Rep. Wilson was wrong in action, but right on the fact

Was Representative Joe Wilson rude for interrupting the Messiah during one of his ever-more frequently given speeches last night? Yes.

Was Wilson correct, however, that President Obama was lying when he stated that his health care "reform" scheme wouldn't cover illegal immigrants? Yes.

We don't condone rudeness, but we do understand Wilson's inability to contain his outrage, as we would have become just as aggrieved if we had to sit there and listen to Obama repeatedly label legitimate concerns about his proposed socialist takeover of the U.S. health-care system "games", "bogus claims" and "scare tactics". In fact, we take serious offense to our thoroughly researched and genuinely-held opinions being dismissed so cavalierly.

A couple of other points in the speech that jumped out at us:

"A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session."

The fact that people are elected to Congress and subsequently never leave is a large part of our country's current difficulties. There is no reason whatsoever to have a person in office today who's been there since 1955, as that politician naturally will be hopelessly out-of-touch with their constituency. The people of Michigan should have long ago retired Dingell Jr.

"On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own."

Why not? Bosses don't pay workers' auto or homeowner insurance, so why should they be on the hook for health insurance? Employer-based insurance is a relic of World War II wage controls which should be allowed to die a quiet death, and people should be allowed to purchase insurance (or not, as they wish) from any company nationwide with pretax dollars. Problem solved.

"I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't"

How about fixing Medicare and Medicaid first, before you attempt to cram millions more people onto the public rolls?

"First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period."

An outright falsehood, as proved by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which estimates that the tab will be at least 1.6 trillion dollars over ten years, double what the Messiah is promising will be the final bill. There is absolutely no way that this scheme will not add to the deficit and overall national debt. "Period".

"Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse."

If you're so certain of that, sir, then again why not fix Medicare and Medicaid's problems first, then apply any savings towards a plan to cover uninsured people going forward? Because you know that there's no way in heck that cost savings alone will cover even most of the bill, and the American peasant is inevitably going to have to make up the difference by government forcing them to pay more and higher taxes once the system is in place and it's too late to go back, that's why.

Forgive us for being a little skeptical when we're asked to pony up even more of our hard-earned dough before seeing one dollar of these so-called "savings" (a task that should have been accomplished decades ago, by the way).

"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance"

We reread the Constitution last night, and we again failed to see the part where it permits the Federal government to force people to buy things they don't want to own.

"It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight."

If that's the case, then why were you forced into appearing before us yet again in a desperate attempt to gin up support for your scheme?

"So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today."

A token sop to conservatives that contains no specific details, just like the rest of "his" nebulous plan. If you really believe that he plans to follow through with this project, we've got a Nigerian general that wants to give you millions of dollars in return for borrowing your bank account for a few days.

"'What we face,' [Ted Kennedy] wrote, 'is above all a moral issue;'"

We will not be lectured to about morality by the likes of that man. Ever.

"You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom."

We'd love to see an issue to which Obama feels this way of thinking would apply. His actions to date certainly haven't illustrated even a single example.



There's plenty more to choose from to pick apart, but we think that we've pointed out the more glaring fallacies in the Messiah's arguments.

We've already called our Representative and Senators today, urging them in the strongest possible terms to block this plan from ever being enacted into law.

Have you?