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.
We know that a single payer nationalized health care plan is the long term objective and intention for proponents of Obamacare and has been all along. They're completely disingenuous about how "incremental" and "modest" the program is. The astonishing fact that they deliberately prohibited enforcement of a critical component of the plan tells you all you need to know. It will intentionally create a crisis...a feature, not a bug....and a crisis is something this crowd never wants to go to waste.
Despite the Dems rallying around the HC bill, folks do not like it. Rep. Melissa Bean (D - IL) had a, supposedly, open meeting covering talking-points yesterday and her staff tried to refuse access to several people, some from the media. A total of 15 - 16 people around the table of her "public" forum, all caught on tape by FOX, does not consist of an "open" forum for the enlightenment of taxpayers who must pay for this disaster. Sen. Dick Durbin (D- IL) has been all over the media, but the Tea Party rallies are increasing in number.
All this Democratic pontificating does nothing to rectify one problem: this bill does nothing, nada, nil to control costs. It just expands coverage (read: new Democratic voters) while opening doors to limit types of care available to Dr. Emanuel's list of less-deserving (read: old, fuddy-duddy, high-end earners who will be funding the programs).
And, I repeat again, it is not a healthcare INSURANCE bill as
"insurance" implies risk management, which has been eliminated by removing caps and pre-existing conditions. This is a healthcare CHARITY bill.
At first, I was willing to think that not having enforcement powers was an oversight, by not stating such powers. But that "they deliberately prohibited enforcement" has become clear - the language was there, prohibitng use of even pre-existing enforcement powers by the likes of the IRS. And it certainly was NOT inserted by a Republican.
Now, in a way I think it is a good idea: since over 100 new bunches of bureaucrats are to be set up, I certainly do not want them to be putting out regulations and enforcing them. I remember the guy who wanted to replace worn flooring in his meat-packing operation: OSHA said it would fine him $1500/day if he used non-corrugated flooring, EPA said it would fine him $1500/day if he did not use slick flooring.
When I saw "Brit Libs" I thought you meant the British Liberal Democrat party, and wondered why you would take any notice of what they thought.
I see the error comes from the Corner at NRO, where their expats should know the differences between the British Liberal-Democrat party and the British Labour party.
It was the Labour party.