The following was received on the evening of August 11, 2009, shortly after the author submitted his questions and concerns to his duly elected Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California. We have chosen to publish said letter, in the hopes that it might give others ideas as to how to write to their respective elected officials. Good Luck to us all. (JB)

NOTE: I don’t expect a reply, and I said as much. But this is going out to every office Feinstein occupies, by fax, e mail and snail mail. I have no vacation time to go to any town hall meetings, and none are scheduled in my area when I am off. So this is the best that I can do. (NR)

Senator Feinstein,

As your constituent, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on my concerns regarding HR 3200, the House version of a universal health care plan.

In the past I have written to you on a wide range of subjects, from illegal immigration to second amendment rights. On those occasions I received the usual form letter that did little to address my specific questions and concerns.

However, this time I believe that the importance of my questions deserve a more thoughtful, and specific reply. I believe that you are going to do whatever you please, no matter what I have to say about it. However, as a courtesy to me, I would appreciate hearing what you have to say regarding the following points.

I am aware that the Obama administration has set up a website to curb rumors and misstatements regarding this health care bill, and that quite probably e-mails and articles I have written may have found their way to it.

However, my reason for sending those e mails, and writing those articles is because I do not believe my government has been honest and forthcoming with the facts regarding this health care legislation.

In town hall meetings across the country, legislators are coming fact to face with constituents who simply want answers regarding the specifics of this legislation. Yet their questions and concerns are not being addressed.

On occasion those who have asked legitimate questions have been escorted out of the meeting, or harassed by red-shirted volunteers from ACORN. How are the members of Congress to effectively represent their constituents when they are not allowed to voice their concerns?

Speaker Pelosi has called these events ‘disruptions’ saying that they are occurring because opponents of the health care bill “are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves.”

Furthermore Speaker Pelosi stated, ” Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.” Who is drowning out whom? If you ask me, it appears that only those who have legitimate questions regard this health care legislation are being prohibited from speaking their minds.

Calling people who ask legitimate questions un-American is wrong. It is no worse than when President Bush called those who did not support the war in Iraq unpatriotic.

As Glenn Beck said in regards to this bill, “What is the hurry?” I remember growing up, hearing my parents tell me that the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. Yet why are those who ask these questions being treated as though their questions are stupid and irrelevant?

Could it be because our representatives don’t have the answers to our questions? Wasn’t Representative John Conyers quoted as saying, “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?”

Could it be that no one actually knows what this 1018 page piece of legislation says? I have made several attempts to read through it, only to end up with a migraine.

Yet how can you, or anyone else justify voting for a bill when you don’t even know what it says?

Didn’t the father of our Constitution, James Madison once say, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow.”

Yet isn’t that what is happening? Aren’t our representatives voting on bills that they do not fully understand? Yet when the people attempt to ask their representatives about this bill, they are called un-American? Something is not right there.

So, with that thought in mind, I would like to ask, have you yourself read HR 3200. I am not asking if your staff has read it and briefed you on what it says. I am asking if you have sat down and read all 1018 pages of this bill?

If not, how can you justify either a yea, or a nay vote on it?

I wonder, when I see President Obama on television stumping for this bill, can he say that he himself has read it in its entirety? When he speaks, I hear a lot of generalities, and flowery speech about how this bill will do all kinds of wonderful things. Yet it appears that he is more than willing to affix his signature to this bill if it passes both houses of Congress.

Still, our questions regarding the specifics of this bill go unanswered. For instance, on page 29 of this bill it sounds as though there will be some sort of rationing regarding how much health care an individual is entitled to receive;

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

Also, beginning on page 429 this bill further states what appears to be limits on how much care will be provided for people who may require some sort of life support;

‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—

‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—

‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’

There remains one question that I do not see many people asking of their representatives. So allow me to ask on their behalf. Exactly which Article, and which Clause of the Constitution allows my government to even consider drafting, and passing legislation concerning health care? Could you look that up for me, I seem to have missed that part of the Constitution.

During the Ratifying Convention for the State of Virginia, James Madison is quoted as saying, “[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson once said, “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

My government sticking its nose into health care is an idea I am totally against.

First of all almost every single federally funded entitlement program is bankrupt. Social Security is facing an estimated $100 trillion shortfall in obligated funds, and Medicare is in even worse shape.

Yet we are to expect that our government will be able to manage the entire health care industry any better than they have handled Social Security and Medicare?

Secondly, it matters not that a majority of Americans are in favor of it. It matters not that a majority of Congress supports it. Our country is not a democracy, where 51% of the people can run impose their will upon the other 49%.

We are, or we used to be, a Constitutional Republic in which our government represented us, but only when it came to the specifically enumerated powers contained within the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

I guess I am one of those relics who still believe in a system of government as defined by the Constitution.

Finally, I would like to ask one more question. If you believe this health care bill is so good for the American people, would you be willing to give up your current health care plan provided at the taxpayers expense, and enroll in the one you are attempting to force upon us?

If your answer is no, I would like to hear your reasons why. In fact, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on all my questions. But then again, I am used to form letters.

Neal Ross, a confused American

Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning, Satan shudders and says “OH SHIT!!…. HE’S AWAKE!!”

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?“

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at bonsai@syix.com. Visit Neal’s Blog at http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal