The health care reform battle rages on. In one corner you have concerned citizens who are hearing things about rationing of care, socialized medicine, etc. and in the other corner you have a liberal government that is willing to question the motives of American citizens in order to pass a government overhaul that, by the most conservative measures, will guarantee even more unsustainable spending. Let’s be very very clear… Obama says that his goal is to create a plan that is deficit neutral, assuming this is the case and he is able to create a government run health care “option” at zero net dollars (to be paid for by more taxes I assume), the current unsustainable federal spending on health care will continue rising. Right here is where every American, regardless of politics, must realize that Obama’s solution IS NOT A SOLUTION. The problem is two-fold, current health care spending levels and the actual health care Americans. The latter is not so much of a problem, with 87% of Americans reporting that they have health care and 89% reporting that they are satisfied with the quality of their health care (source here). The former is a titanic-sized problem, with increases in total federal spending reaching higher and higher levels, taxes will go up, borrowing will increase, and the burden on the economy in general will increase. So why is the government trying to sell us a plan that may reduce the number of private insurers that are providing good service and increase government involvement?

Which brings me to the town hall meetings that have Democrats calling concerned citizens various names. Particularly, I want to comment on the words of Arlen Specter (PA-D) when he said at a recent town hall that “in our social compact, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help.” What is he talking about?!? First of all, whatever social compact he must be referring to cannot be the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document do you find that our government is somehow obligated to provide health care to its citizens, in fact, the Constitution explicitly points out that any powers not given to the federal government fall to the states. Limited government was the intent of the Constitution, not a welfare state. Specter is way off. The only way that this statement makes any sense is if Specter is referring to some sort of Rousseau-inspired conceptualization of our society where the individual must bow to the “general will,” a general will that the Imperial Democrats in Congress and the White House will decide for us.

What Arlen Specter faced in this town hall meeting were people of all ages and probably of all political affiliations, standing up and demanding answers. We saw a young woman voice her concern that government creep into the economy will result in socialism. We saw an older gentleman in a very angry state because he was told he could speak but was denied the opportunity (until he made a scene). I couldn’t believe it when Specter said that he was in fact “defending” the Constitution by opposing warrantless wiretaps (even though Obama defends those very policies), bringing up the specter of Bush at a time when we are debating Obama, his spending, and his health care plans. The hypocrisy of these politicians is astounding. Bush expanded government and Obama is doing worse… was it the founders’ vision that the Executive Branch would one day be compiling lists of people who oppose their policies?

The only way for people to wake up in this country and realize that the 2008 elections do not simply mean that we take whatever the Democrats gives us is for ordinary Americans to stand up and be heard. To allude to an old school Democrat, Americans need to “give ‘em hell.”

-AG