“That is a deadline that you created,” Reid told a group of about 75 reporters. “It’s not like we don’t have a product. Significant progress has been made … The mere fact that this wasn't done by last Friday or by five o’clock doesn't mean we’re not going to get a quality product."

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders on Wednesday set an ambitious goal of the end of July for steering a contentious overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system through the House of Representatives.

“Our message is simple. It is now being echoed by the White House,” said the memo sent to all Democratic members. “And it counters the Republican ‘government takeover’ message.”

The message in the memo, though, won't fit on a bumper sticker:

“Remove the insurance companies from between you and your doctor— capping what they can force you to pay in out of pocket expenses, co-pays and deductibles, and giving you the peace of mind you will be covered for the care you need, if get sick, or if you change or lose your job.”

After years of being in the opposition, Democrats are still scared about defending the value of government. Their political nerves have been exacerbated by polls showing the public is growing increasingly concerned about the size of government spending. This reticence about government, in the aftermath of the Democrats' dramatic 2008 election victory, has been one of the most striking aspects of the administration's rhetoric in the past few months.

Before the 1970s, Democrats were full of confidence when pushing for federal programs. Indeed, 44 years ago this week, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation that created Medicare and Medicaid.

     Medicare and Medicaid?  Really?  These shining beacons of fraud and abuse are the great example?  Examples of the great strength of Government?  Of course Julian quickly abandons even discussing Medicaid and limits the rest of the article to Medicare.  I just want to know what country he lives in if he truly thinks that Medicare was and continues to be the shining star of Government doing something right.  His next paragraph is a true head scratcher:

The program succeeded. Government worked. Before Medicare started, only about 50 percent of Americans who were 65 or older possessed hospital coverage. Within five years of the program's creation, 97 percent of the elderly had hospital coverage. The same changes occurred with physician's coverage. Today, more than 40 million elderly Americans rely on the program -- as do their families who don't have to take responsibility for these costs.

     At least it is a head scratcher until you get to the last sentence.  Notice that even his argument isn't about obtaining healthcare, but health coverage.  But the last sentence is the most telling...who don't have to take responsibility for these costs.  Isn't that really at the crux of this whole debate on health"care" reform.  You listen to those who are being "mistreated" by the system, rarely are they complaining about not actually getting the healthcare they need.  Instead they are complaining about the cost, fighting with insurance, and inconvenience.  What most non-Government supporters of healthcare reform want is someone else to pick up the bill.  The article continues with this gem:

Besides expanding coverage, Medicare has become instrumental to the health care industry. For all the complaints that we hear about Medicare, the reality is that most hospitals and doctors have come to depend on these federal payments into their system. Those who want to keep government "out" of the industry rarely acknowledge that government is already "in."

     Most experts on the healthcare system will tell you it is because the Government is so far "in" the system that we have many of the cost problems we see today.  From cost shifting to the rapidly shrinking pool of doctors who take Medicare and Medicaid, the programs are not working (look at the last slide in that presentation, you will see that the chance of dying of someone on public insurance is 3 times the chance of someone dying who is not insured)...at least it is working that well.  This shining example of Government "working" is already costing us too much for poor results and the costs are only going to skyrocket as the Baby Boomers start to join the ranks of Medicare recipients in larger numbers.  Top of the Medicare and Medicaid problems with the costs to private health options that are caused by Government being "in" from having to pay for many "mandatory" services required by Government that raise insurance costs to having limited private options because of the Government bias to employer provided benefits.

     If Medicare and Medicaid are supposed to calm my fears of the rising costs of Government involvement in healthcare, then my nerves are not really being soothed...more Government can only be a bad thing for those of us who love and value freedom.  Including our freedom to choose our own doctors and our own health insurance companies.  Just look at the bullet list of "fine print" in this bill that would affect your freedom and liberty (from the linked article):

• Severe limits on the purchase of private insurance
• Government-controlled market access
• hand over vast powers to a new “Health Choices Commissioner”
• Penalizing work
• Raising premiums with taxes on health benefits
• Deep Medicare cuts for beneficiaries living in low-cost areas
• Undermining entitlement reform
• largest expansion of Medicaid in the program’s history

     That's just the beginning.  So Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of Government run health"care".

Evil Out

• For the 2000 elections to have been rigged in the manner many theorists claim it would have relied on people knowing up to 3 or 4 years in advance of the election that George Bush was going to win the Republican nomination, that Al Gore was going to be the Democrat nominee, and that the whole election would pivot on Florida.
• Supposedly there is this big secret to create the NAU, North American Union, that is going on behind closed doors.  However, the NAU has been an intellectual exercise in academia and pop culture for many years (real secret there) and would involve either the willing or forceful suspension of not one, but three constitutions of three separate countries each with their own proud histories and people?  Which doesn't even start to count the 91 individual states and provinces and their own constitutions and cultures.  All this is going to be done in secret?  It may happen eventually in much the same manner as the EU, but there is no real secret or conspiracy there.
• How about the NWO, New World Order?  Some illuminati-like organization that includes everyone from the Rotarians to the Freemasons to the Skull and Bones Society?  All working to manipulate and force the world into one grand government?  The people in the public's eye can't even get the UN to work properly, what makes you think a shadow group can do it while having to work in complete secrecy?

     Now don't get me wrong, I believe there are small "c" conspiracies out there all the time, Iran/Contra, Enron, & Abu Ghraib are all good examples.  These were all groups of people conspiring to underake actions in secret and the interesting thing is...they all came to light, of course we call them scandals and not conspiracies.  Small groups of people collude constantly to do things in secret, but most often someone finds out.  Ever try throwing a surprise party?  Almost impossible to get it done without the "surprisee" figuring out that at least something is up.  So what about big "C" conspiracies?  Conspiracies with wide and far ranging impact that would by their very nature have to include a large group of people...not going to happen.  Not only is the idea that a small group of shadowy figures control the world preposterous, but it would never be kept secret for long.

"Those seeking free health care could admit these are not rights but they simply want other people's stuff, and be honest supplicants, or open thieves. However, they believe that guilt and the false moral high ground work better for them. Do not cede that ground. They are beggars with the government's guns behind them. They are beggars you may, or may not, choose to help. I personally have chosen to help many (those with my views are painted as non-humanitarians but we believe our ideas will make everyone better off and many of us are willing to help). But that is your and my choice, not their right. When they ask you to help, please consider it, and do what your conscience and abilities suggest and allow. When they try to take it as their right, they are thieves, tell them 'no.'"

When someone got sick during the Dark Ages, doctors would use leeches to bleed the patient. If the patient got well, then the bleeding worked. If they died, then they were beyond help in the first place. If they remained sick, the doctors attached more leeches. No matter what the outcome, the efficacy of bleeding was never questioned.

You restored hope to millions -- including me -- who had been demoralized by the political polarization that characterized the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. You talked about reaching across party and ideological lines to get the public's business done. Your biography was appealing, and for those of us who entered politics motivated by the civil-rights struggle, your candidacy represented an important culmination. {emphasis is mine}