Nancy Pelosi: Lawmakers Should Sacrifice Jobs for Healthcare

by the Left Coast Rebel

I've been blogging for a year next month. I've learned so much in such a short time. I've seen so many things that our 'leaders' have done being connected as a citizen-journalist, it would make your head spin. Perhaps I am still a bit naive, however. When I saw the Memeorandum headline from Fox News, "Pelosi: Lawmakers Should Sacrifice Jobs for Health Care" I assumed something entirely different. Now mind you, I am naive perhaps because my first assumption when reading this headline was that Nasty Pelosi suddenly had (the first) honest moment in her career. She was admitting that Obamacare would cost American jobs - as it will, millions, in fact. Of course I was wrong, though. Pelosi was actually making a reference to the jobs of Democratic members of Congress.

Yes, the jobs and careers of individual representatives are a distant second in Pelosi's eyes to socialized medicine. Perhaps this sort of radicalism is not surprising. Nancy Pelosi knows well that Democratic health care takeover schemes represent perhaps the biggest power grab that the Federal government will have ever accomplished. A permanent liberal-statist majority created by such legislation then is, for a statist - much more important than one election cycle.


  1. LCR- I am sure you said some good stuff in the post, but I couldn't get past that picture.

  2. You Americans are a funny lot. As an Australian, who like most of the first world, believes strongly in free basic healthcare for all residents, thinks that your much-touted phrase "socialized medicine" is just plain silly. It is fairly typical for American's to be totally insular, but perhaps you should research what the rest of the world is doing in this area before dismissing the concept.

    Every single person deserves health care. And given that fact, only a government can provide it.

    Elective surgery though, I agree that's a whole different story.

  3. Well it certainly flies in the face of "government by consent of the governed", don't you think? Certainly if they (the lib'rals) stand to lose their jobs by vote if they pass this bloated government plan, it means they don't really have the consent of those to whom they wish to apply that plan. Why is it that lib'ral socialists resort to lying, cheating and/or stealing to get their way? That oughtta be telling us that these people really don't have our best interests in mind. In this case, what *is* on their minds? (Hint: Control? Central government bureaucracy? Communism?)

    Great post!

  4. I am sure Brad is quite serious in his view of Aussie and medicine and his desire that everyone be entitled to free health care. Although, even the Aussie medical care is not "free". Someone is paying for it. But, after that, when I think about Australia and her contributions to the advance of medicine in the areas of new drugs, new medical machines, and new procedures, I am hard pressed to come up with anything. So, if Brad is satisfied with the state of medicine as it today, by all means advocate for the end of capitalism in medicine. However, if he longs for medical advances he ought to advocate the end of the engine. On the other hand, this line of thought has probably never occurred to him. Brad is a believer in magic.

  5. Nice Blog. I too am a California "Rebel". I am currently attending "Democrats Annonoumous", a group that treats recovering former liberals. It's interesting the changes I went through from my college years to being in one's early 50's and having some real world experience under my belt. Politically and socially I have evolved into a Constituational liberatarian. In response to our friend Brad from Australia, I must respectfully disagree. Brad suggests that "every single person 'deserves' healthcare". Of course Brad means government provided healthcare when he says this. Interesting conclusion Brad. Why do you think they deserve it? Why are they entitled to it? Serously, I don't follow you. Why?

  6. Brad - I've read the WHO 2000 report and didn't find a single thing to dispute the fact that US healthcare is the greatest.

    Also, luckily everyone in this country has access to healthcare, but not insurance. It's everywhere else in the world that operates the other way.

    Given the choice between access to healthcare and health insurance. I go access every single time.

  7. This strikes me as just attaching jobs as a motivation for or against a policy. For example, if we want to promote alternative energy, which is an important thing to do, you can sell it as "green jobs". If you're opposed to overhauling the healthcare industry, you say it hurts "jobs".

    Jobs are created when someone goes out, finds a need, and meets the need. That will happen even with bad policies. I bet jobs will be created helping people circumnavigate problems that spring up from healthcare overhaul.

    I'm guessing the subsidy portion of the healthcare overhaul will cost a few thsound dollars per person per year. People should ask themselves whether they'd feel more comfortable with increased gov't regulation of healthcare or with an extra couple hundred thousand dollars over their lifetime that they can use freely to work out their own purchases.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.