Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Calling Blue Dog Dems RE ObamaCare Just Got Easier--- (202) 225-

THURSDAY: PELOSI DEMONIZES INSURANCE COMPANIES
JUST SAY NO: MORE BLUE DOGS IN THE HOUSE (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER) WITH EXTENSIONS. DIAL (202) 225---- : (HAVE COMPLETED CALLING EVERY OFFICE LISTED BELOW AND ON MY RIGHT SIDEBAR):

Jason Altmire (PA) -2565; Mike Arcuri (NY) -3665; John Barrow (GA) -2823; John Boccieri (OH) -3876; Dan Boren (OK) -2701; Allen Boyd (FL) -5235; Bruce Bradley (IA) -2911; Bobby Bright (AL) -2901; Kathy Castor (FL) -3376; Jim Clyburn (SC) -3315; Gerry Connolly (VA) -1492; Jim Cooper (TN) -4311; Lincoln Davis (TN) -6831; Bart Gordon (TN) -4231; John Hall (NY) -5441; Martin Heinrich (NM) -6316; Baron Hill (IN) -5315; Mary Jo Kilroy (OH) - 2015; Ron Kind (WI) - 5506; Dave Loebsack (IA) -6576; Nita Lowey (NY) -6506; Betsy Markey (CO) -4676; Jim Marshall (GA) -6531; Eric Massa (NY) -3161; Jim Matheson (UT) -3011; Mike McMahon (NY) -3371; Charlie Melancon ( LA) -4031; Michael Michaud (ME) -6306; Scott Murphy (NY) -5614; Colin Peterson (MN) -2165; Jared Polis (CO) 2161; Earl Pomeroy (ND) -2611; Mike Ross (AR) -3772; Tim Ryan (OH) -5261; Herseth-Sandlin (SD) -2801; Adam Shiff (CA) -4176; Heath Shuler (NC) -6401; Zack Space (OH) -6265; Bart Stupak (MI) -4735; John Tanner (TN) -4714; Gene Taylor (MS) -5772; Harry Teague (NM) -2365; Dina Titus (NV) - 3252; Tim Walz (MN) -2472.

We can a difference, even as Obama, Emmanuel and Pelosi etc. are trying to ram this bill down Americas' throats---for the sake of 4% of the population---whether we want it or not.

7 comments:

Mike McNally said...

Webutante,

I share your views as a pro-life, pro-gun Christian, but on healthcare, I must ask you, "What would Jesus do?" I think he would ask those of us who have the resources and healthcare right now to sacrifice a bit to help those working Americans who can't afford health insurance right now. How can a civil engineer who claims to be a Christian not do more to improve our healthcare system? I know there are problems with the existing legislation, but there are more WORKING AMERICANS without healthcare than there are CITIZENS IN THE ENTIRE NATION OF CANADA! Healthcare for a family costs over $1000 / month, and government-run healthcare at Medicare and the V.A. is both BETTER and CHEAPER than private insurers. If you are truly a Christian, talk about how health insurance for every working American and child can be achieved - don't just talk about what's wrong with the other side. If you do, you are part of the problem, and a Christian in name only.

Webutante said...

Thanks Mike. You bring up some good points which I will address later in another post. I was unaware that the 4% of people here who could not afford or would not buy health insurance was equal to the entire population of Canada. I would have to question your numbers there. Will try to address your questions in another post. But my office time today is being used to make calls to Congress.

Jungle Mom said...

I do agree that as Christians we have an obligation to care for the poor. However, this biblical principle is to the individual christian and to the church, never to the government.
If we as Christians were doing more perhaps this debate would not have come up at all.

Webutante said...

Thank you so much for weighing in Rita. I agree.

fraydna52 said...

I believe that the body of Christ has given up its role of charity to the state in this instance. Why else wouldn't churches be providing the resources for care for the sick and needy? Oh, the government will take care of them, perhaps?


I must quote Dorothy Sayers here from something she presciently wrote in the midst of WWII (it's lengthy but worth reading - from "Letters to a Diminished Church", chapter 8):

"Envy cannot bear to admire or respect; it cannot bear to be grateful. ...it always announces that it works in the name of truth and equity."

" 'These services ought not to be a matter of charity. We have a right to demand they should be borne by the state.' "

"Now, you and I are the state, and where the bearing of financial burdens is concerned, the taxpayer is the state...When a new burden is imposed, the rich will have to pay most of it.

Of the money expended in charity, the greater part - for obvious reasons - is contributed by the rich. Consequently, if the burden hitherto borne by charity is transferred to the shoulders of the taxpayer, it will inevitably continue to be carried by exactly the same class of people. The only difference is this: that people will no longer pay because they want to - eagerly and for love - but because they must, reluctantly and under pain of fine or imprisonment. The result, roughly speaking, is financially the same; the only difference is the elimination of the two detested virtues of love and gratitude."

"What I see very clearly is the hatred of the gracious act and the determination that nobody shall be allowed any kind of spontaneous pleasure in well-doing if envy can prevent it. 'This ointment might have been sold for much and given to the poor.' Then our nostrils would not be offended by any odor of sanctity - the house would not be 'filled with the smell of the ointment.' It is characteristic that it should have been Judas who debunked that act of charity."

Webutante said...

Mike, I've checked and you are correct, there are about 33 million people in Canada and 47 million uninsured in the US out
of a population of 305 million. But as you can see below, when these numbers are crunched the number of citizens who truly can not afford health insurance---as opposed to those who can and choose not to---is only about 12 million people:

Here is a breakdown from an earlier post:

US population today: 305 million
Number and percentage with insurance: 258 million (85%)
Number happy with current health care plans: 271 million (or 89%!)

Number of uninsured: 47 million (15%)
Number of the 47 million uninsured who CAN afford insurance but won't buy: 20 million (6.5%)
Number of uninsured who can not afford insurance: 27 million (8.9%) mostly single, under 35
Number of uninsured ILLEGAL immigrants: 15 million (4.9%)

With these numbers confirmed, IBD concluded in a recent editorial:

When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million of US citizens are unable to buy insurance — which is less than 4% of a population of 305 million.

For this we need to nationalize 17%of our nation's $14 trillion economy and change the current care that 89% like?

******

As a Christian woman I can only say that I don't believe in any way shape or form that of the healthcare industry by a government takeover and nationalization by the federal government is the answer to helping these people. I also don't believe many of those who have no insurance go without healthcare, since no emergency rooms in the country can turn them away. Many, doctors serve these people and write off indigent care, as do many health clinics.

Today a great deal of basic care is provided by walk-in clinics at places like CVS, WalMart and Target. These are places I go and I have insurance. There are so many creative ways healthcare needs can better be met and we will find them, but not in ObamaCare, in my opinion.

Perhaps giving tax credits or providing public insurance option---like public education and public housing--would help solve some of the problem.

And as Fraydna says, the charitable world can also help, unless that possibility is taken completely away by the government.

Real answers are never going to create absolute perfection in a fallen world, Mike. Poverty has never been wiped out and never will be in. That's because programs to wipe out hunger, poverty poor healthcare are often administered by human beings who are corrupt and dishonest and use these programs to feather their own nests. This happens here in the US and is a major factor in aid to African countries.

Webutante said...

"More importantly, contrary to popular mythology, America does offer public care of sorts. It directly covers about a third of all Americans through Medicare (the public program for the elderly) and Medicaid (the public program for the poor). But it also indirectly covers the uninsured by--at least in part--paying for their emergency care. In effect, anyone in America who does not have private insurance is on the government dole in one way or another."

---Shikha Dalmia