First, quoting from MSNBC’s “FirstRead” article posted 8/20/09:

"...the president wrote a 1,200-word New York Times op-ed on the health-care debate, and it didn’t mention the words “public option” in it ANYWHERE."

Wonder what the President was referring to when he made his first point in the op-ed: "First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job."

Since he didn't use the words "public option", MSNBC believes he must not have meant this as a public option. Right?

Much of the President's op-ed was simply empty rhetoric: "We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs" and "we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors" and "reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable."

Great words. How will this all happen? More government intrusion into my life and your life (and yours, and yours), for someone else's benefit. You and I will have less control over dollars we earn; we will be less able to contribute to private and charitable entities that have mastered the work involved in meeting emergency and ongoing needs of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to afford the care they need at the moment.

We want a smaller government, not a bigger one. All I need for the government to do is stand back and let me do what I need to do. If someone (or some company) targets me in a predatory manner, let the government shield me from predatory behavior. It’s the government’s job to step in and protect me from those who would intentionally do me harm. It is expressly not the government’s role to provide a service in competition with private organizations. And face it: every time they try, they fail: USPS, Amtrak, Medicare, Social Security.

I certainly do not want the President to fail, unless his goal is to further infringe on my rights as a citizen. In that role, his intentions become at odds with my best interests.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have the support of Paul.