Boston Tea Party Response to the Presidential Address to the Joint Session of Congress

Posted at BostonTea.us and emailed to contact.ipr@gmail.com

On Wednesday Sept. 9 President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to push his health-care agenda. He opened his speech by saying he “would not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them…those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive…(and) all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.” While this is admirable, it is not the job of the President to ensure employment, housing or credit for anyone; something the President himself seems to be hypocritical about, later stating, “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.” Which is it? Are we to be self-reliant individuals or are we to expect to be taken care of by the President? I say, as do many others, we are to be self-reliant and not expect anything to be handed to us.

No one will deny the “hardship” of those without insurance, but to equate insurance to “health care”; and the claims that a failure to act on 100 years of proposed health reform has “led us to the breaking point” is dishonest at best and manipulative propaganda at worst. For part of the last 100 years, Congress understood that they have no Constitutional Authority to get involved in health care. However, for the remainder of the past century, it is the intervention into the health care industry that has caused the rapid cost increases. Further involving the government will not cause prices to drop, as has been proven in the last 40 years, since the creation of Medicare; only by removing government regulations and opening the free market to true competition among doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and alternative medicines will costs begin to drop.

The President want to make it illegal for “ insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition; to drop coverage when (someone) gets sick or water it down when need(ed) the most; place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage (one) can receive in a given year or in a lifetime” and “We will place a limit on how much (someone) can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses… And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.” Increasing regulations on insurance companies will only increase costs, this proposal would be the equivalent of mandating auto insurance coverage for oil changes, tires and batteries; something I doubt anyone supports.

The President wants to mandate all individuals have and companies provide health insurance with “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,” any person or business not exempted would be required to pay a “penalty” – read TAX. One can only assume this “penalty” would be used to help cover costs of the “public option”, intended to “increase competition”, but in reality, it would do no such thing; only by allowing insurance companies to compete across State lines, will competition be increased. The claim that the public option supposedly would not be supported via ax-payer funding while at the same time “makes sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between” anyone and the care needed.

The President claims he “will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits;” without any detailed explanation of how this unconstitutional bill would be paid for, if not by using tax-payer funding.

In explaining past “reforms”, mainly the creation of Social Security Medicare, the President said, “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.”
I’m reminded of two quotes; one from Thomas Jefferson, “No matter how many sad stories are read or how many times Ted Kennedy is mentioned; don’t let your emotions get in the way of seeing this attempt at “reform” is nothing more than one more step towards unconstitutional government control of the health care system.” The other from Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”

No matter how many sad stories are read or how many times Ted Kennedy is mentioned; don’t let your emotions get in the way of seeing this attempt at “reform” is nothing more than one more step towards unconstitutional government control of the health care system.

Sincerely,
Darryl W. Perry
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://BostonTea.us
At-Large Representative Boson Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us
Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com

7 thoughts on “Boston Tea Party Response to the Presidential Address to the Joint Session of Congress

  1. Michael H. Wilson

    I’m reminded of two quotes; one from Thomas Jefferson, “No matter how many sad stories are read or how many times Ted Kennedy is mentioned; don’t let your emotions get in the way of seeing this attempt at “reform” is nothing more than one more step towards unconstitutional government control of the health care system.”

    I doubt that TJ knew Ted Kennedy, but not to bad overall.

  2. Michael H. Wilson

    Screw up! I should have placed the above piece in quotes and specifically noted that I was commenting on Mr. Perry’s message.

  3. Darryl W. Perry

    That was a bad edit job on my part due to being in a rush.
    The Jefferson quote should have been “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *