Tuesday, November 10, 2009

A confession of a supporter of health care reform.

This is not really anything suprising or new.

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

Well, the President said the same thing. Damn, I thought this was about health care and taking care of the poor pitiful O so poor people and saving babies. Well most people think this and are blinded by the disguise of helping people and taking care of them. How can you be against helping the poor and sick and babies? I have talked to well meaning people that think like this. People are being mislead and misdirected into creating a tyrannical and all controlling government. America is very slowly and very gradually evolving into a welfare state with an large and powerful government. As long as one can work, as a slave does not matter, and make money and watch sports and drink a beer and read my pop culture magazine and watch the movie rewards and American Idol, why would one care? This is a major step to achieving this goal and controlling one sixth of the US economy. The current health care bill won't pass, but something that will eventually lead to, much later down the road, the government being the sole provider of our health care will pass. Come on now. We need to pass this, help them sick folks and babies out. Evil insurance companies and Evil Capitalism are preventing people from getting their health care. Government is going to save us from this!

8 comments:

  1. At least Cassiday is debating the issue honestly. Hey, if the majority of America thinks that we should saddle generations with mountains of debt, and we should settle for mediocre health care for all, and we should further government's control of our lives, then so be it. It's insane, but at least he's not hiding the consequences like our Coward in Chief or Congress is. If the majority of America votes to end our Republic, then there's not a lot we can peacefully do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point. I think about it a lot. If the majority of the people vote for it, then it must be done. But it is our job as the contributors to RTP's to let the readers know that it is huge mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And it is exactly the issue of debt that Lieberman and now Senator Nelson (after weeks of going back and forth) have opposed the House measure:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/subway-series-senator-ben-nelson-abortion-amendment-health/story?id=9045075

    I know that Sen Webb hasn't been that committed to the House bill either. This doesn't mean they all won't vote on some type of Healthcare bill in the future, but at least we can take solace in the fact that Pelosi's rapid ramming of the crazy plan won't amount to squat. If anything, it will only prolong the debate in the Senate as liberals vs, blue dog dems fight it out, ultimately defeat this bill, then go back to the Senate option(s) debate that out and everything will turn into a pissing contest between the House and Senate. Hopefully by the time they resolve it, we'll be closing in on the mid terms and the threat of a Republican revolution will shy away even more moderate dems

    (signs things are starting to swing our way: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124226/Republicans-Edge-Ahead-Democrats-2010-Vote.aspx)

    ReplyDelete
  4. and this: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    ReplyDelete
  5. Melkor, your links are good links. I do agree that the current bill will likely not pass--unless they want to commit political suicide, but something will that will contain a trigger or trojan horse that will eventually lead to the government running our health care.

    I would agree that if people want to vote their freedoms away then that is just fine. That is the eventual outcome of most Republics. All governments eventually devolve into tyranny. My whole point is to illustrate that it is happening and that it is inevitable. Not much one can do about it except realize the fact. I can say this with confidence because I am aware of what the majority of people think, even conservatives, and the fact that today's youth are being taught to hate America and everything that makes it great and possible. I was given by my instructor a bunch of Communist authors to read that are "more balanced" than Thomas Sowell. Toejamm made an interesting point and showed me a fatal misconception that I had--I assumed that people just accepted that Capitalism was good and Communism was bad and that America was a good country. This turned out to be incorrect. We will arrive at this destination even under "Conservative" leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We won't reach that end under "conservative" leadership, we will reach that end under either Religious Right or Neo-Conservative leadership. So long as the Religious and the neo-conservatives run the Republican party, we will be a party that is just as big spending, big government as the Democrats, albeit, the goods we spend will be on arms and security while democrats will purchase healthcare and handouts.

    Sadly, the issue of the New York House seat is indicative of the cleavages that are beginning to to emerge within the party. The nominee for 2012 is going to be just a test on Obama, it's going to show which way the winds below within the right. Hope to God, we can get some honest "conservatives" to pick up the banner and rock it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe RTP should start picking sides

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, the Religious Right and the Neo-Conservatives are the ones that make up the Republican party. America is forced to accept bigger government with the two party system. The two parties' goal and where they are taking us is the same thing. The left will set the system up and the Right will be the one to use it. Sarah Palin is the best the Conservatives have, but she still holds some dangerous beliefs.

    ReplyDelete