by Scot Cerullo

Anyone following the bitter and partisan health care debate may have stumbled upon this question by now: Why is Obama having so much trouble fostering a consensus on health care reform? After all, the democrats enjoy majorities in the House, the Senate, and the White House. President Obama himself is a charming and charismatic leader, a powerful brand. So why then is health care reform proving so contentious?

I’m reminded of a story I learned in an advertising class I took back in college. A dog food manufacturer was frustrated over their latest product, which was not selling well. The CEO exclaimed that this new dog food was backed by a talented marketing team, an enormous advertising budget and years of research. Frustrated and confused, the CEO demanded a reason for the poor sales. Finally, an entry level executive timidly offered, “Sir, with all due respect, the dogs don’t like it.” 

The dogs don’t like it. The more people learn about the kind of health care reform being proposed, the more they don’t like it. 

However there are other important reasons for the lack of support. In poll after poll a majority of Americans self-identify as conservative or moderate, with less than 25% describing themselves as liberal. Yet the administration is over-reaching, behaving as though Obama’s election win was some kind of history-making mandate for change, when in fact he won by only nine million votes. 

Another reason for health care reform woes involves a growing lack of trust in Obama himself.  Candidate Obama promised transparency; a frequent refrain on the campaign trail. Obama said all major legislation would be broadcast on C-Span for public review, that bills would be posted on the internet for a minimum of five days, also for public view. Not only have these promises been broken, democrats are actively voting against republican efforts even to allow the public to read a final draft prior to a vote, nor allow the Congressional Budget Office a final version to score and properly calculate actual costs. This ram-rod approach disturbs and angers voters. 

Now, months after Obama’s original deadline for health care reform, democrats are embattled and splintered. A massive organic public protest has manifested in the form of tea parties, town hall meetings, a march on Washington, D.C., etc. The message is simple and clear:  Americans do not like or want Obamacare. 

Obama is no longer a shiny, new personality, no longer a blank slate. People have heard what he has to say and are rejecting it. 

Obama appears to have a single response to the concerns of a majority of Americans: giving speeches. It’s all he seems able to do. Worse still, he continues to repeat inaccurate information, which voters have caught on to as well, thanks in no small part to FOX news and a handful of conservative radio personalities. 

Voters have grown tired of Obama’s eloquent speeches. Voters have used their own collective common sense to evaluate the radical health care reform proposals and have told the petulant new president, “No!”

by Scot Cerullo

The kind of health care reform being discussed in the House and Senate has drawn a decisive line in the sand among voters, between those who want reform and trust what is being written, and those who want reform but strongly disagree with what is being written.

Is that about right? So the common ground is that an overwhelming majority want reform, but the problem is in the morphology of the final bill.

To this end, I have some questions which I believe to be fair, valid and virtually absent in the media. Since few are asking these questions, I will.

1. Why is Obama not fullfilling his campaign promise to provide public debate on C-Span for all major legislation? Had Obama gotten his way, health care reform would have passed two months ago. There has been no C-Span debate for the public to view and comment on. Why?

2. Why aren’t the various health care reform bills currently being written conveniently posted on the internet so the public can read them? Again, this was a campaign promise Obama made and has subsequently broken.

3. Why is Obama in such a hurry? The bills being written and discussed in conference will not go into effect for three years. Isn’t it more important to get it right rather than get it fast, especially in light of the magnitude of the legislation being discussed?

4. Why does Obama continue to say that over 45 million are uninsured? This number is simply inaccurate, and despite many efforts to correct the number of uninsured, Obama continues to repeat it.

5. How is it possible to add 46 million uninsured to a system without adding a corresponding number of new doctors, facilities and infrastructure? Even now one has to make an appointment to see his/her doctor. Wouldn’t adding millions more customers create a dramatic strain on the current system, resulting in longer waits and shorter times spent with your doctor? Just asking.

6. How can you keep your current insurance plan? Anyone with a passing interest in free enterprise knows that many employers would rather pay a fine than continue offering health care to their employees, if given the chance.

7. Why is tort reform not on the table as a way to decrease costs?

8. Why is Obama not discussing free market solutions to the problems in health care?

9. Why can’t I purchase health insurance out of state? Wouldn’t that create competition that would lead to competitive pricing?

10. How can you cut $500 billion from Medicare without sacrificing service?

In my view President Obama is a true Statist who believes that government is the solution to most any problem facing our country. While he may pay passing tribute to small business and the innovation of the free market, in reality he about control and centralization. That is one reason why in 8 months Obama has not sought the help of the free market to solve a single problem.

Americans look at the Canadian health care system, Britan’s health care system, and they hear one horror story after another. They simply do not believe that the our government will provide something better than we currently have, let alone cheaper.

Neither do I.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

These are the words that have stood for over 200 years in this country, born on the belief of our Founding Fathers that government was not the only body that had the right of Freedom of Speech but that it belongs to the People and is an integral part of our republic.  In 1801, Thomas Jefferson re-affirmed the principle when he stated: “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”  Let us examine that last bit – “where reason is left free to combat it”.

Thomas Jefferson believed in the ability of the Republic to allow dissenting opinions and through reason (not censorship or regulation) stand undisturbed in the end.  Free Speech is essential to the influence of the people on government and not just in an election but whenever the People are so moved to express themselves regarding the actions of government or potential actions of government.  As Lady Libertas has stated before, we do not lose our rights simply because our preferred candidate loses an election.

The Supreme Court has been the bulwark in defending free speech and checking the Legislative Branch’s moves to over-regulate or censor said speech.  In Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”  In the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 case Procunier v. Martinez, “The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression.”

Debate, Consensus, Expression are the foundations of free speech.  We do not have a monarch that passes a decree to which we all must submit, as much as Barack Obama would like to see himself in that position.  We have an elected government “of the people, for the people, by the people” and that government is bound to adhere to our Constitution.  This does not mean that they get to adhere to the Constitution only when they agree or when the agreement serves their own purposes.

Currently, we have a Congress and administration that is pushing forward an agenda that many of us disagree with fundamentally.  We believe that this agenda will change the very fabric of our country and undermine our Constitutional rights.  We are gathering and organizing to participate in our government and express our concerns about legislation that is going to be voted on in a few weeks.   We are seeking answers from an administration that is placing Czars in positions of power over our lives with no accountability and transparency.  We are exercising our First Amendment rights.

It seems that almost daily, a new threat to our freedom and our Constitution is being exposed.  We have a President that is more enamored of the sound of his words than the content and we have been treated to broken promises, out of control spending and a Legislature that appears horrified that the American People have an opinion and are willing to defend it.

Whether you agree with my personal opinions or not, it is your duty as an American to inform yourself and participate in the process.  The process is not just on election day – the process is happening daily and is being funded by our taxes, our hard work.  These issues will affect us all and we must be aware of the impact and the far-reaching effects before it is too late.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant – so let’s ask a few questions:

• Healthcare will affect 1/7 of our economy – Do we, as Americans, want the federal government inserting themselves into our relationships with our healthcare professionals?  Do we expect our elected officials to read the legislation BEFORE they vote on it?  Should our elected officials be allowed to exempt themselves from the healthcare plan that they want to inflict on the American People?  Should our government be accountable to fix the glaring problems of the healthcare programs that they are currently administering before they criticize and irrevocably alter the private sector and our access to the private sector?  Those of us who oppose the government takeover of healthcare have been labeled mobsters, evil mongerererers, un-American, Nazi brown shirts, etc… and this is from our ELECTED OFFICIALS – why don’t they want to hear public opinion?  In case anyone has forgotten the outcry over the Bush administration, let me refresh your memory here in a post by Zomblog about the Bush protests.
• The Obama Administration has by best count approximately 50 “Czar” positions.  These Czars are influencing if not effecting policy on a daily basis.  Many of them have skipped Senate confirmations or any kind of process, having been appointed directly by Obama. Who are these people?  What do they stand for?  Who are they accountable to and who is paying for their budgets and staffs?  What are their limits? (Link to my most recently updated post on the Czars)
• Censorship is not American.  It is not supported in the Constitution and it is not a practice that represents the freedom that defines America.  The FCC has a new Chief Diversity Officer, Mark Lloyd, who has the apparent mission of shutting down radio communications for stations that he does not agree with – specifically, Conservative and Christian radio.  He has praised Rwandan and Venezuelan state run radios in bringing about social change (hmmm like censorship and state sponsored terrorism?).  This has raised the issue of the Fairness Doctrine which was quelled by Reagan and the courts in 1987.  Mark Lloyd has not been shy of revealing his agenda by any means: “We trace the rise and influence of Rush and other conservative radio hosts to relaxed ownership rules and other pro-big business regulation that destroyed localism…” – is this just shutting down the opposition?  Should Bush have employed the same means against Liberal talk radio? Lloyd also co-wrote “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” in 2007 – uber-liberal Marxism at its best.
• How about Green Czar, Van Jones using the organization that he founded, colorofchange.org, to begin a campaign against Glenn Beck by targeting his sponsors & pressuring them to drop his show? I am not debating that Americans have the right to boycott Glenn Beck or his sponsors (they certainly do and can choose to NOT watch him as well) but I am debating whether the mandate should have come from the White House?  It seems like a blatant censorship attempt against an American talk show host who is asking uncomfortable but valid questions of our government.
• ACORN is an organization that receives enormous amounts of federal funding – $53 million dollars since 1994 (See Washington Examiner Report that includes spreadsheet of funds that ACORN has received) and is now under criminal indictment.  ACORN seems to have a lot of fingers in the Obama pie and despite charges of voter fraud in several states, they continue to be a go-to organization by Obama, including rumors that they will receive the contract for the 2010 census.
• An emergency ruling has been filed with the Secretary of State for New York that mandates flu vaccinations for all healthcare workers in the State of New York (both paid and unpaid) – any worker that does not comply will have their employment terminated.  Interestingly, the flu vaccine that is being mandated is the seasonal flu vaccine and not the H1N1.  This mandate is opposed by the majority of healthcare workers in New York for obvious reasons.  Workers in nursing homes are unaffected, because to require them to receive the vaccine would require legislation – so the “emergency” does not extend to the burden of proof required by legislation. (Link to New York State Nurses Association regarding mandatory flu vaccines)
• Proposed US Senate Bill S773 (See copy of the bill here at Open Congress) allows for the President to disconnect private computers from the Internet in times of emergency.  WHAT?  It also allows for “periodic mapping” of private networks by the federal government and anything that the President deems to be a threat to the “critical infrastructure information system” could be disconnected from the internet.  Seems like another sector that Obama is intent on taking over – here is the CNET story about the proposed bill.
• We need to list the whole fishy debacle here to include the snitch program, compilation of private citizen’s emails, spamming by Axelrod of Americans who are STILL wondering how the government got their email addresses and all of the implications of infringement upon free speech that the above would include.  That could be a few posts in and of itself.  Suffice to say that the whole fishy issue turned the fishy eye onto the Obama Administration and their practices.
• CIA Investigation by Attorney General, Eric Holder on enhanced interrogation techniques employed on TERRORISTS that led to preventing future terrorist attacks on Americans.  Eric Holder, apparently out of sync with Obama, has decided to pursue the CIA interrogators which, of course, will allow for him to pursue members of the Bush Administration as well.  And why?  Because they do not agree with the lawful practices of the previous administration and to voice their disagreement, Holder will lead a witch hunt which will lead to the breakdown of our Intelligence Services, undermine our Intelligent Services both internally and externally and damage our National Security, all at the very least.  Perhaps Holder should be pursuing real criminals like the Black Panthers or ACORN and I wonder why that is not a target for him?  This begins a dangerous precedent to allow current Administrations to go back and target policies that they did not agree with and criminalize them.  Officers that crossed the line were disciplined and, in some cases, prosecuted under the Bush Administration so what is the point now?   Will Pelosi be included in this sweep?  And will we lose one of our vital defenses against Terrorists as Holder deconstructs the CIA to carry out a political grudge?

Obama has asked us to judge him by the people that are surrounding him.  The cadre of Czars is composed of activists, radicals and self-admitted Communists and Socialists.  As well, we are being treated to how very Leftist Liberal many of our lawmakers are, as Rep. Diane Watson gushed over the weekend as to what a very “bright leader Fidel Castro is”(see video here) and Harry Reid’s disappointment that Teddy Kennedy’s death may force him into bipartisanship negotiations.

Vigilance and bipartisanship negotiation are required in the days ahead – not just by our elected officials and government watchdogs but by the People.  We must be engaged to protect against the systematic de-construction of our Freedoms before we wake up and do not recognize the country that we live in.

Come See Lady Libertas at http://ladylibertas.wordpress.com/