I love it! The Attorneys General for 13 states threatening legal action against the Health Care bill!

Did Obama Instill Confidence In You?

Okay, the President wasted little time in commenting on the incident involving Harvard professor Henry Gates, saying the police "acted stupidly". Even held an embarrassing "beer summit" about it. But then we have what could have potentially been the biggest terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 and the President couldn't bring himself to say anything for three days, forget the fact that it took three hours for his crack team back in D.C. to notify him of the situation. And then when he did hit the cameras (I'm guessing it took time to get everything together for his teleprompter) he said his administration "will not rest" until those involved is tracked down. He claimed they will use "everything within our power".

Really? What does that mean, exactly, Mr. President?

So far, he's spent considerable time and jet fuel to go around the world and apologize for America. He's spent the same to stroke the Muslims. And his brilliant choice to head the Department of Homeland Security, Napolitano, initially claimed "the system worked". Of course, the truth actually won out and she later had to admit the opposite.

Given that the Obama Doctrine -- Apologize profusely to everyone in the world you can and hope that our would-be enemies will see our good intentions and new-found resistance to actually engage in any meaningful manner and simply stop hating us -- has a track record of complete and utter failure, what qualifies as "everything within our power"? Certainly not profiling...that's just unacceptably un-PC. Certainly not taking decisive action with deadly force...we might insult any host city or nation housing these terrorists.

Our President's policy is clearly demonstrated as reactionary-only. But it's much more sobering than that. He's so fearful of hurting someone's feelings, so scared to damage this illusory reset of international relations that even his "reactions" are so limp they have proven to the world -- and certainly our enemies -- that we impotent.

Now, in the spirit of fairness I can't lay the blame of the actual event on the President. That was the terrorists doing and those who helped him. And this flight originated overseas, so it's their security that was inexcusable. But how to respond to it is a result of the policies our President and his horrific administration have put into place.

Just how many more reasons do you need to get rid of these people in the next elections?

Senator Reid & The Art Of Compromise

Senator Harry Reid defended the disgusting backroom deals that his band of thieves and whores made to get the 60 votes needed to pass their version of FascistCare. He said," That’s what legislating is all about; it’s the art of compromise.”

Compromise, Senator, is about what you are willing to give up on either side to reach an agreement. It is not about what you'll pay the other person off with to get them to agree to your proposition. You, sir, are an fool. You think you can be flippant with a turn of phrase and the truly aware among us won't call you on it?

Also, there simply are some things that should never be compromised. There are some things that a truly principled person--particularly person who holds to a Biblical world view--should never back down on. If you look at what was purchased via these sweetheart deals, and what was dropped (although in most cases they are simply hidden), then you see that what's left is truly what this has been all about: POWER. Once they've transferred power to the federal government, they'll be able to mandate whatever else they want later.

If you can't see it, then I doubt your mental capacity.

Let's Call Them What They Are: WHORES

It's that simple, people. These so-called 'principled' Democrats who were holding out for what they told US were reasons we could agree with, were actually holding out for their price. Democrats don't have the corner marketed on this, but in this instance we're talking specifically about Dems. Senators Nelson and Mary Landrieu are chief among them. Whores, that's all they are. They could care less about truth, honor, integrity, morality....they simply were waiting for their price to be met. They sold their virtue for money, favors. I, for one, am sick of this. Every single politician who participates in this type of behavior should be booted out.

Nelson dared say the backlash was "orchestrated". Really? If it's liberals gathering a head of steam, it's grass-roots, but if it's conservatives it's "orchestrated". Senator Nelson, your words and your actions are puny-minded and amoral, lacking ethics or integrity. I pray you are ousted in the next election. The same with you, Senator Landrieu. Gone in 2010. We need TRUE conservatives, those who truly seek the wisdom of God in decision-making. Not serving their own SPECIAL INERESTS.

The Caving Of Sen Nelson of Nebraska

If you look at the details of what he received--millions of dollars in benefits, exemption from certain taxes/mandates, and much more--it's obvious Senator Nelson was NOT holding out on principle. In fact, I would contend that he, just like his mate from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, was just another political whore. Yes, I said it. Selling yourself for money is exactly that. I'm not saying that most of the Republicans aren't above that--nay, they've been just as guilty. But it's so much more obvious and disastrous with so much socialism and fascism hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles.

The lie of what Sen. Nelson falls back on as what he calls a "victory" is the illusion that abortion is prohibited, that the bill doesn't create more deficit, that it doesn't increase our premiums, that it doesn't ultimately mean we will all be slaves to the federal government. What he obtained was some weak language, easily circumvented, to semi-exempt Nebraska from funding abortions. Funny math has made it look like it won't hurt Nebraskans, although the truth is it will, and worse, that it will negatively impact the rest of us.

Here's another tidbit that I don't think is hammered home nearly enough...we will be paying into this thing with dramatically higher costs and taxes for several years before actual "benefits" will be paid for by the government. This is part of how they claim it "saves" money. That's like you extorting money from your family to build up $10,000 toward a new $30,000 car, then purchasing it three years later and claiming the car only cost $20,000. It's a lie.

These fools are pushing through a mishmash bill that they prohibit you from seeing, prohibit most of Congress from seeing, throwing in so many ifs, ands or buts to win votes that no sane person could understand it. But, ultimately, the core pieces that are kept are the things that tax you, penalize you, and create mandates. They are the pieces that enslaves us until they can get the rest of the obscene pieces added back in.

What are you waiting for, America? I demand to know! I dare anyone to justify this!

The Movies "AVATAR": My Impressions

A number of us from church who are avid science fiction fans decided to go see "Avatar" on Friday. There's good news and bad news. The good news is that, for a 2.5 hour movie, it was entertaining enough to keep even you attentive even if you're watching the late showing. It is visually stunning, even in 2D (our theater doesn't have 3D, or stadium seating...heck, I'm happy they don't have the projector sitting on boards across a couple of rows of seats!). The moon of Pandora is exceptionally colorful and the details are so rich that you often forget it's CGI. The melding of the live-action parts and CGI is almost seamless...almost. The acting is generally good, but not as deep as I would like, but given the almost constant action it's difficult to allow much depth of character. I'm normally a Sigourney Weaver fan, but I was a bit disappointed in her performance. If you take the story on the most superficial of terms then you can't help but enjoy what would appear to be a good vs. evil core.

But now for the bad news. This story is loosely based on the story of Pocahontas. That's not necessarily bad. But James Cameron, whose last good movie in my opinion was "The Abyss", is clearly completely sold out to the anti-capitalist, GAIA-loving element. You don't have to scratch the surface of the storyline to see it's really a corporate-greed-plus-military-hating-might-makes-right plot. It also is very obvious that the "our planet is a living being and we are all connected" idea is practically rubbed in your face. I mean literally. The humanoid inhabitants of Pandora literally take their braided ponytails that have an odd mini-tendriled end and connect them to similarly endowed plants and animals to "share" entities with them. That's how they "bond" with them.

Of course, the bumbling military and the greedy corporate types don't "get it" and simply run roughshod over the territory, animals and indigenous sentients to get to the mineral they are there to mine. You learn to hate them more and more throughout the film right up to the inevitable battle royale the ensues at the climax of the film.

So, from that aspect of it, I was completely insulted by the story. James Cameron is a brilliant filmmaker but a doofus when it comes to pushing an agenda.

Also, as someone who actually has a brain and understands real science (unlike all your global-warming enthusiasts out there) I was frustrated by some pretty impossible things in the movie. First off, Pandora is a moon closely orbiting a gas giant planet similar to Jupiter. I have news for you...the gravitational forces alone would make a lush, life-supporting environment such as that virtually impossible. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that it would wreak tectonic havoc with Pandora and what you would see would be mostly earthquakes (Pandoraquakes?) and volcanoes galore. Then you have the "floating mountains". There is no explanation as to what would actually make huge chunks of rock and soil (and, naturally, the trees and foliage) float, nearly in static positions (there are tendrils of plant life that connect between many of these 'mountains') above the rest of the planet. Again, it made for visually amazing sequences, but you have to suspend any believe in geophysics whatsoever. And then there are the big, armed metal exoskeletons the Marines use. Remember the cargo lifter that Ripley battled the Alien Queen with in "Aliens"? Imagine something like that, but faster and more articulate. Again, some of the physics was just not believable -- like dropping six stories inside one and landing on the ground without damaging the machine. Yeah, right.

Okay, a couple of final negatives. THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR KIDS. The language is simply unacceptable. It's profuse through so much of the film and the Lord's name is taken in vain so many times, it's just ridiculous. It's not necessary to the plot. Period. And, although the inhabitants of Pandora are completely fictitious and computer-generated, it was like watching an episode of National Geographic. While not in-your-face obvious, the extremely simplistic native trinkets covering the breasts of the females left little to the imagination.

Final thought. I suppose I could make the case that the efforts of the main character, Jake Sully, to convince his Marine boss and the corporate types that they were ignorant and headed down the wrong path, one that would inevitably meet with disaster, is quite similar to the American people attempting to get Obama, Reid and Pelosi to quite screwing around with health care, stimulus, cap & trade, because THEY will inevitably lead to disaster. But, of course, they--and those who support them--ARE ignorant, and wouldn't see that in the film anyway, even if that was Cameron's agenda...which it isn't.

So, if you are an adult and can stomach the language, it's an entertaining film to see. Or if you are a Godless secularist who doesn't care what you pump into your kids, you can take them, too. You probably talk to your kids like that anyway.

Democrats, LISTEN TO ME! It is not your responsibility to create jobs! Stop it, NOW!

FIRE CONGRESS!

Folks, I have a challenge for you. I dare anyone who actually still supports the liberals in Congress and this President to make the case for us to NOT fire the whole lot of them in 2010. I have one condition: you must be able to make a coherent sentence that makes a logical point.

The U.S. Constitution states what the federal government is allowed to do. Everything else is left to the states. But what has the President and the Democrats done? They've behaved as if the federal government is required to do such things as control/own the financial industry, control/own the automotive industry, control/own the health care industry. You simply cannot deny that this is what has been happening. He, the Congress, and you supporters, no doubt, will predictably say that mean ol' capitalists are the problem and taking them over is the only thing that could be done. And that's preposterous. First off, in order to do ALL of that this administration has hung us with a level of debt that is geometrically above anything a previous administration has even dreamt of. This administration has said that the deficit is simply not important compared to the "need to create jobs". Again, show me in the Constitution where it's the federal government's job to create jobs. I have two points to make to supporters of this administration: It's not the federal government's job (or privilege, according to the Constitution), and the federal government has never successfully run programs.

Obama campaigned on hope and change. Yet the country has dramatically gotten worse. We've LOST thousands upon thousands of jobs, contrary to what Obama assured us would happen if we swallowed his line. Talk to your average person. Particularly, talk to those thousands who HAVE lost their jobs since Obama took office. Where is their hope? How about change? What exactly has changed, other than government getting many times more bloated than it did even under Bush? Allegedly we'd have the most transparent and ethical administration in history. Show me the proof of that...you can't. Congress has done so many things behind closed doors, they've continuously violated the promise to put proposed legislation up for 72 hours, they claim something is "bipartisan" when only two or three liberal Republicans voted in favor of this or that legislation. Obama said that lobbyists would have no foothold with him, yet some of the most anti-capitalist, ultra-liberal lobbyists you could name are actually part of his administration. Ethical? Tax-cheats abound in his administration and this Congress! People who are on record as being self-avowed socialists or communists. People who have pushed the homosexual agenda as far down as our grade schools. People who have explained how health care expenditures could be controlled by "grading" the value of a person based on their productivity, their worth to society.

The President is on record as planning to fully support the efforts of Planned Parenthood. As a result he quickly removed the ban on funding abortions overseas. Now the ban on funding abortions in D.C. has been removed. The proposed health care bill includes a way for funding the senseless murder of the unborn.

How about cap & trade? First off, the whole scam regarding "carbon credits" is one of the most disgusting liew ever told. It's all made up. Even Obama said that, as a result, energy costs would "skyrocket" (his word). Think about this. If the cost of energy is increased dramatically because of the new "carbon tax", where exactly do you think these costs will show up? They will show up at every step of the life cycle of any product or service you buy. I'll save you a more detailed description using an example of a common product, because it shouldn't take a degree in economics to understand it. I'll be happy to walk you through it, though, if you request.

One last thing about the health care "reform". It's all a lie. There is nothing, absolutely nothing reformatory about it. It is ALL about power. Just go back a few months and listen to what Obama and the Democrats were complaining about. It was all about health care costs. Then it went through a metamorphosis and became about the insurance companies. However, YouTube is a blessing and a curse. Video of Obama and the major Democratic Party players is proof of what they really want...a single-payer system, and the single payer is the government. I can say with absolute certainty that this Congress has done zero root cause analysis on health care. I dare anyone who is a Lean/Six Sigma black belt or higher to show me how the efforts of Obama and the Democrats demonstrates anything other than jumping to a "band-aid" to achieve an agenda. The following is an oversimplification of the needed approach, but hopefully you get the point:
Problem Statement: Millions of American citizens cannot afford health care.
Identify Performance Gaps: Costs of routine health care dissuade millions from seeking regular preventive treatment and costs of catastrophic treatment make them out of reach for millions more, resulting in routine illnesses being ignored and untreated and developing into more serious and costly conditions, as well as catastrophic illness causing people to go untreated or go bankrupt to afford treatment.
Set Improvement Target: Reduce health care costs to a level that citizens who seek it can afford it and can be postured to pay for more catastrophic treatments.
Root Cause Analysis: A number of tools should be used here. Two that immediately come to mind are what are called "fishbone diagram" and "5 Whys". I can just about guarantee that two things that will come up as being REAL issues will be malpractice suits and interstate insurance.
Develop Countermeasures: Once the root cause analysis has identified the obstacles to meeting the Improvement Targets, responses to those root causes must be identified.
See Countermeasures Through: This is the point at which an actual Action Plan is created. it is the firm, thoughtfully developed to assign SMART objectives with specifics as to who must accomplish the objectives and by when.
Confirm Results and Process: This would actually be the easiest part, since it will be pretty obvious if costs start to come down.
Standardize Successful Processes: Make these changes the ongoing, systemic way we operate.
I am certain Reid, Pelosi and Obama have NOT done any of this.

Unemployment continues to be horrible, costs across the board are rising, taxes are increasing, the marriage penalty is back, private industry is being taken over by government, your children are being indoctrinated into accepting abhorrent behavior, your personal and property rights are being attacked, and you're being told that it's your patriotic duty to spread the wealth. This Congress has consistently ignored you because they say they've "won, so deal with it".

It's time to fire them in 2010.

After four days of hard work we now have a serious stage lighting system installed at Grace Community Church!

So, care to guess where secularists will eventually take this?

Out of Copenhagen: population control can significantly cut CO2 emissions. Every $7 spent on fam planning can mean a ton in CO2.

This is disgusting: what on earth has Obama done to deserve a Nobel? They will give that thing to any ol' liberal.

Hey, Mr President! This is YOUR economy now, so shut your mouth about the GOP! More dirt comes out daily on you and your ilk.

The Senate voted to make YOU pay for abortions!

News for you: the funding for the murder of unborn is NOT a "necessary part of health care". It is COMPLETELY elective!

Mr. President, just STOP! You flat out do NOT know what you're doing and you've surrounded yourself with fools!

Obama thumbed his nose at Jesus at tree lighting ceremony. Mr President, there IS no Christmas without CHRIST!

ABC, NBC and CBS are all accessories to fraud on the global warning scandal.

I love it! Now some in Hollywood think Gore should give up his Oscar!

That creep Senator Boxer is trying to deflect the focus from the GLOBAL WARMING LIES to the hackers who exposed them!

So, who is invited to Obama's Jobs Summit? Donors to his campaign, of course.

What on earth is this President doing? Sticking his finger in the wind?

Senate bill has requirement for MONTHLY ABORTION Premium for all enrollees of gov't plan!

A call to arms, people! Call both your senators TODAY to stop this destructive health care bill!

Here we go: AP is putting 11 people to "fact check" Palin's book. They haven't done that for others.

Sarah Palin, Back In The News

You can actually feel the cringing coming from the liberals: Sarah's back in the news. And, predictably--because liberals are simply incapable of doing anything else--they are quick to jump all over Sarah and her book. You will pretty consistently hear them whine that her book is a whine-fest. The truth is that liberals make an art form of whining...just look at Al Gore and his completely fictitious ranting about global warming (which has since changed to "climate change", now that REAL science is showing that we've been on a 10-year cooling trend, contrary to his cohorts' computer models). He's parlayed this pack of lies into a multi-billion dollar franchise culminating in Cap & Tax. Talk about the consummate con!

I was watching Bernie Goldberg being interviewed about what he calls the "lame-stream media" (and apt moniker, in my opinion) and how they are again going after Sarah Palin. He said something I thought was profound. The reason, he suggests, that liberals so absolutely hate Sarah Palin, why you never hear the feminist groups like NOW come to her defense, is because Sarah is the most talked-about woman in the world, draws tens of thousands wherever she appears....and she's not one of THEM. I think he nailed it.

It's not just the liberals who go after her, either. It's a good many so-called conservatives. She is the face of the schizm that has opened in the Republican Party. What you have is the Old School Republicans, mostly from the northeast and the beltway, who have sat on their fat butts, pontificating about various fiscal issues, all the while hypocritically raping this nation and their own party, figuratively speaking. They lack almost all integrity, but they've owned the party for decades. But after 8 years of George Bush, who essentially sold true conservatives out, but just wasn't liberal enough for the leftist fanatics, the Republican Party quickly lost favor and support from those who had long-been members. I count myself as an example. Toward the end of Bush's first term I ceased membership. There were no real conservatives left in charge.

Then here came John McCain. Democrat-lite. There is no conservative who felt the drive to get behind him. That is, not until Sarah Palin came on the scene. She is the only reason that McCain didn't get trounced as badly as he could have. And now who still gets a lot of air play? Does anyone really care what John McCain has to say? I certainly don't.

So, what we have now are liberals of any flavor clinging to the Democratic Party. They are political strumpets, as far as I'm concerned, and are about as shallow as one can get. We also have people who still hold significant ownership of the Republican Party who are almost as shallow, and are mostly fiscal conservatives but either socially liberal or they simply don't care about social issues. Both of these groups predictably agree on one argument: If the Republican Party wants to make a go of it, it must be more "inclusive" and more "moderate".

And they are WRONG. I need only point to the New York 23rd District race to make my case. The Old School cancer that infects the Republican Party backed the wrong candidate, Scozzafava, who was objectionable as Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter. Let me give you a question to ask yourself: What is the purpose of having two political parties if we say they should both be "moderate"? Do you know what Jesus said about being lukewarm? I'm convinced that what we are seeing is the lukewarm being spit out...the truly hot and cold are becoming more defined. The best thing that has happened to conservatives is Barrack Obama. He is so blatantly liberal, so clearly socialist (bordering on fascist) that he creates a stark difference from a true conservative. People who actually like what he's doing to this country will NOT settle for lightweight liberalism that so-called "moderate" Republicans might sell themselves off as. And, increasingly, conservatives are not going to settle for the "lesser of two evils" by choosing a RINO. I, for one, would rather keep losing on principle, sticking to my philosophy as a conservative and as a Christian.

We're seeing rumblings that the independents who swallowed the tainted bait of the Obama campaign are experiencing buyers remorse. The TEA parties, which are still going on, and the town hall meetings are proof enough of the backlash. People are asking, "Why are Obama and the Democrats pushing so hard to get junk legislation through on all these social and fiscal issues SO quickly, not giving anyone enough time to read it, much less seriously debate it?" Because that's been the plan all along. Get strong majorities and ram all this in, knowing that once a program has begun in government it's almost impossible to remove. Impossible because once people are dependent on it you don't dare take them off "life support". This is a fact, people. Obama and the Democrats are very aware that we are waking up to the reality of the socialist country and they know their time is running out. They stand a serious chance of losing a number of seats in both the House and Senate, even if not enough to lose majorities, in the 2010 election. And by the time 2012 comes around and people start to feel the deadly effects of all this social and fiscal destruction they'll be ready to repeat 1994 all over again. So, yes, they have to act quickly and with an eye only on short-term impunity.

So, Sarah Palin has a chance to start to build her street creds now that she's riding the book tour. She's got an important interview coming up with Bill O'Reilly, who typically doesn't pull punches. He'll press her on important issues to see if she's learned from her experience with the likes of Couric. She has to nail this one if she's going to keep any aspirations of political office alive. She doesn't have the excuse of the poor handlers she was saddled with during the McCain campaign. It's all on her now.

I'm praying for her. I'm still convinced she's got the core, the gut instinct to be a better President than the Marxist In Chief. But she's got to get serious about her homework. If not, then Sarah Palin will be an interesting footnote in 21st century politics.

The Fallacy Of Socialism

I've seen a scary number of people--usually youth--who, when confronted by those of us who understand we're headed full-speed into socialism, seem to find no problem with it. When you try to explain to them that government--any government--is simply incapable of running social programs well, they can't comprehend it. You can't use logic with them because all they can see is the false perception that deep pockets spread wide should be able to solve most problems. Added to this is the fact that our public school system is hugely negligent in the field of teaching history, relying on revisionist propaganda or all-out omissions to keep people ignorant of the foundation of our country and our government. If you ask them about Marx or Stalin or the USSR, you'll get a blank stare, a shrug of the shoulders and maybe a mumble.

I was thinking about why so many seem to be okay with socialism. All you have to do is pose this question to someone to see where their head is at: "Do you think it's good to expect provision from those who have ability, given to those who have a need?" Of course, those who are truly educated will recognize this as the following idea put forth by Karl Marx "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This forms the basis for a truly communist society. Socialism is a "half-way house" to getting to communism.

But there are serious problems with communism and serious problems with socialism. In fact, they are too numerous to list, much less go into great detail (but I'd be happy to take on anyone who'd like to argue a point). First, compared to our system of government (or at least how it was first created) and our economic system, no socialist or so-called communist country has every succeeded in accomplishing its lofty claims, much less come close to the success, wealth and standard of living of America. This is precisely why European countries are so determined to convince us to adopt their ways, and why so many liberals in America--including some of our Supreme Court Justices--want us to be more like them. They hate the fact that we ARE so much better.

Second, absolutely, without exception, no socialist country has made the transition to true communism--those in power LIKE the power and will never give that kind of power up. Make no mistake, folks, everything you see Obama, Pelosi and Reid doing is to use crisis (or manufactured crisis) to shift more control and power to the government. Already there are rumblings just under the surface of a movement to either remove term limits for President or at least grant more terms. How convenient for a President and Congress that very obviously has been doing things to grab more power over private industry and individuals. Under the most benevolent circumstances, can you name a single program or entity that government has created (at any level) that eventually got terminated?

Third, as you see it unfold before you, the liberal, secular humanist masses are creating a self-defeating system--but it's impossible for them to comprehend that it could fail. Obama has said it himself, that we should "spread the wealth around". And who, exactly, would be the agent for driving this societal impulse for magnanimity? Why, the government, of course. Naturally, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have frequently used flowery, inspirational words, catch-phrases, all meant to convince us that the way we can participate in this Great Compassion is to dutifully do "the hard stuff" of giving up more freedom, more of our hard-earned income, doing with less, so that those "less fortunate" can have a "level playing field". What a bunch of hooey.

Show me anywhere in our Constitution or the documents of our founders where government is supposed to guarantee a level playing field. One of the more frequent references the liberals like to use is the phrase "promote the general welfare". Ah, but their INCORRECT interpretation is "provide the general welfare". The two are wildly different. If you care to look up what one of our founders said on this topic, James Madison said, "it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms." In other words, "promote the general welfare" was general term that enumerated a very limited role of government. Promotion. Not provision, not the use of public funds for the purpose of provision. It is a gross injustice to say government's role is to provide universal medical coverage or any number of other socialist agenda items.

If you look at the social programs, the "entitlements", that liberals have hoist upon us you'll find that they are consistently based on paying for them on the backs of the "wealthy". You will consistently find this administration using terms that cannot be construed in any other light than class warfare. In the latest version of socialized health care legislation it looks like the effective tax rate for "wealthy" will get close to 50%. In other words, let's punish success. Tell me something: Exactly where is the incentive to succeed if what you earn will simply be taken away and given to someone else?

This leads me to my next point. The Utopian world where everyone lives in a "level playing field" (aka, communism, though you'll never get liberals to admit that's ultimately the world they want) can ever be reached, especially under the kind of administration and Congress we have now, because of two important things. First, for there to BE resources available to "those in need" you must have people who realize the potential of "their ability". In other words, you have to have "the haves" in order to support the "have-nots". Human nature is what it is, and you can never ever get away from it. It is human nature to strive to achieve in order to be rewarded for our efforts. It is also human nature to be lazy. This is a constant battle in all societies. Do you actually think that people will continue to work their greatest potential if the payoff will ultimately be taken away and given to those who either refuse to live up to their potential or somehow can't?

No, they won't. And my second important reason partly explains why. We are sinful. It is our nature to be selfish (and we are seeing our society actually become more selfish even as we present the facade of being compassionate). The only thing that ultimately could drive us to work to our potential, regardless of the payoff, is a relationship with Christ. Colossians 3:23-24 "Whatever work you do, put yourself into it, as those who are serving not merely other people, but the Lord. Remember that as your reward, you will receive the inheritance from the Lord. you are slaving for the Lord, for Christ". Now, this should drive all who claim to be Christian, regardless. But you see the problem is that secular humanists are systematically driving every reference, every reminder, every nuance of Christianity out of the public sector. Ultimately, they want you to keep your "religion" in the darkest recesses of your home, and nowhere else. So, ultimately, it will be impossible to sustain a system of spreading the wealth because one of the very influences that might get citizenry to work to their potential, thus supporting the "less fortunate" will no longer be there as an influence.

And, so, their answer is again government. I can promise you that the end result will be a gradual but definite lowering of the overall standard of living. This is proven by looking all over the world. No nation has the standard of living we have. Our poorest people are better off than the poorest in other nations. I'm not saying they are comfortable, but I am saying they are better off.

We cannot achieve the world the liberals have conjured up for you. The playing field cannot be leveled without bringing that entire level WAY down. You cannot expect people to be successful if success is not fully rewarded. And those who would live a Christ-like life cannot, of their own volition, bless those in need if they themselves are not able to achieve. When the Apostles decided to sell their possessions and give to the poor, there was no government program, there was no 'entitlement'. They each, individually, CHOSE to do so on their own, out of love...not obligation, not mandate.

Now Is Not The Time....

My friends, now is not the time to let up. Yes, there were a few nice turnarounds in the elections that just happened. Yes, it provides a little encouragement that maybe so-called independents are experiencing buyers' remorse about last year's election and realize their mistake.

But here's what else it has done: It has scared the pants off of Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the socialists. You cannot use sensible arguments with people like them, nor with their supporters. They are driven exclusively by ideology and emotion. When backed into a corner, faced with the obvious, they will do exactly the opposite that a wise person would do. They are preparing to use any legislative, parliamentary trick they can to take their 2000 page socio-fascist behemoth of a health care bill and get it up to the President for signature. Being faced with the prospect that they may actually be out of power in 2010, they will wreck their careers just to get as much of their agenda passed as possible---socialized medicine, cap and tax, etc--mark my words.

Wise people have applied quite a bit of pressure, publicly, to slow down this train wreck. DO NOT LET UP! To that end, it is important that everyone call their Representatives and Senators on Thursday and Friday of this week and tell them NOT to support this legislation. There is another huge tea party scheduled in D.C. this week for this purpose. Go there if you can. If you can't, don't let this week pass without your Congressmen hearing from you!

All up thrifty folks who have health spending accounts are going to get taxed under Dem plan!

When Will We Get Disgusted?

I know I've been quiet for a bit--a lot of work lately teaching various scuba classes, a short dive vacation up at Balmorhea, and a lot of great things going on at church and with Living Water Sound. But there are so many ridiculous things going on with our government that I absolutely have to post.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid, I'm nearly convinced, are now SO DESPERATE to get their socialized health care system off the block that they are literally making things up as they go! Anyone who actually cares about this nation, about a government takeover (either incrementally or lock-stock-and-barrel) should be watching closely to what these deceivers are doing. Pelosi has gone so far as to blatantly offer up a different name for their so-called "public option" just to try to get you to go along with it. They are quite literally going back and forth from committee (behind closed doors, and not sharing the documents) with little bits and pieces just to try to sway opponents in Congress to the dark side. This is amazingly stupid!

Here's what you need to know, folks. One way or another the socialists want the government to have the upper hand in health care with the ultimate goal of enslaving the entire nation to it. I'm sorry if you can't see this, but it is a fact. They have done nasty things like hide huge chunks of the necessary costs by moving them over to other programs, all in an effort to bring down the bottom line---as far as you know. Let me explain what this is like: You negotiate to buy a car for 20% less, only to find out they simply moved that 20% onto some extra fees and registration they neglected to tell you about or only mentioned in passing. They are lying to you, people. That's all they know how to do in order to get their plantation started

The latest version of their public "option" is one that allows states (not you) to opt out. That sounds good on the surface, right? Well, not to me since I don't believe the government should have it's hands in this to begin with. But here's the rub...let's say my great state of Texas decides to opt out, meaning we all just play amongst ourselves with the various insurance plans that exist for us. Do you, for one second, believe we still won't be paying taxes to cover the cost of the "public option"? I have news for you, we absolutely will have the taxes confiscated from us. Kind of like school taxes---my wife and I never had kids and yet we see our school taxes go up every year with very little to show for it (I'll resist the urge to get into why we should go to a voucher system). Now, do you think states will likely opt out? Probably not, and the reason for that is they wouldn't want to miss out on their piece of that tax pie.

One of the biggest scams in these health care plans is the idea that it's really "optional". If the government is able to set artificial limits on fees and services, knocking down what doctors get paid, and subsidize large elements, do you really think any of the insurance plans could compete? It's laughable that Pelosi and Reid call it "fair competition". It is unethical at the least that private business should have to compete with the government when the government is able to stack the deck in its favor! It is an outright lie to call it competition.

The latest numbers show that the alleged "deficit neutral" status given to the latest plan is actually a falsehood. The plan is to start taxing you immediately (who will get taxed or "surcharged" and by how much is affecting more people by the day) and building up a reserve so that once the actual benefits are enacted they will have a buffer! How much of a deceit is that? It's like putting away $10,000 toward a $50,000 car and bragging how you only had to make $40,000 in car payments.

I have been listening to shows by Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and they've both been doing "man on the street" type events. Almost without variation these people who were interviewed voted for Obama and had no real idea what the health care issues were. One young lady, when asked, simply said, "Health care sucks right now". Could she articulate why? Nope. "It just sucks, that's all". When asked if she wanted universal health care she said, "Yes, I think everybody should have free medical care". Free? Seriously? She thinks it can be free? Then she was asked if she should pay for someone else's care, she said no, they should get their own. Hypocrite? Should someone pay for her to have health care? Her reply, "Sure, yes". By the time the conversation ended she had admitted what I believe is the typical mindset amongst liberals: Everyone should have coverage, including her, but she shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's, even though they were paying for hers.

Scary. Typical.

Please contact your Congressional representatives and tell them to cease and desist with this health care plan.

Does it need some repair? Yes. Does it need the government controlling most or all aspects? Absolutely not.

Let's Look At Obama's Health Care Speech, Shall We?

Okay, if you can stomach the length, I'm going to endeavor to pick apart the President's address to Congress on health care. If you have drunk the kool-aid, then it won't matter what facts I point out, you can't handle the truth. So, here goes. In blue text is what Obama said.

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse. This is almost true (with some rounding up) -- as far as it goes. The fact is that for Dec-Feb we lost 681k, 655k and 651k. We lost 663k in Mar, 563k in Apr, 532k in May, 467k in June, 247k in July and 298k in August. However, our financial system was NOT on the verge of collapse. The Obama administration, true to it's now famous mantra, did not let a good crisis go to waste. Without going into a big course in the economics of how banks and securities are handled, the false assumption rests on the failure of AIG. The problem with AIG was that they were UNIQUE in the industry in that they previously had such a high rating that they could rack up numerous derivative trades WITHOUT posting collateral (thus, they were unsecured). All the counterparties that traded with AIG had to post collateral. Ultimately, in the "six degrees of separation", only the largest of AIGs counterparties would have potentially suffered failure, while avoiding wave after wave of the "contagion". It was unnecessary to waste taxpayer money--money the government didn't really have--to stop a crisis that wasn't going to happen.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them -- (applause) -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink. (Applause.) First off, his plan hasn't created any real jobs. His plan has arguably created some pet projects, but not any real JOBS. After selling us a bill of goods and discovering no real jobs were being created he switched tactics (a practice he's made very common now) and claimed he SAVED millions of jobs. Of course, this is a claim he cannot prove. It's funny that he remarks about making sure responsible homeowners can stay in their homes even though his plan dumps money into situations where the homeowners are anything but responsible, forgetting the fact that Barney Franks and Chris Dodd were party to the most disgusting travesty (and still ARE) by pushing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to put the squeeze on lenders to continually lower their lending standards. The greed of millions of people coupled with the socialistic irresponsibility of both Democrats and many Republicans set in motion a house of cards that the few responsible politicians working to place regulations in play that might have prevented or reduced the effect of the problem were completely stonewalled out of. What angers me is that Obama actually believes that he and his cronies "pulled the economy back from the brink". The fact is, if you look at what Obama's little chart showed the expecations were if nothing was done versus what he projected his plan to do, the reality is that our condition quickly grew SIGNIFICANTLY worse than EITHER. Where he told us unemployment would peak and start to decline is actually much higher than what it would have been had we done nothing and it's peaking at about the same amount of time. So, his actions have PROLONGED the situation rather than helped it.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who've taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. (Applause.) So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future -- and that is the issue of health care. Meaningless blathering. Wasting airtime.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. (Applause.) It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session. (Applause.) Again wasting airtime talking about historical references that mean nothing to our current discussion.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge -- year after year, decade after decade -- has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover. Just because he says these "failures" led us hear doesn't mean anything like that is actually true. He offers no real causal link. However, socialists will believe it ad hoc, and those who are smitten with the man will believe it because they have no sense. Now, some of his examples are accurate, regarding some who don't have health insurance. But it is a fallacy to believe that all or even most of the uninsured are actually one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. It's simply isn't true. Many have something akin to health savings plans--which is not counted as insurance--and are quite prepared for most health care needs. Most of the more significant "accidents" result from automobile injuries, for which insurance does provide coverage. Now, it's true that many insurance companies have stipulations about previous conditions. This is a valid complaint, but one that can be solved WITHOUT resorting to socialized medicine or a complete overhaul of the health care system.

We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone. Check your social studies, Mr. President...we're a Republic, not a Democracy. If we were a Democracy we'd have already voted down your preposterous socialized program (since polls show most Americans are against it). Lucky for you we are a Republic. Anyway, where exactly are the proven statistics that "millions" are truly experiencing real hardship? Also, notice that we've unceremoniously moved from the original issue he and his cronies trumpeted, which was reforming health CARE, to now reforming health INSURANCE. Obama, again, changes tactics. Another lie here is that there are 30 million who CANNOT get coverage. First, of that 30 million if you remove those who choose not to have coverage at all and those who are between jobs and choose to gamble there won't be an issue between coverage, the figure is closer to 20 million who DON'T have coverage (not that they CAN'T get coverage). Of those who choose to not have coverage, millions of those can afford it. Millions of others can afford to pay outright for medical services without insurance. The REAL numbers of who truly cannot get coverage are still likely in the millions, but nowhere near where Obama would like you to believe. As for the 14,000 who "every day" lose coverage, that's a red herring, too. Their numbers include those who drop coverage even for a few days while switching to another policy or switch to some sort of medical savings plan or simply choose to drop coverage for reasons that have nothing to do with affordability.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day. Fluffy, scary words, but no numbers or facts to back up this statement. Add to this the fact the he's again referring to insurance and not health care itself, and we see the master of misdirection at work. Where is there any rationale for universal health care? It doesn't exist. How many actually "worry" they'll lose coverage? Many people "worry" about a lot of things with little basis. Worrying about losing coverage doesn't diminish the fact that THEY HAVE COVERAGE.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America. (Applause.) Now he brings out some anecdotes as to how mean the insurance companies are--but not a word about our health care. Also, you can only be dropped from coverage if you actually obtained your policy through fraud.

Then there's the problem of rising cost. We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers -- especially small businesses -- are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally -- like our automakers -- are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it -- about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care. Now we finally switch to the costs of health care. Does he give reasons why we allegedly spend 1.5 times more than other countries? No. This is because the socialist countries are spreading the costs, limiting services--particularly the more costly ones. The quality of their health care is less than ours, so naturally ours would cost more regardless. He also doesn't mention that the obscene proliferation of medical lawsuits, the bread and butter of too many lawyers, create insanely large malpractice insurance costs and drives doctors and hospitals to engage in defensive medicine rather than prescriptive medicine. He goes on to tell us that this is why "so many" aspiring entrepreneurs can't affor to open a business. Really? Where is your evidence for that? I thought so. And how about that last bit about the automakers. Do you really want to know why they allegedly can't compete internationally (which is a topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or cost of our health care NOR insurance)? UNIONS. PERIOD. I'm in the Lean process/Six Sigma business and I've studied Toyota and how they run their operation. They don't have unions. Their workers make good money, have adequate health care, and the company has cash reserves to keep them operating for years....and no unions.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. (Applause.) So, your solution is to jump the deficit up another couple of trillion dollars with another bloated, inefficient, bureaucratic nightmare that will enslave the country to your socialistic agenda? Maybe your true-believers are foolish enough to follow that blindly, but I am not. Our "deficit problem" isn't the health care system. It's the ludicrous TARP and the continue pork you're spending that is achieving no demonstrative results in fixing the economy.

Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. They aren't facts and more and more of us DO dispute your claims. However, we CAN agree that some kind of reform is needed. But we not only disagree on HOW, but on what the definition of "system" is. And, by our words, you can't seem to settle on what the "system" is, either. I happen to believe in the 80/20 rule. Many of us intelligent citizens understand that the 20 is probably TORT REFORM and competition of insurance companies---NATIONALLY.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's -- (applause) -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. Talk about an outright lie....we have you on YouTube telling us you absolutely want the single-payer system and how you could make it happen. And I don't know a single person who favors junking employe-based systems. What we DO favor is as many competing systems as possible, whether that's employer-based, HMOs, individuals, whatever---except government run. Open the competition up so that we can get coverage from policies in other states.

I've said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. (Applause.) And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months. This would be funny if it weren't so irresponsible and dangerous. Suddenly he's disconnecting himself from the plan and the work that HIS party has been plugging away at, as if he's been quietly sitting in a corner. That's complete poppycock. You'll notice later he refers to "OUR PLAN". You can't have it both ways---you're either lying now or later in your speech. Either way, it's another of your lies.

During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. I'd argue--as most of us would--we've only been seeing the worst.

We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been. Excuse me? Thoughtful ideas? No, sir, they have not been thoughtful ideas. They have been nefarious efforts to gain more power, shut out private industry and get Americans beholden to "a benevolent government". The support from doctors, etc., that you mention is a fallacy as well. He's craftily making you think that the "coalition" supports his plan, but the fact is they support SOME DEGREE of reform of the system....just not a government-run one. As for the 80 percent agreement, that's misdirection, too. Depending on how you word it you just about guarantee that any group can agree on 80 percent that health costs need to be lowered, insurance needs some addressing and lawsuits need to be contained...that's general enough. The kicker is the HOW. I doubt seriously he's got anything close to that on the HOW. By the way, Mr. President, you only need 60%....or 51% if you cheat and break the Constitution.

But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned. Yes, if people disagree with you, particularly conservatives, it's a partisan spectacle, but if it's those who agree with you getting rowdy then it's grassroots. The unyielding ideological camps is as true for you and your cronies---every single amendment or suggestion the Republicans have submitted have been summarily dismissed by your folks. Get off your high horse, you're as guilty as the ones you accuse. The confusion that has reigned is all yours to own, sir. You have not led, and you've been as guilty of scare tactics as anyone....care to visit YouTube again?

Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. (Applause.) Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care. Now is the time to deliver on health care. The time has passed, yet you continue to play games. You were never interested in ideas from anyone else, demonstrated by all the actions you have already taken since being in office, and by such statements as "we've won, so get over it". I didn't send you there, by the way. What you're really saying is that those who disagree need to simply agree and let you move on. Real compromise has demonstrably NOT been in your vocabulary, and as far as you're concerned there ARE no "best ideas" coming from the right.

The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. (Applause.) It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody including employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen, from Democrats and Republicans -- and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election. Translation: this is going to cost HUGE and I want you all to be okay with spreading the pain. The fact is there's no way to pay for what Obama wants to get done without burying us in more taxes, whether that's an outright tax, surcharge or hidden within some other revenue source. Now, part of the hook here is that Obama uses so-called ideas from people like McCain to make you think he's really open to different ideas. He actually has no intention.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. (Applause.) Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. Notice he said what you "need to know", not what his plan actually is. Also, what followed is misdirection. Have you ever heard of an "offer you can't refuse"? If you read the bills you'll find, essentially, a bureaucracy and an invasive, overbearing system that makes it so that the coverage you have now is so laden with conditions and gotchas that you or your employer will ultimately grow angry, tired and frustrated and dump your current system in favor of the less useful but more hassle-free government option. I've read HR3200 and what will be set up is so painful for existing companies that I can certainly see why they'd CHOOSE to drop a private system.

What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.) As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. (Applause.) They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. (Applause.) We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.) And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. (Applause.) This means they'll work better for the government. I don't disagree that some companies take advantage of legalese and fine print to keep out out because of predefined conditions or drop you under the pretense of technicality. But this requires addressing insurance companies, not our health care system. MISDIRECTION. Also, we've tried placing artificial price caps in other industries before and it failed miserably. Why would we think it could work now? The fact is, all goods and services COST. And those costs must be paid. Either you'll end up paying them out-of-pocket or you'll end up paying them through payroll deduction. Most insurance coverage now DOES cover routine checkups & preventive care. But it's disgusting for Obama to say insurance companies will cover ANYthing at no extra charge. Just exactly how is this decreasing the cost of health care? This only decreases what you will pay at the moment, but it doesn't mean there was no cost associated with the checkup or other care.

Now, that's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan -- more security and more stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. (Applause.) If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves. (Applause.) Here we go with the "exchange". Besides being a huge new government entity with its own costs and inefficiencies, and one that will be able to dig into your financial records to determine what you can afford (aka, tax rate) it sets for specific benefits packages all participating companies MUST provide and at what costs. Ah, but it also sets forth minimums for NON-PARTICIPATING companies, and prohibits cost-sharing and puts a cap on what they can leave you to pay out-of-pocket annually. Again, services COST. If you were operating a business and couldn't charge enough to your costs because of caps, how long do you think your business would still operate?

Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. (Applause.) This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it. (Applause.) I've got an idea...why not institute these tax credits NOW? Why overhaul our health care system when we can easily revise the tax code to allow for these credits? Instead, the bill takes away pre-tax deductions for such things as health insurance or a medical savings account.

More to come later....it's getting late and I have some other work to complete. This should give you a breather for now...

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.

And that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. (Applause.) Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. (Applause.) But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

And while there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe -- (laughter) -- I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize -- (applause) -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (Applause.)

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.)

THE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause.)

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare. (Applause.)

So let me set the record straight here. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That's how the market works. (Applause.) Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. (Applause.) And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. (Applause.)

Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. (Applause.)

For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. (Applause.) And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. (Applause.)

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public -- and that's how we pay for this plan.

And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. (Applause.) Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. (Applause.) I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment -- it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. (Applause.) And that is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. (Applause.)

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies -- subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. (Applause.)

Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs. (Applause.) That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare. (Applause.)

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places -- like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania -- offer high-quality care at costs below average. So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. (Applause.) Now, much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.

Now, finally, many in this chamber -- particularly on the Republican side of the aisle -- have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. (Applause.) Now -- there you go. There you go. Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. (Applause.) So I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. (Applause.) I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. (Applause.)

Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. (Applause.) I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. (Applause.) And I will not -- and I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. (Applause.) And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. (Applause.)

Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. (Applause.)

For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. (Applause.) And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. (Applause.)

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public -- and that's how we pay for this plan.

And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. (Applause.) Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. (Applause.) I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment -- it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. (Applause.) And that is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. (Applause.)

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies -- subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. (Applause.)

Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs. (Applause.) That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare. (Applause.)

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places -- like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania -- offer high-quality care at costs below average. So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. (Applause.) Now, much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.

Now, finally, many in this chamber -- particularly on the Republican side of the aisle -- have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. (Applause.) Now -- there you go. There you go. Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. (Applause.) So I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. (Applause.) I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. (Applause.)

Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. (Applause.) I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. (Applause.) And I will not -- and I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed -- the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight. And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform -- "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it -- would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days -- the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That's our history.

For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here -- people of both parties -- know that what drove him was something more. His friend Orrin Hatch -- he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient's Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.

That large-heartedness -- that concern and regard for the plight of others -- is not a partisan feeling. It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character -- our ability to stand in other people's shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism, but the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

That was true then. It remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road -- to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. (Applause.) I still believe -- I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that's who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)