Monday, December 21, 2009

Obamacare, Bribery, and Election Fraud

Democrats got Obamacare past the 60 vote barrier in the Senate in the wee hours of the morning overnight. Funny how thieves like to operate at such hours. They succeeded thanks to brazen bribery and election fraud. Yes, election fraud

Without the fraudulent “election” of Al Franken, of Tim Johnson and Mary Landrieu in their first elections, and the illegal first election of Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey, the Democrats could not have gotten their 60 votes.

Elections matter. . . . And sometimes election fraud matters more.

4 comments:

Daisymoo said...

Just out of interest, are you against there being healthcare available for everyone, especially children from depraved areas?
I'm from the UK so am rather used to the national health service - it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing - I certainly can't afford to pay for private healthcare.
Therefore I can't get my head around why many Americans are so against a healthcare system that everyone can benefit from.
I also find your views rather fascinating - don't mean to make assumptions but as a Christian I'd have thought you'd support healthcare for the needy??

Mark said...

Thanks for your comment. My answer will have to be brief. Perhaps others would like to chime in.

Everyone will NOT benefit from Obamacare. Using the UK as an example, it would mean worse healthcare for most people, as well as higher taxes.

Most Americans look at Eurosocialism and do NOT want to go there.

We already have a lot of programs to help the poor. And Democrats often use the poor as an excuse to gain more power and take more taxes.

wannabe

Michael said...

Children from depraved areas? Which areas are these? How come I wasn't allowed to grow up there? I feel cheated.

Michael said...

More seriously...

In the UK, the option for private healthcare is still there for people who can afford to pay for it in addition to the fact that it is one of the most common employment benefits provided by employers. So it isn't as though it's a choice between NHS and nothing.

My understanding, (which is based purely on people's reactions in discussions about such things), is that most Americans would think all their Christmases had come at once if their employers paid for their private medical and dental care, gave them 4 weeks of paid holiday in addition to the eight standard bank holidays throughout the year, or paid for/subsidised annual gym membership, and so forth. In the UK, some of these things are standard while others are not uncommon. I just can't imagine an employer being so stingy as to only give 1 week's holiday per annum for a full-time employee, (and such an employer would rightly be prosecuted).

So for many in the UK, we cannot fathom the idea of opposing healthcare for people who do not have the right job perks or who cannot afford private care because, even if the NHS isn't brilliant, the alternatives are not rare. If, in America, the situation is different, then perhaps more should be expected of employers. The answer surely cannot be to stand by and allow people to suffer and die simply because they don't have enough money to pay for medical help.