Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Healthcare
Democracies always begin in liberty, but they don’t always keep it.
Why? Because what begins in liberty, ends with a strong- ever intrusive – centralized government. A government that believes, due to it’s super-sized (fucksized) intelligence, that it they can solve every problem for the little people. Like in France.
French Sélestat, in Alsace, has an unemployment rate of 8% and a youth unemployment rate of 23%. Across the border in Emmendingen, the rates are 3% and 7%. (The U.S.’s own unemployment rates these days are closer to those in Sélestat.)
Deep in the article, the mayor of Sélestat explains why this is so. In Germany, he said, local and state governments can set many of their own rules. In France, “the national Education Ministry wants to keep all control.” The Affordable Care Act is our road to France’s ministry of education. For its designers, ObamaCare is their administrative coup de grâce.
It would seem to obvious to point out that the government in NO way is capable of handling a system as large, and diverse, as the United States. But, onward they press. These “controllers” who want to be the deciders of every aspect of our life. What cars we buy, who and what provides our electricity, what bulbs we use in our house, what our children eat, and now how we receive our healthcare.
Why are we so close to falling into the grip of an American mandarinate of the centralizing sort now smothering France? Our version of these controllers came to life in the 1960s. They are a byproduct of the passage in those years of a succession of federal rights and entitlement laws. The former were more admirable than the latter. But the singularly bad effect of that period on the American political psyche was the sense of moral triumphalism that spread among liberal policy intellectuals. From this certitude came the belief they could do anything they wanted to the booboisee in the untrustworthy states.
Because, of course, they’re smarter than us (non-Harvard educated) peons. What of liberty?
For the political left affiliated with Barack Obama—in the bureaucracies, the punditocracy and the courts—objections to these expansive laws on liberty grounds, then and now, are mainly arguments over abstractions. The liberty objections simply don’t matter. ObamaCare itself is a masterpiece of mandarin abstraction.
They don’t care. They don’t care if it is unconstitutional, because it’s just such a good idea. Debating with liberals, they will give you sob stories regarding pre-existing conditions, and the price of health care for those who are self-employed, and (inflated) numbers of the uninsured. But these issues are no reason to stray from liberty and away from the Constitution.
Obamacare opens the door for UNLIMITED federal power. That ought to scare everyone, and I don’t understand why it doesn’t.
Regarding the developments in the Supreme Court:
Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn’t that he’s a bad lawyer, it’s that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn’t—not because he didn’t know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.
Mr. Verrilli came closest to a limiting principle—and got some sympathy from Justice Kennedy—when he claimed that everyone will use health care at some point in their lives, so what’s the big deal with making young people pay more earlier?
Even if this were true, it is a deeply radical claim. The government is mandating that everyone buy health insurance specifically, but by this reasoning any economic or personal decisions that touch on health care could be used as a pretext for federal police powers. People who lead healthy lives consume fewer medical services than others, so the government could mandate exercise, a healthy diet, and more.
This is power without limit, which is not what the Constitution provides, or what its framers intended, or what the Supreme Court has ever tolerated. That is why this week’s arguments have been so careful, why they have revised the establishment’s thinking, and why they are so important for the future of American liberty.
If pre-existing conditions MUST be covered, the mandate is imperative. And thus, young, healthy folks NEED to pay for a service they will never use.
The entire house of cards is built on the idea that “I” pay for “your” healthcare. That for everyone who consumes massive amounts of health-care dollars, that are a bunch of us using zero.
A friend, arguing in support of Obamacare, told me that her husband’s medications cost $8,000 a month. They certainly can’t afford that. But that $8,000 consumed by him, means that there are about 11 families out there consuming NO healthcare dollars (based on my family’s $700 a month premium).
And, instead of dealing with that $8,000 price tag, Obama merely wants to continue the pyramid scam.
The answer is to, of course, find a way to provide services CHEAPER.
While certainly nothing is certain regarding the eventual decision the Supreme Court comes to, what is interesting is that the left is, basically, gobsmacked that this isn’t a slam-dunk for them. The White House/Media Cocoon on Obamacare led them all to believe in the Constitutionality of the entire thing. Jeffrey Toobin was “shocked”:
“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down,” he said. “I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.”
I’m sure Jeffrey. When you surround yourself with people who think just as you do, not understanding the merits of their argument can come as a surprise and a shock.
Shocking, that is, to anyone completely unfamiliar with the founding document and the intent of the Founders. Sadly, this includes most people in the traditional media, on which too many continue to rely for their analysis. The White House could have avoided, or at least mitigated, this disaster by hiring the smartest opponents of the law to come in and do a moot court exercise against them, in order to prepare their advocate in advance. But, whether due to arrogance, incompetence, or both, it did not.
This week’s events at the Supreme Court should be a torpedo below the waterline to the credibility of those who have been telling us about the Constitution, and those who determine the constitutionality of the swill that is generated in Congress. A media organization that wanted to survive the coming tsunami of fact-checking from those in the know, who with social media are increasingly becoming more known, might want to hire a “red team” to give them the bitter truths they need to survive.
It’s not just the White House. It’s just about every liberal I run into. Debating, with conservatives, make them uncomfortable. Icky. I can’t remember the last time I had a debate, with a liberal, who had a grasp of either the conservative position or the facts on the ground. Let alone a working knowledge of, and respect for, the Constitution.
Of course, we could all probably benefit from taking this course.