The same argument applies to local government as well….they typically use the ruse of “consolidation” of services like police – fire – trash collection (and now healthcare) but it is the beginning of the elimination of representative government and ultimately a consolidation of power. It really is that simple – experienced it here where I live (it failed because it became obvious)

Sure it starts out by someone claiming how much money some community will save – but most don’t buy it- and shouldn’t – because the constitution provides for this representation.

So instead of numerous small government bodies exerting control over their own communities you have one person or some agency like a healthcare board or worse yet, a CZAR who answers to NO ONE “representing” many…….which ultimately (and historically) meant no representation.

That is one reason why people are so livid and rightly so. Seems the older folks who have experience in this area understand better than the 20-30 somethings with little or no historical perspective (or schooling) to rely on.

Mr. Obama is acutely aware of this fact which is why he is so rabid about passage of this bill. He now “promises” the bill will be passed despite the majority of people now not wanting it.
So clearly it is not about health care at all – it is about control. His.

“I have already remarked on several Internet fora the irony of having the same folks who have been claiming that abortion ought to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor now starting to claim (explicitly or otherwise) that every other medical decision ought to become a matter for your loving, caring federal bureaucrat.

Lenin coined the term for the people who don’t, won’t, or cannot understand the contradiction in such a situation–”useful fools.” ”

Just for some of you who do not follow: If in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not intervene between a doctor/ patient decision for a medical procedure, neither can the government step between a patient/ doctor relationship for any other reason, regardless of public desire for universal, national health care. To permit one would invalidate the other decision.

Just another wrinkle….

Think about it for a while…..

Florida State Senator Carey Baker and State Representative Scott Plakon, who this week filed a proposed State Constitutional Amendment (HJR37) as a means to prevent Floridians from being affected by any Federal Health Care Legislation. If approved by the legislature, Florida residents could be voting on it as early as 2010.

HJR37 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Floridians. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.

It states, in part:

(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system

(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

A similar measure, called the Health Care Freedom Act, has already passed in Arizona, and residents of that state will have the opportunity to vote on it in 2010. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that more than ten other states may see such proposals introduced in the coming session.

SALT LAKE CITY — Republican Utah lawmaker Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, wants Utahns to have the option not to take part in a federal health care program.

He says he’s drafting a proposed amendment to Utah’s Constitution; one he believes will get overwhelming approval.

“We’re going to pass a state Constitutional amendment stating that people will not be forced by the national government to purchase health care insurance and that small businesses will not be forced to provide them,” Wimmer said.

Voters, of course, would have to pass the amendment, and it would have to get at least two-thirds majority in the Utah House and Senate. But Wimmer says it’s worth it, no matter what comes out of the Federal health care reform effort.

He says it’s a state’s rights issue and that Utah has made good progress on its own reform plans. “We don’t need help from the Federal government figuring this thing out, we know how to do it and we’re able to do it far more efficiently than they are,” he says.

Such an amendment could lead to cuts in federal funding and to lawsuits, but Wimmer says it’s time states “wean themselves” from federal dollars and that lawsuits may be the only way to “turn the tables” on the Federal government.