The essence of responsibility is defined as, "The ability to distinguish right from wrong, to think and act rationally, and hence to be accountable for one's behavior." It appears that what this country needs more than anything else, is a respect for, and an adherence to responsibility, on everyone's part. President Barack Obama seems to think that if he promises a worry-free life to the destitute, he can be re-elected. I have no problem with helping the destitute, but let's not assume that the whole country is destitute (lacking in the necessities of life, complete poverty).
To aspire, to grow, and to accomplish, becoming a contributor to society, is part of the American dream. To believe one can dismiss the need for responsibility in society on the part of large masses of the population, is to diminish them as not worthy of salvation. It is to condemn the accomplishers to serve the ne'er-do-wells, and to destroy the very fabric of the American dream. Is that what Obama meant when he promised change in America?
With a Congress packed with his own party in both houses, he got a health-care plan, with thousands of pages, with votes from his party backers who voted for it without even reading it. His house leader Nancy Pelosi told us that we would have to pass it to fully understand it. Assuming it is as good as they say, I don't understand why in this government of, by and for the people, who passed this law to govern us, exempted themselves from it. Is it not good enough for Nancy Pelosi?
I suspect the true reason is that too many people in Congress, like Nancy Pelosi, do not, in their hearts, consider themselves of the people. I assume it would be a struggle to get them to approve an amendment to the Constitution that would state that they are not exempt from any law they pass, and they cannot pass any law that does not apply to themselves as well as the rest of us. America was never designed to have a ruling class, eligible for special treatment.
It is interesting to note what Congress could have easily done to lower the cost of health care across the country, but it may not have satisfied those who contribute to their re-election finances. Just imagine how a reasonable limit, say one million, on how much a person could sue for in a medical failure case could save. If you don't think someone should be limited at all, how about limiting the amount a lawyer can receive for defending a client in such a case. These 30 percent plus lawyer fees in a $100 million case are obscene. I haven't heard Obama objecting to any of those millionaires. One democratic presidential candidate thrived on them. A big cause of a doctor's expense which he passes onto the patient, is the cost of his insurance to cover lawsuits.
Then about competition keeping prices in line, why does the Congress say that companies who issue health insurance cannot deal across state lines? If that isn't a cramp on health insurance costs, nothing is. I don't know where Congress purchases its health insurance, but I'll bet a nickel that they didn't restrict the bidding to one state.
The problems of the country are the result of our acquiring career politicians, whose main interest is in maintaining their lofty positions, and luxurious perks. They do this by satisfying their donors who maintain them, and who profit by it. Our system has gone awry in both parties, who vie to get, or keep power.
A good start would be to vote out every democrat we can, as a step to limit the designs of the Obama takeover. Perhaps then the Democrats will amaze us all, see the light, and clean their own house of government controllers, to come back in four years and give the Republicans a fight to remember. I'm afraid that if we vote out all the Republicans and thus give the Democrats full reign, as they are today, we may not have any more elections. May God bless America.
Richard Westlund is a Collins resident. Send comments to editorial@observertoday.com
