who drinking the Bush ade, now. You are doing exactly what you excused me of doing.

You don't find it ironic that the amount of the stimulus matched the amount of Bush spending. You really don't see that or you really don't care. Was anyone watching the budget then, other than Ron Paul?

"There are no super human angels running either party and I have never alluded to that. Rather, I have tried to promote Christian values and responsible behavior; regardless of party affiliation."

I agree. The first thing we can agree on. Just know my beliefs are grounded in God. There is no party that I fit perfectly into.

I just can't identify with Rush Limbaugh, and Christians that support him. I don't think our roles as Christians is to condemn, but to save. When evil people are calling others evil, I take offense. I understand that's how you feel about Obama, but I don't think you're being objective.

And to end this long debate, I know you don't want the ideas of liberals to be successful...I get that, I just don't agree. Both parties have great things to contribute, and America is beautiful because of these two opposing sides. There was a time when Republicans were called radicals, and I probably would have been one then.

I don't believe America's government will ever be evil, the people will see to that.

In closing, I'm going to watch Fox News now while they're saying great things about Teddy. It may change tomorrow. Until the next post...

P.S. - I know someone will have some smart comment to make, but I'm use to it. I just consider it hazing...

BLACK INK said...

I bet you think OJ was innocent too, right?
Past transgressions of others do not excuse current bad behavior.
OJ was guilty of Capital Murder and Obama is fiscally irresponsible. Bush's mistakes and the long history of LAPD racism notwithstanding.

I guess your mama never taught you that two (2) wrongs don't make a right or that it is better to judge a man by the content of his character rather than by the color of his skin.

If you judge based on race you will in turn be judged the same way. So be careful what you wish for......

Xi said...

...#10. Are all trolls so rigid and incapable of abstract thought?

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Xi:

You and your logic is inane. There is no logic or abstract thinking, just empty rants. You're just saying stuff just to say stuff.

In one breath everything is concrete and absolute, and in the next it's abstract. Which is it, do you even know what you're saying?


Conservatives = Concrete
Liberals = Abstract

Xi said...

More appropriately:
R is for the responsible people eg. Republicans
D is for the dependent people eg. Democrats
There, I sunk to your level of logic.

Inkman, Digits and Ziggy:
Appreciate your words of wisdom but grapehead ain't in the game.

ziggy said...

Just to add to XI's comments:

Ms. Grapevine, a few posts back Smile talked about Trolls and how we should ignore them. Well I don't want to call you a troll, but I think it is time to ignore you.

The issue at hand was the Health Reform bill as presented to the Senate. The debate needed to be on the merits of what is proposed in the bill. The correct way of looking at the bill is drawing a line down the middle of a piece of paper, name one side Pros and the other side Cons. List the Pro, health insurance for EVERYBODY!!! Cons: READ THE BILL, READ THE BILL!!! Look at the costs in financial terms, look at the cost to freedoms, to whether we live or die. That is the only way to decide the value of this thing. When you have honestly and truly done that, then decide if you want it. Otherwise, for all of your back and forth, what you've essentially been saying is, "I want the gov't to make it easier for me, the heck with the fallout. I want what I want now, nevermind the consequences."

BLACK INK said...

Amen Brother Ziggy...

For those of you who have not had the opportunity to read the wisdom of Digital Pulius' "Of Toms and Sambos"; please take the time--it is a life changing read.

concernedjaneinco said...

Thank your for your blog. I appreciate how you are doing your research and have such a well-thought opinion.
And I disagree with another commenter that you are not doing your Christian duty; Jesus says we are to help one another, not let the government do it for us. There is no salvation in letting someone rule our charity, just ask the Israelites. We are to help our fellow man, to help the sick and the poor, not slough them off on a government that doesn't even know us individually.
God Bless!

JudyBright said...

Have you read this? It's from Ron Miller. It's great.


40 million new people adden but not one new doctor!

Humm, yeah that'll work.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ concernedjaneinco

Where in the new testament does Jesus say that? Please provide a bible reference.

BLACK INK said...

Inquiring Mind,
Obama will "in source" M.D.s.
In other words he will import 3rd world docs from Cuba, Pakistan and India to administer the new 3rd world American health care his minions are clamoring for.
You ain't seen nothing yet.

Throughout the New Testament Jesus implored us to help our fellow man; especially those less fortunate. Not once did He ever say or imply that we should enslave our fellow man through government dependency. That was Concernedjaneinco's point.
What would Jesus think of your antagonistic hate?

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Black Ink:

I asked for a biblical reference, every thing after that is your words not mine. I didn't say anything else or infer anything else. If you say it's in the bible it's a good practice to provide a reference. That's all!!!

Jesus commands us to help the poor (undisputed), but where does he say to not do it through government or with government. It's not how you get it done, it's the spirit behind it. I would rather have all Christians come together and solve this problem before any government entity, but unfortunately Christians are not, or have not.

As far as enslave that's a matter of your opinion. As far as reality shows, Republican states are plagued with a higher rate of poverty, illiteracy, and crime over those liberal leaning; despite being rated highest in Christian Faith and Employment. People working hard in Republican run states are still being left behind, and remain a surf class, or a permanent servitude class.

I'm not even trying to re-open the debate with you. I was asking for a biblical reference so that I can read the passage for myself.

I believe I let you have the last word with your OJ nonsense, and left it alone. We don't see eye to eye on this matter, and we won't. We can read the very same passage and come to two very different conclusions.

I am a Christian Democrat because I believe in the way Jesus served. [PERIOD]

I'm very aware of what Jesus calls us to do, and I'm also very aware of what the bible says about government and the purpose of government.

Yes government can be good, and government can serve the interest of the least among us. Government can be subject to God's authority. Even if we disagree there is a respectful way to do so in love, as is written in Romans 13.

Thanks, I understand what @ Concernedjaneinco was saying, but I would like to know where he read it.

BLACK INK said...

When Jesus said "drink this in remembrance of Me"; He was not talking about battery acid.
There is no specific scripture to reference wherein Jesus actually says don't drink battery acid nor is there specific scripture that says socially engineered slavery created by the democratic party to suppress black folks is prohibited.
Notwithstanding, the principles of the teachings of My Savior, Jesus Christ, reveal that neither are in furtherance of His word.

MrsGrapevine said...

@ Black:

That would make since except that Jesus told us what to drink in remembrance of him. He was very specific in fact:

He said, "I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Does battery acid = fruit of the vine? I think, not. Over simplifications of my points will not work; I'm aware of you tactics.

MrsGrapevine said...

* your

BLACK INK said...

I tried to make the point as simple as possible; but it was apparently not basic enough for you to understand.
Digital Publius has a blog that would be very well worth your read. He might be able to shed light on your misunderstandings with more insight and eloquence than I ever could.

Nickie Goomba said...

This is quite a powerful argument. I'm taking the liberty of reposting this (with full credit, of course) at my site. This must be heard read, heard and discussed.

Papa Giorgio, M.A.T.S. said...


I haven't read all the comments... but... is that a girl next to the bishop?


Conservative Black Woman said...

lol...Yes PapaG, that's a woman in desperate need of a new weave.

ar said...

Why you think you need health insurance and why you can't find health.

In 2006, the world spent $643 billion on pharmaceuticals. Where are the cures?

• There are no pharmaceutical cures for cancer.
• There are no pharmaceutical cures for heart disease.
• There are no pharmaceutical cures for diabetes.
• There are no pharmaceutical cures for kidney disease.
• There are no pharmaceutical cures for depression.
• There are no pharmaceutical cures for liver disease.
• There are no pharmaceutical cures for Alzheimer’s disease.

… in fact, if you add it all up, the pharmaceutical industry is the biggest rip-off in the history of medicine! The world spends nearly a trillion dollars a year on pharmaceuticals now, and yet there hasn’t been a single cure found by the drug industry for any major disease or health condition.

Health care starts at the table. Think of it this way: you have spent a life-time getting to the state of health you are in currently. how's that working for you?

The FDA (Fool the Dumb Assholes) makes money. Big Pharma is killing and addicting america and profits sore; the same as in H1N1 sWine flu scare - for money and SCREW YOU AND YOUR HEALTH.

If you are healthy, what damned good are you to the oppressors?

I should be dead had i stayed and taken their gd poison. and our children..., get them off drugs, now.