Backroom Back Stabbing

As you know by now, witch P was able to get the HO version of healthScare through the congress over the weekend. There was a very interesting article in the WSJ, on page A18, which is where the following comes from:

"Mrs. Pelosi's craftiest political turn was a last-minute compromise to strip federal funds from insurance plans that cover abortions. The deal—negotiated by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak and supported by the National Right to Life Committee—gave cover to 40-some Democrats to support the larger bill.

However, as subsidized costs soar, government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill. Is pre-natal life more valuable than the elderly? We're reminded of the way pro-lifers supported Anthony Kennedy over Laurence Silberman for the Supreme Court in 1987 merely because Mr. Kennedy was a Catholic who claimed to personally oppose abortion. Mr. Stupak played the right-to-lifers like a Stradavarius.

The real importance of the abortion uproar is as preview of the politics that will dominate every medical coverage issue if ObamaCare becomes law. Every decision of what to insure or not—when an MRI can be used, or whether a stage-four breast cancer patient can get Avastin or some future expensive drug—will become subject to political intervention over moral disputes or budget constraints. Heretofore, these decisions have largely been made between a doctor and patient. This is the real "right to life" issue."

There is nothing that bitch, and obviously, most of the dems, plus one so-called republican from LA, wouldn't do to gain more control and power over our lives. And, if you think the final version of that bill will be passed in such a manner as to cut out funding for abortion, I have some swamp land here in GA you'd love.

Fact of the matter is, I wouldn't be surprised if it (abortion funding) were in the bill crammed through over the weekend. They could have changed one passage in one section, on one page, just to appease the 40 or so dems, while it still appeared in several other places in the 2000 page document...would not surprise me in the least. It's exactly what I'd expect.

The WSJ article went on to end thus: "Yet 39 other Democrats were given a pass on the vote, as the leadership knows how unpopular this bill is in most of America. They know this legislation is not the result of some national consensus in favor of expanding state power. Its passage was possible only because of temporary liberal majorities that are intent on fulfilling their dreams of a cradle-to-grave entitlement state. If they lose Blue Dog seats, or even their majority, in the short term, so be it. As the party of government, Democrats believe they will benefit in the long run from a much larger government.

Unless the Senate has an epiphany of common sense, Americans will be paying the bills for this willful exercise for generations to come."

I couldn't find the author of the article...it was apparently in the opinion section. Here's a link to the article. It's well worth a full read. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574523613159447566.html

Can we impeach witch P and HO at the same time. Unfortunately, I haven't heard anything about impeachment since the dems called for Bush to be impeached. If there were EVER a reason to impeach, we have a whole damned house full now. This healthscare scam they're ramming down our throats could be called domestic terrorism, don't you think. Should qualify for impeachment.

Don't forget. The fight is just beginning, and the dems will be at it for years...they already have been.

Come on 2010.

Let's send the crooks home. We can't put 'em in jail.