Three cheers for Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.

In a blistering critique of the socialized health-care bill expected to be passed by the House this Friday, she said: "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."

She's fundamentally right – though she has taken a pounding from many in the media who see such rhetoric as inflammatory.

In fact, she has clarified the issue for many Americans.

Terrorists can only kill some of us.

But unconstitutional legislation that corrupts the very soul of America can kill our spirit. It can kill the rule of law. It can kill the notion that the will of the people is pre-eminent, not the will of some vaunted elite.

That's what she said. And that's what she meant.

And she's right in another way, too.

The long-term effects of socialized medicine – even when practiced in advanced and sophisticated Western countries – always leads inevitably to death, lots of death and lots of suffering.

None of this, by the way, diminishes in any respect, the seriousness of the threat Americans face from terrorists. That threat is very real. And few have been as outspoken and aggressive in pointing out those threats as I have been.

It is both an external threat and an internal one.

Let the world know your solution to tyranny and socialism in America with the magnetic bumper sticker: "IMPEACH OBAMA!"

Nevertheless, America can prevail in its struggle with jihadism if we remain firm in our convictions about liberty and the value of human life.

If, however, we willingly abdicate our commitment to liberty and human life, we have no foundation for opposing the terrorists.

Is it possible our own government could really pose a greater threat to America's freedom than sworn enemies?

You bet it is.

The greatest threat to liberty is always posed by governments that exceed their legitimate authority.

America was unique in the world for developing a system of self-government – one that removed the shackles from the people and placed them on elected officials. That's what the Constitution is all about. It's a document that strictly limits the power of the federal government.

When the government exceeds those limits, it always infringes on the individual liberty of Americans and the powers of governments closer to the people.

That's what this health-care monstrosity does.

Typically, government exceeds its constitutional authority in smaller ways. It has been going on for decades, maybe even centuries. But this legislation represents an audacious, wholesale power grab.

If it is enacted, things Americans have taken for granted like choosing one's own doctor, determining for themselves the cost-benefit of medical treatments, making personal choices about health insurance coverage and so on, will be liberties and responsibilities removed from them forever.

Your health and well-being will no longer be your concern. It will become the government's concern.

How many times do we need to see other nations make mistakes like this before we recognize how foolhardy such policies are – and how dangerous and destructive?

I had never heard of Virginia Foxx before hearing her indictment of Obamacare this week.

But I like her. I support her. And I suspect most Americans do. I also suspect all Americans who still cherish freedom and justice and the Constitution are cheering her on today.

We need more officials like Virginia Foxx standing up and speaking out courageously for what really counts – freedom and responsibility and the rule of law.

We need more Americans across the board doing that. And I suspect we'll see quite a few joining Virginia Foxx in Washington tomorrow.

After reading this article I just don't know what to think!  So many people are without any type of health care and they are working but their companies cannot afford to give them health insurance. Here in Cleveland that is the case for a lot of people.  I know many of them.   I just heard last night about a guy who was working for a company and his wife's health issues were so bad and cost so much in insurance coverage that the company let the man go.  Are we between a rock and a hard spot or what? I wish I had an answer to this. 

 The best thing to do would be to get the government out of the health care industry all together.  They mucked it up in the first place, and will only make it worse.

GOLDIEC:

After reading this article I just don't know what to think!  So many people are without any type of health care and they are working but their companies cannot afford to give them health insurance. Here in Cleveland that is the case for a lot of people.  I know many of them.   I just heard last night about a guy who was working for a company and his wife's health issues were so bad and cost so much in insurance coverage that the company let the man go.  Are we between a rock and a hard spot or what? I wish I had an answer to this. 

Magoo you can shout socialism doesn't work, socialism is terrorism, socialism is un-american. or whatever you want to the rooftops, but until you can produce tangible evidence that anyone can easily see to backup your stance,  it is just empty words with no meaning whatsover.

No meaning  just empty words.

All anybody has to do is look at the abject poverty in countries without social programs, and most will say they don't want that here in America.

Before SS, medicare , EITC, and other programs were introduced in America the poverty rate was 20.8 %  and the last census was 10.6%   that is half what it used to be and that is with a much higher subsistance level instead of abject severe poverty like is the norm in many countries. 

 That is called progress, not terrorism by most people.

The American way is opportunity for all, and severe poverty is NOT acceptable.

BJ and GOLDIEC, look at what has and has not worked from our govt's socialized programs.

Medicare/caid - did some good, but more bad as it is close to bankruptcy now. Check the projected costs projected by our govt. at the inception of these programs to the actual costs of these programs. I guarantee (almost) that if the real numbers were given to the voters we would have fought hard against the programs. (but we didn't look/see ahead)

Social Security - projected to be bankrupt in the foreseeable future. (I am quite sure the rhetoric was very favorable and positive at SS's inception also. My dad told me so) Why? The answer is, right now, we have let our govt. have access to the trust fund to make their deficit spending and our deficit appear smaller. And I use that "right now" example because we don't know if or how long the SS trust fund would have stayed solvent with the oncoming baby boomer crush because we let them steal the funds already.

So now let us put our health care system (reportedly 1/6 of our economy) into the very hands that have proved to be so very fiscally responsible with these other programs? Is it truly in the best interest of this country to give them 3 strikes??

Talk about the (fake) blind (govt.) leading the blind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will be kind and say idealistic nonsense.

surveybob:

BJ and GOLDIEC, look at what has and has not worked from our govt's socialized programs.

Medicare/caid - did some good, but more bad as it is close to bankruptcy now. Check the projected costs projected by our govt. at the inception of these programs to the actual costs of these programs. I guarantee (almost) that if the real numbers were given to the voters we would have fought hard against the programs. (but we didn't look/see ahead)

Social Security - projected to be bankrupt in the foreseeable future. (I am quite sure the rhetoric was very favorable and positive at SS's inception also. My dad told me so) Why? The answer is, right now, we have let our govt. have access to the trust fund to make their deficit spending and our deficit appear smaller. And I use that "right now" example because we don't know if or how long the SS trust fund would have stayed solvent with the oncoming baby boomer crush because we let them steal the funds already.

So now let us put our health care system (reportedly 1/6 of our economy) into the very hands that have proved to be so very fiscally responsible with these other programs? Is it truly in the best interest of this country to give them 3 strikes??

Talk about the (fake) blind (govt.) leading the blind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will be kind and say idealistic nonsense.

  Social Security had a surplus in the budget under Clinton, until it was irresponsibly spent by the next President on other things.

  Medicare does need reform to make it more affordable which eventually will be done, and delaying only increases the cost.

 I do know some people would prefer to just drop medicare, but since a vast majority of seniors depend on it, as well as so many single parents depend on it for their children, I don't see that happening no matter how much some people would like it to be dropped.

Sadly enough fighting healthcare reform is only going to make it more expensive in the long term as the need for it increases, more support WILL be gained to pass reform, so eventually it will get passed, but will just cost more.

Oh Barbara ... your historical ignorance is showing ...

 Social Security was introduced in 1936, unemployment about 17%

Medicare was tacked onto Social Security in 1965, unemployment about 4.5%

SS was brought in during the great depression, which the Federal Reserve created.  Now during the latest and greatest depresion, which the Federal Reserve also creagted, we are going to throw more money at a problem created by the government.  The poverty in other nations were also the result of crooked governments.  Socialism does not work. 

Barbara Jones:

Magoo you can shout socialism doesn't work, socialism is terrorism, socialism is un-american. or whatever you want to the rooftops, but until you can produce tangible evidence that anyone can easily see to backup your stance,  it is just empty words with no meaning whatsover.

No meaning  just empty words.

All anybody has to do is look at the abject poverty in countries without social programs, and most will say they don't want that here in America.

Before SS, medicare , EITC, and other programs were introduced in America the poverty rate was 20.8 %  and the last census was 10.6%   that is half what it used to be and that is with a much higher subsistance level instead of abject severe poverty like is the norm in many countries. 

 That is called progress, not terrorism by most people.

The American way is opportunity for all, and severe poverty is NOT acceptable.

 

Barbara Jones:

Magoo you can shout socialism doesn't work, socialism is terrorism, socialism is un-american. or whatever you want to the rooftops, but until you can produce tangible evidence that anyone can easily see to backup your stance,  it is just empty words with no meaning whatsover.

No meaning  just empty words.

All anybody has to do is look at the abject poverty in countries without social programs, and most will say they don't want that here in America.

Before SS, medicare , EITC, and other programs were introduced in America the poverty rate was 20.8 %  and the last census was 10.6%   that is half what it used to be and that is with a much higher subsistance level instead of abject severe poverty like is the norm in many countries. 

 That is called progress, not terrorism by most people.

The American way is opportunity for all, and severe poverty is NOT acceptable.

 

Barbara Jones:

  Social Security had a surplus in the budget under Clinton, until it was irresponsibly spent by the next President on other things.  That is absolute and utter rubbish.  They were just playing with the numbers.  

 

  Medicare does need reform to make it more affordable which eventually will be done, and delaying only increases the cost.  No, it needs to be abolished.  Anything the government tries to fix, only makes it worse.  Always does, always will.

 

 I do know some people would prefer to just drop medicare, but since a vast majority of seniors depend on it, as well as so many single parents depend on it for their children, I don't see that happening no matter how much some people would like it to be dropped.

Sadly enough fighting healthcare reform is only going to make it more expensive in the long term as the need for it increases, more support WILL be gained to pass reform, so eventually it will get passed, but will just cost more.  Get the government out of the healthcare industry, and costs will be reduced almost immediately.

 

 Magoo, whose ignorance is showing ?  LOL           And I would say that your arrogance is definitely unquestionable.

Good trick trying to divert from poverty faced by working people to unemployment, but it won't wash.

Medicare being introduced had nothing to do with unemployment,  it was introduced because only 1 in 8 of all seniors who had worked all their lives could afford medical care.

And SS was not introduced because of unemployment either,  it was introduced for securtiy for working people so that they would not face the devastating losses they had faced before.  As well as the fact that even during prosperous years many Americans although working very hard still had really hard times due to excessively low pay and were unable to save for retirement or financial setbacks.  

One observer called the 1930s "years of standstill," when "everybody and everything marked time." The confidence of Americans in progress and prosperity, so marked during the 1920s, suddenly vanished.

But hard times were not new, and many Americans had suffered even during the prosperous 1920s, especially workers in textile and mining industries.

 Unemployment had risen from 1.5 million in 1926 to nearly 2.7 million in 1929. During the 1920s millions of Americans were forced off farms by deflated crop prices, soil depletion, and farm mechanization. Yet the Great Depression of the 1930s hit with unprecedented force. Millions of Americans who had recently joined the middle class  lost everything......

This so called bill is a gigantic mess. How could anyone vote for it with a straight face, just to say they passed something.

Congress has been working on healthcare reform for about 10 years, so it is not a hastily put together bill.

It is complicated because it is a big job.

Congress has to bring down healthcare costs, get insurance coverage to working people who have little to no extra income for insurance, cut costs on medicare to make it more affordable, and at the same time continue to supply good healthcare to those eligible for medicare, and while doing all this they have to protect insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical device companies, pharmeucutical companies, medical research, businesses, and keep the cost of it all down to a reasonable as possible amount so that it is sustainable, to avoid big tax increases in the future.

 Currently the CBO reports show that the increase in the defict without healthcare reform would be a great deal more than it would be with healthcare reform.

We have been doing nothing and maintaining the status quo for years while the cost of medical care continues to escalate for everyone, as well as the cost of medicare putting an ever increasing strain on the deficit.

You can bet that there will be problems, and the bill will not be perfect, nor would any other bill be any different, whatever is done is going to trial and error, but with the cost of healthcare continuing to escalate we need to get the ball started.

Maintaining the status quo will only guarantee big tax increases in the future, because there will never be enough support to just leave more and more working people without healthcare as costs continue to rise, and the elderly voters are never going to vote to drop medicare since so many do depend on it. Fighting it will only cost us more.

Magoo, seriously speaking, you are an historian?... as but as much as I am an astronaut. Unless of course someone takes for real what they read on bogus news sites such as WorldnetDaily and has had a subscription to the National Enquirer since the sixties__ if so, then you are indeed an historian of..."nevermind."

Mr. Magoo:

Oh Barbara ... your historical ignorance is showing ...

 Social Security was introduced in 1936, unemployment about 17%

Medicare was tacked onto Social Security in 1965, unemployment about 4.5%

SS was brought in during the great depression, which the Federal Reserve created.  Now during the latest and greatest depresion, which the Federal Reserve also creagted, we are going to throw more money at a problem created by the government.  The poverty in other nations were also the result of crooked governments.  Socialism does not work. 

Barbara Jones:

Magoo you can shout socialism doesn't work, socialism is terrorism, socialism is un-american. or whatever you want to the rooftops, but until you can produce tangible evidence that anyone can easily see to backup your stance,  it is just empty words with no meaning whatsover.

No meaning  just empty words.

All anybody has to do is look at the abject poverty in countries without social programs, and most will say they don't want that here in America.

Before SS, medicare , EITC, and other programs were introduced in America the poverty rate was 20.8 %  and the last census was 10.6%   that is half what it used to be and that is with a much higher subsistance level instead of abject severe poverty like is the norm in many countries. 

 That is called progress, not terrorism by most people.

The American way is opportunity for all, and severe poverty is NOT acceptable.

 

 

Barbara Jones:

Magoo you can shout socialism doesn't work, socialism is terrorism, socialism is un-american. or whatever you want to the rooftops, but until you can produce tangible evidence that anyone can easily see to backup your stance,  it is just empty words with no meaning whatsover.

No meaning  just empty words.

All anybody has to do is look at the abject poverty in countries without social programs, and most will say they don't want that here in America.

Before SS, medicare , EITC, and other programs were introduced in America the poverty rate was 20.8 %  and the last census was 10.6%   that is half what it used to be and that is with a much higher subsistance level instead of abject severe poverty like is the norm in many countries. 

 That is called progress, not terrorism by most people.

The American way is opportunity for all, and severe poverty is NOT acceptable.

 

 

Hey Seti03, way to add serious "Buckley Jr." content. Thanks for the insight.

ya bob, magoo's "nuh uh," "government is evil," and "its a conspiracy" insight was really helpful to the conversation.

Seti03:

Magoo, seriously speaking, you are an historian?... as but as much as I am an astronaut. Unless of course someone takes for real what they read on bogus news sites such as WorldnetDaily and has had a subscription to the National Enquirer since the sixties__ if so, then you are indeed an historian of..."nevermind."

 

 

Mr. Magoo:

Oh Barbara ... your historical ignorance is showing ...

 Social Security was introduced in 1936, unemployment about 17%

Medicare was tacked onto Social Security in 1965, unemployment about 4.5%

SS was brought in during the great depression, which the Federal Reserve created.  Now during the latest and greatest depresion, which the Federal Reserve also creagted, we are going to throw more money at a problem created by the government.  The poverty in other nations were also the result of crooked governments.  Socialism does not work. 

Barbara Jones:

Magoo you can shout socialism doesn't work, socialism is terrorism, socialism is un-american. or whatever you want to the rooftops, but until you can produce tangible evidence that anyone can easily see to backup your stance,  it is just empty words with no meaning whatsover.

No meaning  just empty words.

All anybody has to do is look at the abject poverty in countries without social programs, and most will say they don't want that here in America.

Before SS, medicare , EITC, and other programs were introduced in America the poverty rate was 20.8 %  and the last census was 10.6%   that is half what it used to be and that is with a much higher subsistance level instead of abject severe poverty like is the norm in many countries. 

 That is called progress, not terrorism by most people.

The American way is opportunity for all, and severe poverty is NOT acceptable.

 

 

Barbara Jones:

Magoo you can shout socialism doesn't work, socialism is terrorism, socialism is un-american. or whatever you want to the rooftops, but until you can produce tangible evidence that anyone can easily see to backup your stance,  it is just empty words with no meaning whatsover.

No meaning  just empty words.

All anybody has to do is look at the abject poverty in countries without social programs, and most will say they don't want that here in America.

Before SS, medicare , EITC, and other programs were introduced in America the poverty rate was 20.8 %  and the last census was 10.6%   that is half what it used to be and that is with a much higher subsistance level instead of abject severe poverty like is the norm in many countries. 

 That is called progress, not terrorism by most people.

The American way is opportunity for all, and severe poverty is NOT acceptable.

 

 

Why do you question his knowledge Seti?  He's got book smarts that you'll never have.  He reads and reads and reads (and when the words are too big the Ronpaulians help him out).  He has worn out the pages of his favorite:

magoo, educated people, especially those educated people who call themselves historians, would always say "an historian" - no educated historian would call himself "a historian" - reading and re-reading conspiracy theory "books" and blogs doesnt constitute an historian.

I love Dr Seuss.