by Kerry Thomas
August 19, 2009
On August 12, 2009 Jeff Laadt libeled me in the Talkback
section of the Vilas County News Review.
I am not a public official. Jeff
Laadt has the right to express his disagreement with my views, but he has gone
too far this time.
According to Laadt, “Kerry Thomas is an arrogant, uninformed
Angry White Man who apparently has bought into the Palin-Death-Panel,
"Socialized Medicine" gibberish that his equally uninformed right
wing cohorts are spouting at every opportunity they get.”
I’m assuming Jeff Laadt’s attack on my good name and
character was in response to a prior Talkback comment I made regarding Terrence Moe’s
August 11, 2009 Letter to the Editor of that newspaper.
The very first words of Terrence Moe’s letter used a sexual
reference heretofore only employed by Leftist zealots as an attempted character
assassination of anyone who attends the modern Tea Parties in protest of recent
federal initiatives.
Terrence Moe gave his historical interpretation of the
original 1773 Boston Tea Party. Fairly
accurate, no substantive disagreements here.
It’s his analysis of the political implications of current events that
lacked any substantive foundation.
Terrence Moe characterized any analogy between the original
and current Tea Parties as folly.
What Terrence Moe failed to understand is the fundamental
political reality that when any government pushes it’s citizens beyond what
they will tolerate, the citizens will revolt.
The 1773 tea party evolved into an all-out revolution by 1776. I doubt the current political revolt will
evolve to that point, but we could very well have a repeat of 1994.
Terrence Moe then wrote this:
”Conservative think tanks opposing health-care reform do not
want to subject pharmaceutical companies or the health insurance industry to
competition from a public option.
Ironically, [censored] are supporting the monopoly that now exists.”
Simply by definition, where there are “companies” and an
“industry” there can be no monopoly.
To say there now exists a monopoly in either the
pharmaceutical industry or the health insurance industry demonstrates either a
complete ignorance of the way the private sector functions in America and the
sheer weight of government regulations that control both of these industries,
or blind loyalty to a political ideology.
“Competition from a public option.” Hmm, shall we apply a little critical
thought to that notion?
First, the term “public option” is just another way of saying
government controlled, taxpayer funded.
What do you suppose would happen to an industry where the
government sets the rules and regulations, taxes the profits of any business in
that industry, subjects any business in such an industry to punitive taxes and
fines if they offer the consumer options outside of the government-approved
choices, oh, and also competes with a taxpayer-subsidized version of the very
same products and services (a government version by the way which offers no
recourse for the consumer In the event of harm done by said
government-subsidized product or service)?
Sections 101 and 102 of H.R.
3200 allow you to keep your current health insurance – if it
matches the government option and was issued before this legislation becomes
law. If your health insurance policy
doesn’t match the government option, you can keep your private insurance,
provided that “the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions,
including benefits and cost-sharing.”
If something in your health insurance policy changes, such
as a change in terms, a premium adjustment, any change to the policy will
render it not qualified. At that time
you will be forced onto the qualified government option. There will be a monopoly on health insurance
– a government monopoly.
In response to Terrence Moe’s letter, I wrote in the Talkback
column, “Terrance Moe should stick to medicine, because when it comes to
politics, he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about. Repeating
the propaganda of the left does little more than expose his lack of critical
thinking on matters concerning Liberty, his as well as yours. Read H.R.
3200 and tell me that is the kind of medicine you want to
practice. Just be sure you "counsel" your patients ahead of time,
doc.”
For that (I assume), Jeff Laadt called me “an arrogant,
uninformed Angry White Man….” Talk
about chutzpah.
For the record, Mr. Laadt, in my columns I have never used
the term “Death Panel” or referred to the pending legislation as “Socialized
Medicine.” Nor have I attended any of
the modern day Tea Parties.
As for my “equally uninformed right wing cohorts” I suspect
many of the people to whom you’re referring have done what I did, namely, read H.R.
3200. How informed are you, Mr.
Laadt? Have you read the bill?
I’m
not angry; I’m scared, for my family, my friends and my country.
H.R.
3200 is truly frightening, especially when it deals with specifics such as
ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease), something with which I have first-hand
experience. I disagree with most of the
bill’s provisions, including the mandatory Section 1233 Advance Care
Planning Consultation with government-approved bureaucrats, such mandatory
consultation to include “palliative care and hospice.”
(see
Would You
Choose Palliative Care?)
Jeff Laadt used the Talkback section of the Vilas County
News Review to libel me. But don’t
worry. I’m not suing anyone over
it. I’m not that kind of person.
But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for an apology
from Mr. Laadt. I have better things to
do with my time.
UPDATE ~ August 25, 2009 ~ Believe it or not, this was just
posted by Jeff Laadt on the Vilas County News Review’s Talkback
column: “I got a little edgy in my last
posting. Sorry. And apologies to Kerry Thomas.”
I’m satisfied. Case closed.