Much has been written recently about the number of words in Pelosi's Health Care proposal. Nearly 2,000 pages and around 400,000 words.

Here are 47 words from the U.S. Constitution with which to compare:

 "Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

With the inclusion of "Mandates" on private citizens in Nancy Pelosi's Health Care proposal, does this not amount to "involuntary servitude" to service the Federal Government's "Public Plan"? I don't wish to purchase insurance - Government or otherwise - and the Federal Government will fine me? The Baucus Senate version of ObamaCare even has the stipulation that should I continue to refuse to purchase health insurance, I stand to go to jail!

Does my Government serve me? Or do I serve the Government?

Nancy Pelosi never fails to dazzle us with her brilliance! Perception is reality for Democrats, so she decides that the best way to get the American people to support Democrat's "Public Option" is to rename it the "Competitive Option".

As if!!

What would Nancy Pelosi know about "competition" anyway? She lives in a pretty safe district for her re-election chances. She and her Democratic (I'm sorry, "SOCIALIST") colleagues assail private business at every turn. Private health insurers earn as low as 2 to 3% profit on the policies they carry and yet that is too much for the SOCIALISTS in Congress.

These "Pelosi-istas" in Congress have for years railed against unfair business practices. They wield Anti-Trust laws as an axe over the heads of Big Business. In May of 2008, Maxine Waters told oil company executives she compelled to testify before her committee on high gasoline prices, "Maybe the Government should take over and run your companies".

Perception can be reality. But most conservatives in America realize Pelosi's name change for what it is. A cynical ploy using Orwellian "news-speak" to fool her fellow fellow-travelers.

These fellow-travelers rail against big business "monopolies". And yet it's perfectly fine for them to create and run one themselves. For that's all this "Public Option" or "Competitive Option" really is.

A Federal Government monopoly.

Mikhail Kalashnikovon his invention, the AK-47: "When a young man, I read somewhere the following: God the Almighty said, 'All that is too complex is unnecessary, and it is simple that is needed'".

You would wish the Democrats in Congress would heed these words when it comes to Health Care legislation.

But no.

Health Care Talking Points: Size & Scope

Why over 1,000 pages? Sure, there are issues with health care that can be improved – tort reform, portability, pre-existing conditions, and so forth. But liberals always seem to believe they need to “reform” whole sectors of society or industry to fix a few problems. A thousand pages or more??

John Conyers (Democrat from Michigan), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, publicly asks the rhetorical question, “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

First of all, for what other reason is this man in Congress - if it is not to write, read & vote on legislation? And if he is to vote on legislation, he has an obligation to read it!  And understand it! He took an oath to “uphold the Constitution of the United States” and he fails in his oath if he should not read the legislation on which he is voting. He has an obligation to his constituents to read and understand the legislation on which he is voting and which would then become the law. John Conyers’ constituents would be subject to the terms of this legislation which would become the law! John Conyers’ constituents would not be allowed a similar defense. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” is pretty standard law of the land.

Secondly, if John Conyers would require “2 days and 2 lawyers” in order to understand the legislation, what are the average citizens to do?  What are the doctors to do?  Or even the bureaucrats who would have to administer the law? Do all citizens, doctors and bureaucrats need to “lawyer up”? Will I need to consult with a lawyer before selecting a health care plan?  Will I need to consult with a lawyer prior to selecting or visiting a doctor?? The proposed Health Care legislation unders consideration in Congress contains no provisions regarding tort reform. The legislation seems to be quite the boon (a “stimulus”) for the legal profession.

Consider this. Have you even had a question about your taxes? And have you ever had to call the IRS or consult with a CPA with a tax question? It is likely you have. It is also just as likely that you have received different interpretations of the U.S. Tax Code for every different individual you consulted. It is likely that you didn’t receive one single correct answer.

What do you think the chances are that John Conyers was somehow involved in the drafting and passing of the U.S. Tax codes??

But why should John Conyers worry about retaining his job as a Congressman? His constituents probably can’t read their ballot without “2 days and 2 lawyers”.

Thank goodness for Rush Limbaugh!  On his show yesterday, a woman caller described how her primary care physician referred her to a radiology center for an X-Ray. Once there, she had the "audacity" (remember that word?) to ask what the X-ray would cost. She was told it would cost $269.00 (give or take). Rush's caller thought that was outrageous, so she went home and made a few phone calls and found a radiologist that would take the X-ray for $20.00!! So much for the high cost of health care! Darn that free market, anyway!

In one of the 2008 Presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain, Brian Williams (I believe) asked the question, "Is health care a right? A privilege? Or a responsibility?" The candidates gave their meandering responses which we had heard before. But neither challenged the validity of the question!

Of course I have a right to health care! If I have a splinter in my finger or a blister on my foot, I can walk into any doctor's office, slap $20.00 on their counter and ask, "Can you fix me up for $20.00?" If they tell me, "No, we can't do it for that little money.", I can go to the doctor's office down the hall or up the street and find someone who will treat my problem for $20.00! Sure, I'll pay more for a broken arm or leg. But I'll find someone to treat me for those injuries as well.

The real question that Brian Williams should have been asking is, "Do Americans have the right to free money from the Government to attend to their medical needs?" Because that's what the issue really is!

Whether a "Single Payer" Government plan or private insurance company, when presented with a bill for medical care, more often than not the bill is or will be paid. Regardless of the price! I spent a year on disablity due to a back injury. I had chiropractic care. Chiropractors would have tiered pricing. If I paid myself, the price was lower than if they billed to an insurance company. If the insurance company pays the bill for my treatment without questioning the charge, there is no incentive for the doctor/chiropractor to lower the price!

The entitlement mindset in America has grown like a malignant cancer on society. Americans now feel that health care insurance offered by employers is their personal property and they have the right to it. And then Americans get chagrined when employers cut back on insurance coverage or employees lose their jobs and insurance coverage at the same time. And yet, if Americans were responsible for the own health care expenditures and shopped for good prices and good service, prices would come down! The Free Market would respond to demands!

And, no, Americans do not have a right to "free money". For health care, food, homes, cars, gasoline or any other of their needs. My "Single Payer Plan" is me! I have a right to go anywhere I want to ask for medical treatment. If refused, I go somewhere else. It is my responsibility to pay for it. It is no one else's responsibility. And I'll get treatment for less money than a government plan will pay.