Another day in the life of Congress leads to another exclusionary discussion regarding an expenditure of somewhere between a trillion or two (who’s counting) in the halls of our illustrious Congress. The absurdity of their ignorance is nothing short of astounding. They are working to saddle the American people with another expense that we simply can not afford through a health care initiative where details are in short supply, but why let that get in the way of a good spending party when there may still be someone out there that has not received Government money yet. The galling part of this is all the assertions about how this will be a bipartisan consensus, yet the Republicans have been shut out of the negotiations, and the lobbyists have been warned that holding any discussions with the GOP will invite retribution. Here we have another initiative that overburdens this country financially, and may yet facilitate our ruin along with all the other ill-conceived, power-grabbing, “We will take care of you” garbage coming out of our capitol. Unless Congress is in a hurry to press on with the destruction of our country, why not allow opposing voices to be included in the discussions? It does not matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or something in between, does anyone really think that we will be better served as a nation with such a monstrous proposal via a one-sided partisan discussion with no opposing viewpoints? I am not writing to favor one party over another, truthfully they both disgust me, but if we are going to put our future at such grave risk I want every option to be considered before they light the match that burns us. Regardless of your party affiliation, if the country gets reduced to ashes, we are all going to get scorched. No person or party has absolute control of all the good ideas and it is through the often bitter debate process and the airing of opposing viewpoints that drive to the best result. If we are going to embark on a huge initiative which could be our undoing, does it not deserve a full vetting of alternatives before we proceed?

This proposal has become a product of dogma and groupthink and passage is the goal regardless of its shortcomings or the destruction it will unleash. It is certain to join all the other Government entitlement programs that are currently sinking this nation, but why allow these simple observations to get in the way of an opportunity to waste more money? Oh, that’s right, let us steam ahead and help the often quoted 46 million who do not have health insurance but are obviously somehow presently getting treatment, what will change by destroying the system that insures the other 260 million? Let us ignore that the overwhelming majority of the 46 million are non-citizens as well as people that choose to not purchase insurance although they can afford it. Destroying the options of about 96% of the population to help out the other 4% sounds congressionally logical so they exclude all dissent to push it forward. Is it too much to ask for all alternatives to be considered before we embark on something possibly so detrimental that it will dramatically alter the future of America?