We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, December 22. 2009
The Dem long-term goal is complete government control of medical care, as in Canada. They make no bones about that.
Their House and Senate bills take a big step in that direction. They do it by mandating the purchase of medical insurance - and then regulating what your insurance must pay for. From what I can tell, they are not really mandating insurance at all - they are mandating that most or all of your medical bills get paid by the general population, depending on what government panels deem worthy of coverage for you (watch that process become immediately politicized).
Thus the need for the hefty tax increases and for an inevitable leap in insurance prices. That leap in prices, down the road, will, the Dems hope, lead to people crying for the government to jump in completely. That's always the plan: break something, then arrive on the scene to "fix it."
A wiser path - but one which would never lead to Canadian medicine - would have been to disconnect medical insurance from the workplace, to ensure portability, to create high-risk subsidized pools (as is done for high risk drivers in auto insurance) for those who cannot purchase insurance, to take down interstate barriers to insurance competition so that people have the choice to buy whatever sort they want, and to do some tort reform so that docs do not need to spend $40-200,000/yr on their insurance. Plus no mandate - it isn't American to force everybody to buy something if they do not want the product.
(As I have mentioned in the past, I like my family medical insurance. It is portable, cheap catastrophic insurance which cannot be canceled - and which would become illegal under the Dem plan. The Dem plan requires me to buy all sorts of junk I neither want nor need.)
Also, via Insty:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Agreed, every word.
For the next 10 months, my banner reads "Repeal in 2010."
Barrister, you should check out the news stories today that the GOP is now arguing that cloture was improperly invoked.
Portions of changes to the bill that Harry Reid stuck in at the last second purport to limit or prohibit the Senate or House from ever revoking or amending parts of Obamacare.
The GOP is taking the position that the change would change the standing rules regarding what can be considered by the Senate, and therefore under the Senate rules that changed the cloture requirement from 60 to 2/3 of the Senate.
The other little constitutional problem is that, as I'm sure you also learned in law school, any attempt by a legislature to attempt to limit the power or discretion of a future legislature is invalid and unenforceable.
Sen DeMint did challenge, but was told by the presiding officer that the language of section 3403 (*) was a PROCEDURAL change not a RULES change, so cloture with 60 votes was proper.
(*) section 3403 limits how this bill can be modified; It's my understanding it requires a super-majority of the Senate.
Since this whole pile of dung has to be funded, our best hope for the next Congress may be a refusal to do so. A repeal bill would almost certainly slam into a Presidential veto, but funding for this catastrophe has to come from Congress. If both houses refuse -- actually if either house refuses -- to pay for regulating insurance companies, subsidizing premiums, or enforcing the unlawful mandates, then it can't go forward.
Sorry, not to rain on your "it's not quite so bad" parade:
Here is what you'll hear in a couple of years, say, at a press conference or something.
"Thank you, thank you Mr. Speaker for that introduction, you are a Great American...
While we have been striving for 24 months now to repeal this monster called "health care", and in fact, we now enjoy a massive majority in both houses because you, and other Great Americans, sent us here to do just that- repeal the monster, we have determined that simply repealing this legislation is not the answer at this point in time. We will be working with other Great Americans to ensure the best outcome for all Americans, perhaps making them all Great in time.
Over the coming months we will be exploring ways to change this legislation including: electing more Republicans, making health care a Great American institution again with grants for companies that are developing new treatments and drugs, and also we'll be reaching out for ideas across the aisle. Now is not the time for bitter divide.
Stay tuned to Fox news for the updates on our progress as we take on the next 24 months with renewed vigor and focus."
It'll never end folks. Keep dreaming, and hold your dreams close, but realize it's over. No "backlash" has ever materialized in this nation that can deal with the tar-baby that our system has become. Those of you that poo-poo a 3rd party, ha! Read the statement above and weep. You know I am right. Sorry, but someone has to say it.
That's always the plan: break something, then arrive on the scene to "fix it."
Don't forget Part III: castigate all opposition as 'obstructionist' --lying-by-implying that the complaints are due to the very idea of fix-it, rather than the 'who-broke-it-and-why' and the 'your-fix-is-not-a-fix'.
Reid and Pelosi are the masters of this --the reason they seem so idiotically shameless to you is that you think you are hearing a national leader's message to the people, rather than a coded command to agents and operatives outlining tomorrow's tactical initiative in the ongoing attack on the United States of America.
I've often heard that the greatest weakness in the Constitution is that the writers neglected to address the possibility of the house and senate going too far with their own rules changes.
Perhaps any cure --such as finding saintly eunuchs to chair the Rules Committees --would be worse than the illness.
Pelosi, for example, broke entirely new ground after 2006, rampaging thru house rules changes to keep the Colombia Free Trade Agreement off the floor. Uribe of Colombia needs the agreement (as do we, esp re Hugo Chavez), but Uribe of Colombia is successfully thwarting FARC, which evidently is pissing off FARC's trading partners the Genoveses. Or it could be that Pelosi really is philosophically opposed to Uribe's free-market reforms.
Frankly, each stance is worse than the other, a state of being against the laws of nature and rending of the very fabric of known reality. And what's REALLY funny is --hardly anybody knows about this stuff. But if anybody anywhere is spinning in a grave, that someone is probably James Madison.
Yeah, but what do we do about it? I am at such a loss. I pray, I try to educate those who will listen, I vote, I support the causes that would help, I don't abuse our insurance plan, but yet our family and a million others like us are getting this rammed down our throats.
good question, ohiogirl. since you asked, i'd say that until some better idea comes along, or until it doesn't matter anymore, whichever comes first, just keep talking and writing, talking and writing. And i'd say, do lash out at Palin-bashers --but that's me, she's my candidate. particularly effective to confront palin derangement syndrome on her achievements --ask sufferers what it is they don't like about successful females.
ohiogirl, re 'what to do' --you could look in the comments on Barrister's post above, on the 10th Amendment, and copy to everyone in your email or social network circle that comment on Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom" (you can leave my name off, i'm not running for office at this time).
the important thing about that list, a little stodgy and not perfectly descriptive in detail of today as it seems, is that the planning of economies inevitably leads to tyranny, simply because no plan can work unless obedience to it can be created, and since in a diverse nation a willing obedience is possible only for a short time and on an emergency basis, sooner or later --unless the plan is scrapped --an attempt be required to force that obedience. Hayek called it a 'road' aptly, as a road is something upon which one cannot stand still, the traffic will move you along it in one direction or the other. If it is a road, and we are passing through those stages in that list as if they are little towns along the road, it stands to reason that to turn around and go the other way we will have to pass back through those same little towns on the road [i]from[/] serfdom (AKA 'slavery').