Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus
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.
D E P E N D E N C E = S L A V E R Y
D E M O C R A T S = M A S T E R S
It is difficult to be with how wrong-headed, anti-human and utterly negative the position of the Democrats and Obama is on these matters. Freedom = life, creativity, entrepreneurship, higher standard of living, innovation, more health care, increased happiness. Control and dependence = victimization, entitlement and demands, lower standard of living, fewer innovations, less health care, more sadness and hopelessness.
It is not true that a free society is less equitable. A free society is not based on comparison of people as if they are all cut out of the same mold. Each man is different. No one is equal, except in his right to live. Only in a free society is it possible to for humanity to bloom as millions of points of light. On the other hand, the mark of a socialist society is lights going out. Everyone and everything grows dim, dull and dead. Socialism in any degree is anti-human life, anti-energy. You see people living there, but they are forbidden to be alive.
No comments:
Post a Comment