‘History repeats itself — first as tragedy, then as farce,” noted Karl Marx. With the new Republican majority in the House planning to vote next Wednesday on repeal of Obamare, Democrats appear well into farce.
Throughout the debate over health-care reform, Democrats constantly told us (and themselves) that if only they could explain the bill better, Americans would come to understand how good it was for them. So President Obama went out and gave more than a hundred remarks, speeches, press conferences, and town-hall orations. But somehow voters resisted the president’s silver-tongued oratory. The more the president talked, cajoled, and explained, the greater public opposition to the bill grew. That January, voters in Massachusetts sent Scott Brown to the Senate largely on the basis of his promise to vote against Obamacare.
Advertisement
But Democrats were undaunted. They knew that once the bill finally passed the public would love it. As Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein predicted, the bill would “become more popular after passage than it was before passage.” New York senator Chuck Schumer summed up the Democratic argument, “Once it passes, it’s going to become more popular — because the lies that have been spread, they vanish, because you see what’s in the bill.” The bill passed. The public saw what was in it. The public hated it.
But surely, Democrats said, when the bill’s consumer protections go into effect in September, then the public will come around. “People don’t know all the nuances of this thing,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, “Bit by bit, we’ll get it out there. Ten people will know, then it’ll grow to 20, then it’ll grow to 80, and it’ll have a snowball effect.” White House adviser David Axelrod echoed the sentiment. “I think that health care, over time, is going to become more popular,” he told Meet the Press. But, September came and went, the new rules went into effect, and the bill didn’t become more popular.
So the Democrats decided that the public was a bunch of dolts who were “scared” and “not thinking clearly,” in the words of President Obama. Then Democrats headed off into the November elections, in which every Republican running for an office higher than dog catcher was campaigning in favor of repealing the bill. Those doltish voters overwhelming rejected Democrats who had supported the health-care bill, giving Republicans one of the biggest midterm election victories in more than 60 years. A post-election survey found that 45 percent saw their vote as a specific message of opposition to the health-care bill.
Now, Democrats say they are anxious for another debate over health-care reform, because it will give Democrats an opportunity to explain the bill — again. And this time, no matter how dense the public has shown itself to be so far, the voters will finally get it, rise up, and punish Republicans for trying to undo the Obama administration’s signature achievement. According to the New York Times, Democrats “see the renewed debate as a chance to show that the law will be a boon to millions of Americans and hope to turn ‘Obamacare’ from a pejorative into a tag for one of the president’s proudest achievements.”
Wait, isn't the democrats stand on BarryCare the very definition of insanity? You know, repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Like explaining BarryCare over and over to us doltish bitter clingers since we don't seem to realize just how wonderful it is. Who's kidding who here.
Contrary to Michael Tanner, Obamacare is not going to cost 2.7 trillion dollars over the first ten years of operation because that money does not exist. If the Democrats and the Supreme Court press ahead and force the full implementation of Obamacare anyway, it won't be long before we see either a Soviet-style collapse or the destruction of the dollar. Either way, it will be the end of the welfare state, including Obamacare.
Given the shennanigans and outright bribes used to pass this bill, I am now skeptical of the Dems current objectives. They hope that the bill will create such an uproar that the public will demand a Single Payer Canadian style system...which has always been their primary objective in the first place.
I think some of you are not thinking through the implications of what you are saying.
For example, what if someone has a child with a 'preexisting condition', such as a birth defect? Or what if the child develops cancer when there is a lapse in coverage? What should the parents do if they can't get insurance, as it only wants to cover the healthy? Let the child die because they don't have the money to pay for care themselves?
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that health care can't be treated as just a commodity or business because it involves life and death.
pdevlin, no one is saying that people in those circumstances should just be left on their own. Other options have been proposed. It's just that twisting insurance companies arms to the point where they go out of business or drop out of markets isn't the best solution. A good example is the child-only insurance policy market. It is now extinct in many states, including the one I live in. Instead of being able to pay a reasonable amount to cover my child, my only options will be to add him to my insurance at over $400 a month, or go with CHIP. I don't make enough that $400 is affordable, but probably too much to qualify for the government coverage.
I'm real interested in hearing the Democrats defend legislation which, you can bet, they STILL have not completely read. Already, we have seen some "surprises" revealed about the law that have only intensified the public's opposition. Imagine other surprises that even the Democrats are unprepared for. Bring on the debate!
I have to believe that Schumer, Harkin, Klein, and even Obama had no idea of the contents of this monster and therefore had no answers to the numerous questions so they gave a Hope and Change response.
At least I give them the benefit of the doubt......
If parents like the provision which allows their kids to stay on their healthcare plan until they are 26 so much; I think we should propose an amendment which allows these same kids to stay rent free in their parents basement until they are 40. The net effect of such a law is to spread cost to adults who don’t have children in this age range, and to shrink the pool of young adults who are taking responsibility for themselves, thus spiking their cost as well.
I would like to believe the majority of Americans are against this latest travesty on our liberty, but frankly, after the election of this buffoon, and the subsequent, almost 50% approval rating he is still receiving, call me a skeptic...
I know some of that is media inflation, but it just does not sound like the majority of Americans are willing to part with "free" this, or "free" that, quite yet. Our money, and want of material things, has become our opiate.
How on God's green Earth, is this guy even in the double digits after the mess he has made with stimulus, omnibus, GM bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, federal loans to GE, czar appointments granted to open communists, a pervert in charge of the public education system, a tax cheat appointed to be the head of the IRS, a racist appointed to the AG, Kegan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Fannie & Freddie debacles, healthcare, TSA molestations of the citizenry- while terrorist nearly get off scot-free in public trials, START, DADT, QE2, and an abysmal record of international affairs? (I'm sure I missed 50 others)
We are still hemorrhaging jobs! Does this sound like something to laud to anyone else? Does this REALLY meet the approval of 1/2 of America?
No, I am sorry, this country is in trouble. Hate to be the pessimist, but nothing seems to shake the people out of their Obamatose.
Do the Republicans have the stones to do what really needs to be done? That is the question before us.
@pdevlin: There are already existing programs for chronically-ill children (MDCP, part of Medicaid), and perhaps something does need to be done to expand the program to help such families out. But trying to "cram" them into the existing insurance industry is not a solution, as reality has already shown.
There are much better ways of addressing the problems within our existing healthcare system than this leviathan.
pdevlin wrote the following "I do know that health care can't be treated as just a commodity or business because it involves life and death."
Agreed. Similar to utilities (like heat in the winter, etc.), health care involves life and death and shouldn't be treated as a commodity.
However, health care is not a "right," either, which some people profess it to be. In the eyes of those who would make health care a "right," health care professionals, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other health care users should all "share the load" of making sure no one goes without health care.
Telling health care professionals, hospitals, etc. they are required to treat people they have no reasonable expectation of getting paid for is to turn those health care professionals into slaves or indentured servants.
Telling other patients they have to pay for those who can't or won't pay is a transfer tax they never got to vote on. Taxation without representation (among other things) started a war about 235 years ago. Slavery (among other things) started a different war about 150 years ago.
Ogrepete, actually, there protections for people regarding utilities - considering the fact that, as you say, it could be a life or death situation. It is called the Cold Weather Rule which is in effect from October 15 through April 15 of each year. Under it, you make a payment plan, and if you make <= the median state income, you cannot be forced to pay more than 10% of your monthly income.
Let me ask you this - on a practical level and all rhetoric aside - what do you do for those citizens who can't afford health care? Do you let them die? Because that is what it can come down to.
PS, you are comparing apples and oranges. Life insurance involves financial planning for death that will occur sometime in the future. Having it or not will not effect a person's chance of living or dying - unless perhaps he has an avarious beneficiary.
Health care, on the other hand, directly effects a person's health. Not having it can mean not getting cancer treatment, heart surgery etc. and not getting such treatments can result directly in death.
The problem as I see it is that those who want government run health care want other people to pay for their care.
I bring home less than 50k a year and have an HSA with a high deductable. I pay out of pocket for every thing until I reach my deductable. Money I put in to my HSA is mine. I choose how to spend it.
Paying cash is actually cheaper than having insurance pay for many types of treatment (it eliminates the third party).
There isn't a health care access problem, it's a payment problem. The problem is wanting someone else pay for it.
If Obamacare is allowed to stand as is, we'll have single payer within 15 years if not sooner. I saw a clip of Obama on TV speaking to a union and he told them this would happen. That is the intent of this set up. Insurance companies will be out of business with the latest edict of Insurers having to spend 85% of profits on health care.The dems are counting on paying for it on the backs of Seniors. Once Donald Berwick decrees that seniors can't have medical care they need, the people who support Obama might wake up.
