SANDERS: Just do it, Mr. President

By RUFUS G.W. SANDERS, Register columnist Finally the time has come for this country to do what
Sandusky Register Staff
May 13, 2010

By RUFUS G.W. SANDERS, Register columnist

Finally the time has come for this country to do what it has been trying to do for the last 100 years: Pass a national health care bill that will ensure the bulk of the American public is afforded the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, might I add, decent health care. It is a shame it has taken this country this long to come to this point. Of all the industrialized countries in the world only America has no national health care plan. That is moral perversity, a travesty and a social insult to the very principles of democracy.

On Thursday President Obama, along with the Democratic leadership, met with would-be obstructionists to discuss what will be the most important social legislation in this nation's history since Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education. He laid out the most clear, civil, and fair arguments one could make as to why all Americans should be entitled to health care. If the issue of health care is not solved, this country -- in a very short period, like when the president was forced to infuse the economy with stimulus money -- is heading for major economical collapse. He ended the meeting by conveying to the obstructionists if they have a better plan -- then lead us!

It's no secret historic conservatives have always been opposed to programs which generally benefit the entire American people. They tend to represent the elite segment of capitalism who, many more times than not, have sacrificed the weak, tired, poor, hungry and disenfranchised amongst us to bolster their own status and philosophy of strong rugged American independence. By doing so, they have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy.

The president's bill, for sure, has problems. But it is innovative and creative enough to at least guarantee the subsidy of health care coverage for 30 million Americans who presently are without it. He knows the major concern in this capitalistic society is that insurance and pharmaceutical companies will suffer from government-mandated health care, but any thinking person also knows it's the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who kill us with exorbitant prices, along with their rules which discriminate by deciding who can live and who must die. The president simply proposes to regulate them before they begin to turn on themselves in the process of killing us all.

Then there is the fear this bill will really be about redistribution of wealth to the tune of $200 billion to help pay for the working poor's insurance. Well, to that I say: It is the working poor whose cheap labor allows 10 percent of this population to control 90 percent of the assets and wealth. Maybe after 234 years, we need a redistribution of wealth and power. When the obstructionists wanted to wage two undeclared wars at the same time, all while saber rattling with Iran and North Korea, we heard not one peep from them as to the astronomical cost of funding not only their folly and foolishness.

The president's plan would not only cover 30 million presently uninsured and under-insured; it would also reduce future deficits and control medical costs through the meager regulation of the industry. Most important is the oversight of excessive premium increases. He would alleviate the gap created by Medicare's drug coverage program which prohibits many elderly patients from paying for their medicines. He would even help states that say they can't afford to expand their Medicaid Plan.

The president's plan is not perfect and it is costly, but we must begin somewhere and we must start now. The obstructionists will not reduce the number of uninsured and they will not provide for affordable insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, something we all will eventually have. And they make no real provisions at reigning in cost. The independent office of the budget declares the president's plan really is the best plan, even with its flaws. But it will eventually reduce the national deficit by $100 billion.

So if these obstructionists are really concerned about real reform, they must put their ideas on the table. Stop being "busters." Give this guy a chance. He is willing to work with you.

Mr. President, this will be our last chance probably for some time to fix this thing, and it's in the best interest of our country. So go for it! All that it takes is a majority vote for passage in the Senate. You have that majority of votes. They know it. You know it! And we know it! So just do It! Pull the reconcilation trigger! Pass this bill! It's their health as well we are talking about. The day will come when they will need health care reform too.

Comments

Wes Poole

I don't believe it's an inalienable right, but neither is social security, medicare, or collective bargaining laws that get health insurance for workers. The question is: is it in our society's interest to find a way to pay for care of the sick?
This political fight is about who gets and how the profits are distributed. We need to focus on the reality that if hospitals and doctors are not reimbursed they cannot provide quality care for anyone.

mkb

the discussion has been good for the most part. Again it proves why Dr.Sanders is the most popular columnist in this little paper. Now people get ready for the passage of health care reform. Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest president of all times. He will have done what no other president has been able to do; not even FDR, and this is one piece of social legislation that we need. All of us.

6079 Smith W

factitious wrote on Mar 8, 2010 6:15 PM:

‘How does the assurance of heathcare NOT contribute Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? When does the assurance of heath care become a natural right? I hold that it does when it becomes possible.’

‘Inalienable’ means natural or from God.

How can health care be an inalienable right? It’s a man-made concept.

The Soviet Union’s Constitution made health care a right and the service was lousy.

By attempting to make everyone equal in property and consumption, socialism assumes that society is static. A static society is not possible.

Capitalism is the only economic philosophy that allows through one’s own initiative for the poor to become rich and the rich to become poor.
-----------

@ Edwin Ison:

I couldn't care less if BH Obama was purple with horns growing out of his head; the man's political and economic philosophies are wrong for a free society.

Edwin Ison

There is a faction who believes Obama can do no wrong because of his perceived skin color, there is also a faction who believes Obama can do no right because of his perceived skin color... they are ALL racists.

Factitious

Hmm. Unexpected; a contorted knot WITHOUT any explanation of how income tax is unconstitutional.

Unless there's a clause in the Constitution stating that it means what Jefferson says it means, the Constitution means what it says, and Jefferson simply states a personal opinion.

And intent only matters when there's doubt about the meaning of the words; even a lot of lawyers don't get this (or conveniently forget.) What part of 'general welfare' is hard to understand? The net net is the radical right just doesn't like it, hence the pretzel logic.

Bailey

facticious, you missed the target big time!

Jefferson stated and I quote:

Congress has NOT unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. – Thomas Jefferson

WHOA!!! Was that your liberal jaw hitting the ground when it fell open?

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

WOW! you slam 'radical conservatives' while your statements in light of Jefferson and others your a FAR LEFT SOCIALIST

Liberals such as facticious would have us believe that we NEED government control over our lives, while in truth the governement nees US to control them!

BTW, the wording of GENERAL WELFARE isn't what you believe it to be today. The GENERAL welfare of the people back then was the protection of TYRANY, not the provision of socialized anything. Jefferson put restrictions on section 8 when he stated

Factitious

OK, I'll bite; what contorted misconstruction of knot do you tie the Constitution into to claim income tax is unconstitutional?

Bailey

Jefferson elaborated on Section 8 and so did Madison. Since they wrote it and inacted it, I think it prudent to see what they actually said.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, BUT ONLY THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.- Jefferson

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which THERE IS A HOST OF PROOFS WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY ITS CREATORS. – James Madison

Madison and Jefferson knew that liberals would take advantage and try to control all forms of peoples lives and this is exactly what they were referring too.

In closing, Jefferson saw Obama in the cards when he stated:
If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson

Bailey

jusliloleme wrote on Mar 8, 2010 11:12 AM:

" ...Interstate Highway System is not a constitutional right either...."""

Your failure to understand constitutional interpretation is probably due in part of you never reading the document. But don’t feel too bad, 79% of ALL Harvard Law students admitted they never read it or was taught it in class, BUT THEY ARE THE ONES WRITING THIS POLICY!
The Interstate question: The founding fathers created TURNPIKES, which date back to the mid 1700's. George Washington was involved in lotteries to help pay for them. NOTE, income was not taxed for these projects. Fire departments were funded by PRIVATE enterprise; the policies were sold like an insurance policy, devised by Ben Franklin. If you wanted the fire department to put out your fire you better have bought a policy or they would just come by and watch it burn, it was their CHOICE.
Highways should be funded by taxes on vehicles and those who use them, NOT BY TAXING INCOME.
If you read the constitution you will find that the current INCOME TAX is NOT constitutional!
Today the liberals believe and have openly stated that they believe the U.S.A should bend our Constitution to fit the needs of other nations. With this thought in mind I see Obama as a LIAR when he took his oath to defend the Constitution!

Factitious

Rabbi, John Locke argued for man's right to the fruits of his labor, and that the right to property was a logical consequence of that. That gets misconstrued by conservatives as a defense of unlimited property rights for the priviledged elite even when it enserf the working class and denies them that right. Ironically, the Maxrist, too, supported man's right to the fruits of his labors, with an, err, somewhat different conclusion (which, of course, history has shown to be fallacious) as to how to accomplish that.

With regard to providing health care, Congress clearly has no Constitutional mandate, but with equal clarity is granted broad discretionary power to do so:

"We the people of the United States, in order to...promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -- Preamble

and

"Congress shall have power to...provide for the ...general welfare," -- Section 8 [Legislative Powers]

Right-wing radicals argue that social programs are unconstitutional ('intent' arguments) but if they don't "provide for the general welfare," what is? Subsidies for mega-corporations?

You can make reasonable urguments for and against social programs, but the notion that they're unconstitutional is Pure Poppycock.

You raise an interesting question (and answer in the negative), "Is healthcare an unalienable (sic, Declaration of Independence) right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How does the assurance of heathcare NOT contribute Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? When does the assurance of heath care become a natural right? I hold that it does when it becomes possible.

Rabbi

When the founders were working to create the government of the United States, they often referred to 'natural rights doctrine,' based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke. According to
ushistory.com, "Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away." The problem comes in identifying specifically what 'natural rights' are. According to businessdictionary.com, " Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government." So, the debate ensues. Is health care an inalienable right bestowed upon us at birth- are we born with the right to free health care? I would suggest that we in fact are not born with this right, and therefore it is not government's responsibility to guarentee it. It therefore is a commodity to be bought and sold, just as anything else.

brutus smith

goofus, knowing your total disdain for women, it comes as no surprise that you would defend Massa for political gain. Despicable.

OMG.LOL.WT_

The post I referred to was by Golden Hill. I see Goofus was busy copying and pasting.

OMG.LOL.WT_

The No. 1 rule in the Discussion Guidelines is NO Personal Attacks. That is mostly what I read here. Here is a thought for the last poster: The Interstate Highway System is not a constitutional right either. I could probably think of other examples if I really tried but I only post so I can be attacked.

As to the article, I agree with parts and disagree with others.

goofus

Massa Hints He Could Rescind Resignation
March 8, 2010, 7:14 A.M.
By Jennifer Yachnin
Roll Call Staff
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) suggested on a New York radio station Sunday that he could rescind his resignation — scheduled to take effect at 5 p.m. Monday — after asserting that an ethics investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed one of his aides may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.

Responding to a caller to his weekly radio show on WKPQ Power 105 FM, a recording of which was made available via the Web site of local station 13 WHAM-TV, Massa said: “I’m not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o’clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That’s the only way to stop it. And the only way that’s going to happen is if this becomes a national story.”

During the hour-and-a-half show, Massa said that Democratic leaders are using the House ethics committee to get him out of office before the vote on health care because he voted against the House health care bill last fall.

“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, 'they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass.’ You connect the dots,” Massa said Several times during the broadcast Massa raised the prospect of rescinding his resignation if national news media picked up on his story of being railroaded out of office by Democratic leaders.

In response to a caller's suggestion that Massa disseminate his allegations by contacting Fox News, Massa stated: “I can’t call Fox News. You guys gotta call Fox News. I can’t do it. ... Here’s why. I’m in the center of this storm, so obviously I’m not objective.”

But Massa also repeatedly pointed out that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly referred to as the ethics panel, would continue its investigation if he remains in office.

“That’s very kind of you, but understand what that means for me," Massa said in a response to a caller who suggested he not resign. “It means that a group of lawyers are going to try to rip me and my family limb from limb. And you’ve already seen it in the newspapers. … It’s a piranha feeding frenzy.”

Massa said on the show that the ethics investigation focused on sexually charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year’s Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week.

The House ethics committee confirmed Thursday that it is investigating unspecified allegations against Massa.

Massa surprised political observers when he announced on Wednesday that he would not run for re-election in November. He cited a recurrence of cancer as the reason for his decision, but after the ethics investigation was confirmed, Massa announced he would step down immediately.

GoldenHill

Rufus needs a civics lesson. Health care is not a constitutional right, it is a good. The failure of some of our policy makers to make that distinction is going to drive this country into the ground.

goofus

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?
Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.
BY John McCormack
March 3, 2010 6:15 PM
ShareThis
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Taxed Enough Already

Does this man really believe the crap he writes on here...I can't believe anyone is this ignorant!

Bailey

MBK, why don't you go with Sanders.

Being an American is more than just being delivered on American soil!

thinktwice

November 6, 2012. A time for Hope and Change.

brutus smith

He was Democratically elected in November of 2008. Just a little reminder.

OMG.LOL.WT_

"Just do it, Mr President" After all, you are the dictator.

brutus smith

Ahhh mikel, the reason I started on Bush was because nick and goofball started in on Obama, like everything is his fault.

mikel

bs..what i said is "after reading your tirade below...". you seem to blame everything on bush. again read your rants below and they all start with bush did this and bush did that and its all bushs fault. the only way it can be all bushs fault is if we were a communist gov't where one person rules. however, that is not the case here. there is much blame to go around as being a democracy bush merely signed legislation that was presented to him.

brutus smith

mikel, please expand and tell us how we are a communist country. I'll be waiting for your explanation.

goofus

This left leaning vestige of american newspaper should have deleted Brutus's rants for no source. The register only deletes the opinions of the right and chung lee as well as country cowboy.

mikel

bs..after readng your tirade below i have come to the conclusion that we have been a communist country since at least 2000! i mean everything you said starts with bush did this or bush did that. the last time i checked by some of your earlier posts we are a democracy. that basically means that bush merely was a figure head that just signed legislation presented to him. bush didn't go rogue and do any of that on his own. even some of the most stupid things bush signed was given an affirmative vote by some chump dem senator from illinois. his name is ummmmm...oh yeah barack obamass. funny how you and your dem friends don't criticize him for his yes vote on every bill that was proposed to increase spending, decrease taxes etc. so, the way i see it he is as responsible for anything that happened since 2006 as bush.

by the way from my earlier post. the gov has more control today than ever over our banking system. the gov wants to pass national healthcare. so guess who thens controls and has unlimited access to our health records as well as who rations our health care. all thats left is the other 1/3 of our freedom.

brutus smith

. Bush Gropes Germany's Chancellor
""
While attending a G-8 summit, President bush gives German Chancellor Angela Merkel a creepy, uninvited neck rub. Watch video of the incident and view the frame-by-frame pictures

. Bush Can't Stop Thinking of New Ways to Harm Our Country
""
President Bush declares, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Bush Has No Exit Strategy
""
President Bush tried to escape from a news conference in Beijing after facing hostile questions from reporters, only to be thwarted by locked doors.

Bush Jokes About Failure to Find WMDs in Iraq
""
As part of a bizarre comedy skit at the 2004 Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush shows a series of photos depicting him searching for those elusive WMD's in the White House.

Bush Tells Brownie He's Doing 'A Heck of a Job'
""
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush tells FEMA director Michael Brown, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Bush Says 'Childrens Do Learn'
""
As a candidate, George W. Bush once asked, "Is our children learning?" Now he has an answer: "Childrens do learn."

Bush Reads 'My Pet Goat' During 9/11 Attacks
""
Bush sits in a Florida classroom on the morning of Sept. 11 reading "Met Pet Goat" to school children for 5 minutes after he was told that the second World Trade Center tower had been hit and that America was under attack.

Bush Caught Swearing at G-8 Summit
""
A microphone picks up President Bush swearing with a mouth full of food while talking to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the G-8 Summit.

Bush Bids 'Goodbye from the World's Biggest Polluter'
""
In his parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, Bush says "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter," punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock.

Bush Falls Off Segway Scooter
""
President Bush falls off a Segway scooter, despite the fact that it is designed to be effortless and idiot-proof.

digger nick

No worries Goofus, they probably idolize the womanizing old drunk old Teddy Kennady as their party idol. Or perhaps Slick Willie and the boys. Slam Bush all you want, he never embarrased the USA with his swinging schwantz like Clinton did.

With role models like that it's no wonder.

brutus smith

My God, the audacity of me pointing out troubled times in our history. For shame. 40 cracks of the whip and mean dogs. Oh wait, another part of our history I won't bring up.

Pages