Obama Makes the Case AGAINST Health Care "Reform"

President Obama, you may have noticed, made themistake--in that set up "twon hall" meeting in New Hampshire--of useing the POSTG OFFICE as an attempted argument FOR Feeral health care "reform". President Obama actaully tried to defuse the idea that it is unfair for the Fedral Government to set itself up in competition with private industry, since the Federal Governmnet seems not to care about losses (letting the taxpayers take care of those), by nothing that Federal Express and UPS have had no problem competing with the U.S. Postal Service. What President Obama seemed to fail to realize is that the United States Postal Service is one of the many areas where the Federal Government has shwon iteself to be INCOMPETENT. This is an argument against a new, massive Federal health care lprogram in several different ways:


1. The U.S. Postal Service is LOSING MONEY< and losing more money than it expected under management of the Federal Government. President Obama imself has said that the deficit canot be sustained at this level, and constitutes a MAJOR threat to any reocery Does the lack of being able to control costs in something like the Postal Service--not to mentioin Medicare--tell you anything? Of course it does. It tells you it is INSANE to try to insitute a massive new, costly Federal program at a time Federal spending, and the deficit, are already out of control.


2. If the Postal Service did not already exist, would you really want to "invent" it as a "competitor" to UPS, Federal Express and the rest? In what universe? Now UPS, Federal Express and the rest are far from perfect, but the idea that taxpayer financed "competion" to them would make sense is absurd. In fact, they rose as "competition" for the Postal Service because the Postal Service was doing a bad job. It is really the ooposite of what Obama asserts. It is generally the Federal Government that "needs" competion, or to just get out of an area where private industry can do it, because private industry generally AREALDY HAS competition. Remember, it was once an issue of how much Federal Express, and the rest, should be ALLOWED to "compete" with the Postal Service. Indeed, there is a strong case that the bankrupt P:ostal Service (bankrupt if it were a private company, as the new health care "service" will soon be bankrupt, if it does not start that way) should be lPRIVATIZED--sold to a private bidder which promises to keep up at least 5 day mail service (al the Postal Service is soon going to do).


3. Is the Postal Service planning to "ration" mail service? Of course it is--five day service and all of the rest. There are too many post offices "serving" too many small areas. The Postal Service should be contracting out services, and otherwise emculatioin Federal Express in efficiency. That is, of necessity, "rationing". Those who assert that a new Federal health care program would ot involve "rationing" are LIARS. No "insurance" can pay for EVERYTHING--including that therapeutic trip to the French Riviera. The difference between "rationaing" provided by GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS and that provided by the free market is CENTRAL PLANNING (not even theoretically a good thing, much less from experience with things like the Postal Service). Do you really want you health care under the control of FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS. That is where the town hall protesters have it exactly right, and our "establishment" has it exactly wrong. Federal bureaucrats impose a "one size fits all" approach, and it is THEIR SIZE. Town hall protesters have it exactly right., Sarah Palin has it exactly right. There is nothing worse that Federal bureacrats doing the "rationing". It is much better for the FREE MARKET, and individuals, to be doing the necessary "rationaing". Even if government regulation is necessary to help the free marktet (the exact opposite of what Obama is trying to do), that is best done with MULTIPLE approaces--in other words, by the states and on as local a level as possible. The more you CENTRALLY PLAN, with one approach, the worse off you are. The town hall protesters instinctively have that right. It is NOT a matter of single provisions in "the bill" (lol as to there even being a "bill", up to the moment Congress passes something without even knowing what is in it). What Congress and Obama are attempting to do is to leave all of these decisions up to FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS, while they (Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media) assert taht the BUREAUCRATS CAN BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. The Postal Service is a great example for that whopper, isn't it? The people at these town hall meetins are right. There is NO reason to believe that the Federal Government can be "trusted" to do things right, and with maximum efficiency. Experience, AND THEORY, say the exact opposite: That central planners NEVER have enough information to make correct decisions for us all, and that NO individual (much less a Federal Bureaucrat) is wise enough to make perfect decisions. Yet, when a very few people are making the decisions for the rest of us, with no real check on those decisions, a wrong decision is fatal. It is never corrected in time. That is the fundamental defect of central planning: there is no such thing as a perfectg dictator, and imperfect dictators (all of them) eventually must fail.


4 Just how insane do you have to be to hold the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE up as a model of why we need government "competition" for private health care companies--or government control over private health care policy decisions? Thsi blog has lpreviously said that President Bush and John McCain appeared to be MOLES--saboteurs whose goal was to destroy the Republican Party. I reeby raise the impossible with President Obama, who at the very least has confrimed himself as a comic genius by raising the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE as an attempted argument "for" health care "reform". Could Obama be a MOLE in the Democatic Party, whose goal is to DESTORY IT. What about Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid? If I were a Democrat, which I am not (although I am not a Republican either), I would be seriously worried about this.