Republicans and conservatives are embarrassing themselves decrying Obama's attempts to defend the health care bill and use it for political gain.
Eric Hobsbawm, the socialist historian, was long-winded in exegesis but pithy in title.
His interesting but highly controversial histories sought to taxonomize complex modern historical forces over the centuries, thus these fun titles: The Age of Industry, The Age of Revolution, The Age of Empire, The Age of Extremes, etc.
Let me add to this genealogy, in the wake of the health care debate, my own rendition: The Age of Hysteria.
I oppose the recently passed health care legislation, for reasons both principled and practical. First, it represents a huge government encroachment into the lives of our citizens. It is interesting that the Left is so concerned with a woman's right to choose an abortion, but so seemingly unconcerned about our right to manage – as we see fit – our own health care choices.
I also oppose the bill on pragmatic grounds – if you apply the theory of Occam's Razor to government management of issues, the simplest approach is usually the one most likely to work. If the goal of health care reform was truly to find a way to cover those in need, reduce costs and hold insurance companies accountable, this could have been done with a few simpler reforms.
1. Provide health care vouchers to any individual that wanted health care and could not afford it.
2. Allow consumers to shop across state lines for insurance coverage – this would have instantly driven down costs and increased competition, thereby forcing insurance companies to be more accountable to customers.
3. Address the issues of pre-existing conditions and denied coverage through laws passed specifically to govern insurance practices, partially funded by local, state and federal governments.
4. Allow portability.
5. Embrace tort reform.
6. Focus on the chronically ill, who are most often the true victims of rising health care costs or the absence of catastrophic insurance.
These are, when reduced to their essence, the critical issues in play, and none of them required the establishment of a huge bureaucracy of some 159 different new governmental agencies or offices, 16,000 new IRS agents empowered to interfere in our lives, or a massive trillion dollar exercise is government self-empowerment.
Even so, the age of hysteria is evident on both sides of the issue.
The Obamamaniacs are treating this bill and our President as the second coming, and seem completely oblivious to the controversy, confusion and corruption they are about to inflict on the American people and our economy. Even if you supported this legislation in good faith, a little less cheering and a little more analysis about the complex instrument they have just passed seems in order.
Health care may yet turn out to be Obama's Iraq – mission accomplished? Not quite. When the American people get a good look at this legislation and its implications in the coming months and years, we will see if the celebrations of the past two days were premature.
And, by the way, would someone please calm down Larry O'Donnell? The metaphor of politically targeting those who voted for this legislation is as old as politics itself and it has been used across the political spectrum. No reasonable person, which includes Sarah Palin, wants an ounce of physical harm to come to any person who voted for this legislation and O'Donnell knows it. He is introducing an inflammatory element by taking honest and sincere political differences and trying to transform them into an issue about violence. It is shameful.
Likewise, Republicans and conservatives are embarrassing themselves decrying Obama's attempts to defend the legislation and use it for political gain. Why are we shocked that the President is doing what every president does – capitalizing with his core constituency on those victories he is able to obtain? There is nothing unconstitutional or even unseemly about this – it is called politics.
If Obama is proud of this legislation, he has every right to celebrate and wax eloquent about what it means for the American people. If conservatives oppose it, they have an obligation to produce arguments – thoughtful and reasoned – against it. But whining about cheering crowds extolling Obama is about as helpful as the Left complaining about tea party congregations or Reagan's morning in American rhetoric. Get over it and get to work on the substance of the debate.
Newt Gingrich has it about right. If the American people oppose the direction Obama is taking the country, they have recourse in 2010 and 2012. There are plenty of ways to dissent, peacefully and respectfully. The American people can vote against the gross centralization of federal power as the way to address the domestic challenges we face as a nation – but they have to be persuasive and thoughtful, not hysterical.
The debate isn't over. It never is. That is why living in a free society is such a riveting and exciting experience – that is why retaining our liberties is so important.
And that is why less hysteria, and more thinking, would be a good thing across the political spectrum.
As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, when a thousand people are yelling the same thing at the same time, it is a lie even if it is true – this was his way of pointing out that mob hysteria always leads us astray, whether on the Right or the Left.
THANK YOU for a concise yet meaningful summary of what health care reform IS needed. There’s also contradictory talk regarding HMO exemption from anti-trust regulations, so I’m not sure what to think on that. At any rate, any candidate or potential candidate should hammer on these points. while still pointing out the errors and dangers of the current law, specifying Section and Article of the legislation. Merely criticizing the current bill makes us look morally bankrupt and politically inept — and vulnerable to the hysteria you described.
I am confident that a reasoned and thoughtful approach could have been found other than the massive bill just passed. I do understand the frustration — and I think Newt Gingrich and other Republicans laid out some of these ideas, only to be rebuffed by the President. I have to admit, however, that I am still trying to digest this massive proposal and its implications. If anyone can find a comprehensive analysis, by all means provide a link.
After a long drawn out battle (the health care debate has been going on for a year), it’s only natural for folks not to just “get over it”. But conservatives should be skeptical of self-nominated peace advocates calling for civil debate for two reasons. First, we never resolved the question of why we need Obamacare – no one proved the uninsured were not receiving health care, they proved they were without insurance – a separate and distinct issue. Here in California, we provide health care (often free of charge) to our large population of illegal immigrants, or the more politically correct term of “undocumented workers”, or the more cynically correct term of “undocumented Democrats” – but whatever you would choose to call them, they weren’t dying in our streets before the bill passed. So, was “reform” really needed – that’s a question we didn’t adequately address and given our national psychology, a question which will never seriously resurface in future debates now that universal health care has passed. So, we’ve raised the white flag on why it was ever needed, now we’re being asked to calmly discuss what changes may be needed within legislation we didn’t want or need to begin with.
The second reason is the recurring political patterns in these “social policy” laws. We start with a clearly recognized need for a fix due to “social reasons” – in other words, many voters want to receive something for free, but paid for by others. A vague and massive legislative package is put together which addresses the manufactured crisis – after much acrimony it passes. There are immediate cries for “reform” of the newly born law, the original legislation is deemed “morally good” but also “flawed” – we aren’t about to summarily repeal it and start over however – we just need to tinker with it some more – or so we’re told. The tinkering increases in intensity shortly before each ensuing election period, politicians need to be seen as doing something.
We should now grow suspicious of whether the Republicans’ suggested reforms are self-serving or public serving. Do the suggested reforms help them get elected through surfing the wave of voter revenge but are, in actuality, tongue in cheek ideas thrown out for effect and which have not the slightest hope of surviving a “compromise reform bill” with the Democrats? Is the intention solely that they sound “good” to conservatives but are deal killers when it comes time to put up or shut up when getting serious about reform?
There will be no devastating “crib death” for the new legislation, it’s well on its way to early adulthood, the future holds untold promise for the politicians (both Democrats and Republicans), their heavy financial backers and government workers now that the new legislation is a reality. Compromises on future modifications to Health Care will be reached in due course, Republicans can read the handwriting on the wall and will make plans to cash in for their share of the prize – the time for stubborn opposition is over. Government controlled Health Care is finally here to stay, the 800 pound gorilla sits in the corner, label it with whatever metaphor you choose, but it will grow and expand into new areas, thousands of new government workers will be needed, the possibilities for individual and Party payoffs are almost limitless if the politicians remain patient.
And patience is more than a virtue, it’s a necessity for survival. After the initial shock, politicians know a cooling off period is needed, let the voters calm down – and for Democrats there is much damage control needed prior to the next election – for Republicans there is a lot of fresh hay to be mown and blame to be laid. The Democratic National Committee is busily organizing its pom-pom girls within the media through a flurry of emails suggesting topics to write about for the purpose of solidifying national support for the new law; there’s no question of the baby’s parentage, Obama is the father, but now the task is to gain acceptance so the kid can take his rightful place and claim his inheritance – while at the same time minimizing the fallout for elected Democrats worried over the voters’ wrath and calls for revenge.
The Know-Nothing wing of the conservative movement is in full cry – the other day Quin Hillyer penned a diatribe calling for revenge against the Health Care advocates, demanding that the politicians responsible be blamed until “the end of their days on this good earth” – the sophomoric rhetoric of a true agitator and opportunist, Hillyer’s semi-hysterical message brought all the conservative nutcases rushing forward. “We’re gonna take our country back”, “it’s time for armed rebellion” “we won’t stand for it” – the many futile cries from the screwball fringe, powerless and pathetic folks who haven’t bothered to understand the new law but are convinced they hate it.
Conservatives face the familiar double-whammy, the Republican Party who supposedly represents us is busily looking for ways to cash in on the new law and the Know-Nothings are solidifying our reputation for ignorance and reactionary stupidity among the Liberals and any Independent voters who care to listen. This is the time for civil debate and questioning the new law, but with more facts, less emotion. It means reading the 2,700 pages written in Washington Sanskrit, searching out the hidden escape clauses for those groups favored by the Democrats, carefully calculating the real costs of this legislation to the average taxpayer – in short, presenting a controlled, logical argument of what’s wrong with the legislation and why. We can’t stuff the baby back into the womb, but with some little effort we can present a factual indictment of what it means to a majority of taxpayers. And there’s no point in wishing for the moon, government health care is here to stay, we can only seek to minimize future damage to taxpayers and, even then, not foolishly expect to win many battles while fighting toward that worthwhile goal.
I can appreciate what the writers are saying, yet Mr. Shadroui and Mr. Skurka fail to recognize the importance of emotion.
People do not rally and campaign and work for political action without being worked up, and no one gets worked up without some emotion.
Discovering facts and upside down numbers through a careful reading of the bill is great, but if those discoveries don’t make someone mad, the fire in the belly needed to sustain opposition will not be there.
I would ask Mr. Skurka just what he expects “carefully calculating the real costs of this legislation to the average taxpayer – in short, presenting a controlled, logical argument of what’s wrong with the legislation and why” will do to assist the opposition.
It is clear to anyone with a “D” or better in fourth-grade math that the reform package is not funded and is not deficit neutral. Democrats and far too many members the public ignored the significance of a bill that needed 10 years of funding to provide six years of services. They seemed to shrug their shoulders at the notion that the bill could only be made to work financially when the $200 billion in it for doctor subsidies was shifted to a separate bill. Worst of all, half the funding for reform ($500 billion) would be have to be stolen from Medicare, which is already better than $50 trillion upside down in unfunded liabilities. Add to that the crowing by some Democrats that a $500 billion cut in Medicare represents a cost savings of $500 billion to Medicare and the American taxpayers. Add to all this the fact that whatever the government projects something to cost, it always ends up being more – a lot more.
Health care reform was passed without controlled, logical arguments for it. Indeed, the logical arguments were offered by the opposition. What is more logical than running the “real” math and seeing it doesn’t work? What is more logical than the realization that it is unconstitutional to force every living American citizen to buy a good or service, be it health care or all-beef franks? What is more logical than expecting Democrats to listen to the overwhelming opposition among their own constituents?
This bill isn’t a baby, and it wasn’t born. It is unconstitutional legislation passed in an ugly and unethical way even by Washington standards.
The very notion that this health care reform is a baby who can’t put back in the womb, or that it is a “kid,” suggests that health care must be respected as we respect human life, which is absurd, and not just a little offensive.
Also, if “the Republican Party who supposedly represents us is busily looking for ways to cash in,” please provide examples of this, as it is something I would like to address along with the other grievances I have.
My humble advice? If you are among the know-nothings or know-somethings and you are mad, stay mad. Just be effective.
As we’ve seen, a substantial Democrat majority made this assault of reason and intelligence possible, and the only way to change that is in the voting booth. And it goes beyond your vote. Get off your tails and convince those folks normally not inclined to participate in elections to get their tails to that booth.
We didn’t become an independent nation conceived in liberty by being devoid of emotion, and we won’t stay one without it. America and liberty-loving Americans have experienced a defeat that did, and should, evoke emotion. That it is not a defeat that calls for a violent response, or threat of same, I agree.
That said, we have to appreciate and respect the frustration of “know-nothings,” lest we be guilty of the same dismissive attitude Obama and Democrats displayed regarding organized opposition to health care.
Anger over a government that moves forward without apparent respect for its people or Constitution is natural, and is the response the founders of this country counted on to ensure their work would not be undone after they were gone.
Classical, freedom-loving Americans are willing to bleed to defend liberty, but Mr. Skurka’s proposition is that we accept that “health care is here to stay,” that “we can only seek to minimize future damage to taxpayers,” and that we can’t “foolishly expect to win many battles while fighting toward that worthwhile goal.”
If Mr. Skurka’s intent is to sooth and calm all them “know-nothings,” then telling Americans they are fighting the good fight (“worthwhile goal”) but are foolish if they expect their noble efforts to result in winning “many battles,” he may just be having the opposite effect.
Do we really want to advise hopping mad, truly pissed off Americans that they need to settle down, calmly and collectively analyze and dissect the health care reform bill and that they will be rewarded by seeing leftists and socialists move up on the leader board?
Mr. Skurka’s plea boils down to this: Do things the calm, collected and civil way – just don’t expect it to produce winning results. Losing these battles is inevitable, and if you think doing things the right way or pursuing worthwhile goals will lead to many victories, you are a fool. I can’t think of much that would force cornered people farther into the corner, or an attitude more detrimental to the ideals of freedoms and liberty upon which we were founded.
For the fighting mad out there, forget Mr. Skurk’s pessimism, and know that if you commit to using the system and processes in place, despite the feeling the Democrats have rendered them null and void, and if you fight for worthwhile goals – those in keeping with the founding of this country and our system of government – you must and will be rewarded with more victories than defeats.
Each of these victories will be an example of the Constitution upheld, and an affirmation of the principles of limited government and individual liberty. All efforts now should focus on getting those who ignore these principals out of office, which in this case is everyone who voted in favor of health care reform. None of them were Republicans, but if down the line anyone with an (R) show similar disrespect or show themselves to be opportunists, they can be dealt with. There are true conservatives coming out of the woodwork to replace them.
There is hope, and there can be change. Obama said we needed it in 2008. I say we need it now a heck of a lot more.
If I have not been intellectual enough for everyone, the intellectual side of me apologizes. The “know-nothing” in me says, “tough shit.”
I can appreciate what the writers are saying, yet Mr. Shadroui and Mr. Skurka fail to recognize the importance of emotion.
People do not rally and campaign and work for political action without being worked up, and no one gets worked up without some emotion.
Discovering facts and upside down numbers through a careful reading of the bill is great, but if those discoveries don’t make someone mad, the fire in the belly needed to sustain opposition will not be there.
I would ask Mr. Skurka just what he expects “carefully calculating the real costs of this legislation to the average taxpayer – in short, presenting a controlled, logical argument of what’s wrong with the legislation and why” will do to assist the opposition.
It is clear to anyone with a “D” or better in fourth-grade math that the reform package is not funded and is not deficit neutral. Democrats and far too many members the public ignored the significance of a bill that needed 10 years of funding to provide six years of services. They seemed to shrug their shoulders at the notion that the bill could only be made to work financially when the $200 billion in it for doctor subsidies was shifted to a separate bill. Worst of all, half the funding for reform ($500 billion) would be have to be stolen from Medicare, which is already better than $50 trillion upside down in unfunded liabilities. Add to that the crowing by some Democrats that a $500 billion cut in Medicare represents a cost savings of $500 billion to Medicare and the American taxpayers. Add to all this the fact that whatever the government projects something to cost, it always ends up being more – a lot more.
Health care reform was passed without controlled, logical arguments for it. Indeed, the logical arguments were offered by the opposition. What is more logical than running the “real” math and seeing it doesn’t work? What is more logical than the realization that it is unconstitutional to force every living American citizen to buy a good or service, be it health care or all-beef franks? What is more logical than expecting Democrats to listen to the overwhelming opposition among their own constituents?
This bill isn’t a baby, and it wasn’t born. It is unconstitutional legislation passed in an ugly and unethical way even by Washington standards.
The very notion that this health care reform is a baby who can’t put back in the womb, or that it is a “kid,” suggests that health care must be respected as we respect human life, which is absurd, and not just a little offensive.
Also, if “the Republican Party who supposedly represents us is busily looking for ways to cash in,” please provide examples of this, as it is something I would like to address along with the other grievances I have.
My humble advice? If you are among the know-nothings or know-somethings and you are mad, stay mad. Just be effective.
As we’ve seen, a substantial Democrat majority made this assault of reason and intelligence possible, and the only way to change that is in the voting booth. And it goes beyond your vote. Get off your tails and convince those folks normally not inclined to participate in elections to get their tails to that booth.
We didn’t become an independent nation conceived in liberty by being devoid of emotion, and we won’t stay one without it. America and liberty-loving Americans have experienced a defeat that did, and should, evoke emotion. That it is not a defeat that calls for a violent response, or threat of same, I agree.
That said, we have to appreciate and respect the frustration of “know-nothings,” lest we be guilty of the same dismissive attitude Obama and Democrats displayed regarding organized opposition to health care.
Anger over a government that moves forward without apparent respect for its people or Constitution is natural, and is the response the founders of this country counted on to ensure their work would not be undone after they were gone.
Classical, freedom-loving Americans are willing to bleed to defend liberty, but Mr. Skurka’s proposition is that we accept that “health care is here to stay,” that “we can only seek to minimize future damage to taxpayers,” and that we can’t “foolishly expect to win many battles while fighting toward that worthwhile goal.”
If Mr. Skurka’s intent is to sooth and calm all them “know-nothings,” then telling Americans they are fighting the good fight (“worthwhile goal”) but are foolish if they expect their noble efforts to result in winning “many battles,” he may just be having the opposite effect.
Do we really want to advise hopping mad, truly pissed off Americans that they need to settle down, calmly and collectively analyze and dissect the health care reform bill and that they will be rewarded by seeing leftists and socialists move up on the leader board?
Mr. Skurka’s plea boils down to this: Do things the calm, collected and civil way – just don’t expect it to produce winning results. Losing these battles is inevitable, and if you think doing things the right way or pursuing worthwhile goals will lead to many victories, you are a fool. I can’t think of much that would force cornered people farther into the corner, or an attitude more detrimental to the ideals of freedoms and liberty upon which we were founded.
For the fighting mad out there, forget Mr. Skurk’s pessimism, and know that if you commit to using the system and processes in place, despite the feeling the Democrats have rendered them null and void, and if you fight for worthwhile goals – those in keeping with the founding of this country and our system of government – you must and will be rewarded with more victories than defeats.
Each of these victories will be an example of the Constitution upheld, and an affirmation of the principles of limited government and individual liberty. All efforts now should focus on getting those who ignore these principals out of office, which in this case is everyone who voted in favor of health care reform. None of them were Republicans, but if down the line anyone with an (R) show similar disrespect or show themselves to be opportunists, they can be dealt with. There are true conservatives coming out of the woodwork to replace them.
There is hope, and there can be change. Obama said we needed it in 2008. I say we need it now a heck of a lot more.
If I have not been intellectual enough for everyone, the intellectual side of me apologizes, but the “know-nothing” in me says, “that’s tough.”
two very interesting commentaries, from a different perspective: let me try to comment meaningfully.
1. Can someone explain to me how fuming is going to effectively convince those who are not fuming? If you think you can cobble together a majority in 2010 simply by bashing Obama and Health care, have at it. Just remember you have a hostile media watching you every step of the way. I suspect that the American public is smart enough to know that ranting is not an answer for spiraling health care costs. They are looking for a conservative leader who has the kind of wisdom and ability to offer sound, thoughtful alternatives.
2. I applaud tea party folks for the most part. I think the media attempts to marginalize them as extremists and “know nothings” is despicable but predictable. Bill Buckley dealt with this for years — you come to calculate into your formulations the bias of the media and the way to marginalize them is to be smarter and more informed – don’t give them grist for their mills.
3. Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley were optimists. So, for that matter, were the two Bushes. As someone recently wrote, and I apologize for my poor memory, we don’t generally elect angry presidents. We want a president who knows the world, and is not surprised by it. I am simply asking that our thought leaders act as if they did not just discover politics or liberalism. Bill Buckley was the architect of modern conservatism — and when he lost his cool, as he did on rare occasion, he either did it with intent or he regretted it.
So, if you are angry, channel that anger into responsible commentary and political action — we don’t need Governors talking, however glibly, about succession. And we don’t need the somber fatalistic end of civilization rhetoric that too often is being heard from prominent right commentators. Bashing the media is not an agenda that will take you very far. Nor will whining about the political opportunism of the president. As mr. Adams did quite effectively there for a paragraph or two, keep repeating the facts — and the problems with the legislation — the American people will move toward conservatism.
Mr. Shadroui
1. By fuming facts. That’s how.
The argument is that if you are not mad about what’s going on, you should be.
Votes count, and while it would be nice if everyone had a thorough grasp of the facts, for some folks the facts and merits of health care matter less to them than the manner in which they were marginalized, elected officials were bribed and the Constitution was disrespected.
If people feel like they are victims of a government hit-and-run in the land of the free and home of the brave, they know all they need to know to cast their next votes.
The problem with the facts of health care is that they didn’t matter, despite being as plain as the nose on Bill Maher’s face.
As the sting of health care reform won’t be felt until after 2012, Democrats facing the next two elections will be able to say what Obama was saying as early as three days after the legislation passed: “See folks, I told you the world wasn’t going to end. We passed health care and the birds are still singing.”
No matter how hard you try, it will be impossible to convince enough people that a bill that hasn’t gone into effect yet is or will be a failure. The most critical fact in the possession of the left is that “it hasn’t been given a chance, and that it deserves one.” Even many who know better will be rooting for it to work now that it’s the law of the land.
So what can be tapped to persuade voters? Anger over how it all went down – the ugliness of an arrogant power play and an at-all-costs cram-down of a very expensive new government entitlement at a time when the government is so broke our children’s, children’s children will never be able to pay off the debt.
Remember, it isn’t the facts provided by scientists who believe man-made global warming is a sham that are getting them any traction. Its anger now that AGW scientists have been exposed to have manipulated the data and process that is changing a lot of people’s minds.
Voters don’t just pick leaders. When the times call for it, they can be angry ministers of justice.
To those who argue that anger and frustration should be squelched while the facts are calmly and meticulously regurgitated for the umpteenth time, I would respond: how did Barack Obama get elected? Was it based on a calm and rational analysis of the facts? His remarkable command of data and reason during the debates? The cool persuasion of Code Pink, MoveOn.org, and DailyKos? No. Barack Obama got elected on violent street protesters shouting “BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED”, frenzied crowds of fainting SEIU members chanting in response to: “Are you fired up!? Ready to go!?”, and vacuous platitudes like “change we can believe in”.
While we’re busy discussing dry facts and figures in the milquetoast style of, say, Mitch McConnell with an uninterested, largely uninformed, mostly lazy and apathetic public, the Left coalition is dispatching union thugs to town hall meetings and tea party events to physically abuse those who disagree with them, promising the benefits of royalty cost-free to everyone and their neighbor, and going on TV every night telling dramatic, albeit completely false, stories about women and children dying in the streets of cancer because they were denied health care and had their houses repossessed by greedy insurance companies. And that’s how they swept near super-majorities in both houses of congress and installed a presidential rubberstamp for the most fanatical leftist policies and ideas. By all means, lets stick with that winning do-nothing, say-nothing, roll-over strategy – it’s taken us far.
I’m not against rationally laying out the facts. My point is that it is just one prong.
Obama has decided that his term(s) should be spent in campaign mode, and the media is obliging by pretending along with him.
Don’t listen to the other side is always the central message of any campaign, but Obama used it throughout the health care debate. On the inside, votes were bought and sold, money changed hands, threats were made, bribes of perks and jobs… It was ugly, like a campaign, and the health care bill won that election campaign, not ordinary legislative approval.
The other thing about campaigns is that the people are kept whipped up. It is needed to sustain the energy levels. The most dangerous thing about Obama, is he has not allowed things to settle down during his term, as he is the perpetual street organizer and campaigner. Just listen to his speeches whenever he is in a favorable crowd. When have we heard a president cracking jokes about the millions who opposed his plan, as if they were not his people to represent along with the fans in front of him?
I don’t suggest conservatives act like Code Pinkers, but I do suggest that we understand what we are up against, unless we want to be up against it for a very, very long time.
Facts and information are a must, but they are only part of what is needed. A level of passion and genuine concern for the direction this ship is heading is paramount, and the only way to engage many people is by tapping into their emotions (their feelings about their country and what they think it ought to be).
Mr. Mulligan is right in that Obama defies the facts, which is to say people ignore facts when emotion grips them – “Obammmma, Obammmma.”
The people in the middle are in play. Far too many of them in 2008 gazed in amazement at the adoring, fainting crowds and thought to themselves, there must be something very special about this Obama. I suspect most have figured out by now they voted the wrong way, but conservatives cannot count on that. Landslide victories must be achieved.
I do not have the winning strategy, but I know in 2012 a conservative campaign devoid of passion and some degree of anger is going to fall flat against the drowning adoration of Obama crowds going nuts for their rock star.
We simply can’t afford to have people standing in front of civil, dry politicians, spouting dry facts (can you say John McCain), while people in the back row point over to the “fun” Obama crowd and say, “I’d rather party with them.”
I admit it is a sad state of affairs when it has to come down to this, but it is what it is. Those who do not accept that will find themselves facing two opponents in the upcoming elections.
“Facts are stubborn things.”
Ronald Reagan
Stay focused, mobilize, turn out the vote. Channel the anger. That is all I am saying — and don’t indiscriminately and carelessly attack others. Or as we say in the Catholic faith, condemn the sin, not the sinner.
Paul Howard, director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Medical Progress has thrown in the towel, Obamacare wins by a TKO – but Howard is no Liberal Progressive fellow traveler or media pom-pom girl shaking them in your face while leaping high in the air for the new Health Care bill. Yet, he claims repeal is unlikely – darn, that’s a letdown. Now begins, he claims, the long slog toward reforming the “reform” and he starts by tabulating those “big buck” expenditures needing reconsideration – the Billions and Trillions it will cost us initially and down the road.
With the exception of Bill Gates, Americans don’t relate well to “Billions” – winning a $50 million lottery ($12.5 million after taxes assuming you don’t select the 20 year payout option) is a fabulous dream for us average Joes and Jills – getting our heads around $1 Trillion is impossible. But you have to start the story somewhere – how does $114 Billion in start-up costs grab you? New government employees by the tens of thousands, office space in diverse locations around the country, an Amazon rain forest’s worth of printed manuals, program administrator handbooks and regulations, training costs, all the many and varied program expenses you and I will fund from our taxes.
A king’s ransom assuming kings were actually ever worth that much and a fabulous prize the Democrats and Republicans will viciously squabble over – whose lucky home district will receive the money? But how do we individually relate to $114 Billion, how many Big Macs would that buy for instance, what’s the average cost to each American taxpayer, although Americans never pay an “average” tax – there are Big Dog taxpayers, middle class taxpayers and those millions of not so hard working Americans who pay no income taxes. If only we could each receive an itemized bill noting our personal share of start-up and ongoing costs – how easily that would put this new legislation in perspective.
Then there is the other side of the coin, the phony savings we will realize from Obamacare – the $70 Billion in savings from a new, voluntary long-term care insurance program called CLASS – except, as Howard notes, the premiums paid aren’t really savings, instead these premiums must be put aside for future claims, so not a true “net” savings after all, just another glittering pyramid scheme disturbingly similar to Social Security and Medicare. How many Big Macs can $70 Billion buy – well, never mind, not important. But wait, there is a projected $500 Billion in savings from future Medicare reimbursements – but with Medicare facing mammoth projected deficits in any case, we’re just playing that street corner game of guess which walnut shell the pea is under – the money comes out of one entitlement program only to immediately vanish into another program. And $500 Billion? – we’ve definitely reached the limit of the visualization standard “how many Big Macs would that be”, we now have to start envisioning the “save” to also include Burger King Whoppers, plus the total unit output of Wendy’s and Taco Bell.
Howard does a workmanlike job debunking some of the claims, you can catch his article in City Journal for a leisurely read – it’s worth the effort. But at the end of the day, we’re still light years away from bringing the cost home to Mr. and Mrs. Mainstreet. What is the specific tax bite for you, for me, and for how many years, is it bigger than a bread basket for some, a mere pittance for others? And how much will our present health insurance premiums increase year over year? For those getting the entitlement goodies, how much rationing will your basic Medicare recipient see and when? And what will be rationed? A host of other “bringing it closer to home” points need to be made before Obamacare becomes “real”. It’s not easy to work up much bitter bile over $114 billion in start-up costs, at least not compared to “Hey, why did my health insurance premiums jump 20%” this year.
But in today’s political climate, the last thing either political party wants is to “bring it home” to the voters. The “fog of war” is nothing in comparison to the fog of new social programs. And with the recent ‘Year of the Obama’, new Trillion dollar programs are as common as junk mail coupons – recall what the Bard said: A Trillion here, another Trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking real money.
The political key to keeping government Health Care on the road to longevity is chucking around vast sums no sane person can relate to, bickering over whether the cost is $50 Billion more or $100 Billion less than the amount the other side claims, viciously debating what the bill’s language really says while not explaining it in terms we taxpayers can understand. Transparency may be served by publishing Trillion dollar “program” budgets, understanding by common citizens is not. In the end, the temptation is to throw up your hands and start writing in capital letters: WE’RE GONNA TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK. Not likely to happen outside of our dreams and, besides, most of us can’t afford to take our country back what with the unimaginable debts America the Broke will soon owe.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Alexander, IC Politics and Paul Rodgers, Follow Sarah Palin. Follow Sarah Palin said: Health Care Hysteria – Intellectual Conservative http://goo.gl/fb/L3JD #sarahpalin #news [...]