Health care may well pass, and what will happen if it does

The American Thinker spells it out:

Richard Baehr, ace political watcher, thinks the odds are that Nancy Pelosi, through brute force, will get Obama Care through.  Once that happens, of course, it’s the law, and “reconciliation,” which is ostensibly meant to smooth away any lingering roughness, will die a’bornin’

Christopher Chantrill explains what government will look like once it passes — and that’s regardless of any efforts, successful or not, not repeal it:

There are a number of reasons why the outcome of Obamacare would be a lot less enjoyable than this rosy scenario.

First of all, in the period between passage and repeal, many damaging events will have taken place. Taxes will have gone up. Many employers will have terminated their health plans and accepted a tax that costs them less than their employee health plan. Seniors will have lost their Medicare Advantage. Doctors will have retired rather than deal with the hassle of Obamacare. Already the curtain will have rung up on a meaner, nastier America.

And we know today what that looks like. It looks like Greece, where the government is teetering on the edge of default and workers from a bloated public sector are rioting in the streets over the possibility of any reduction in their pay and benefits. It looks like Iceland, where the voters just voted by 93 percent to 1.5 percent against the government’s proposal to pay back losses suffered by British and Dutch depositors after its bank meltdown in 2008. And let’s not forget Argentina, which has lumbered from inflation to default and back again numerous times since it opted for the empty promises of Juan Perón and the lovely Evita back in 1946.

The squalor of this kind of government is dreadful. It is government that lurches from crisis to crisis, resorting to loans, IMF bailouts, and defaults on debt, followed by “restructurings” that deliver a 60- to 70-percent loss to bondholders. In the Argentine crisis of 1999-2002, the government blithely seized dollar deposits in personal checking accounts and replaced them with pesos worth about 25 percent as much.

Under government like that, you can’t be an independent soul. You have to work for the government, join a union, pay your dues to the local party boss. Otherwise, you will get run over. The glory of America is that most of the time, it has avoided this misery.

This is one of those cases where Obama and the Democrats break it, but we, the citizens, end up owning it.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Marguerite says

    I’ve been so frustrated with the Republicans for allowing the left to name/define this ginormous power grab as something as benign as ‘health care’.   When I’ve discussed this issue the first thing out of my mouth is ‘it isn’t about health care.’  That at least opens the door to what I do think it’s about if the other person is interested, but other than a power grab I haven’t come up with a dramatic enough phrase to define or describe the stunning alteration of  how an individual will relate to the govt. if this passes. 

  2. Marguerite says

    Sadie -  I have a Friday a.m. coffee group – I could ask for a show of hands on how many think Obama’s subjucation plan will pass and see what happens. 

  3. SADIE says

    I am on baited breath – how did the Friday coffee gathering respond?
     
    Hope it was less ‘cloak n’ dagger’ than the House of Reps.  Actually, I’ve renamed them -   Repo House. They’re out to repossess everything …houses, cars, banks, health care, education our future.

  4. Marguerite says

    Alas, Sadie, our DIL had a baby sitting emergency (jury duty) and we had the babies from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Friday so I never got to coffee this week to ask the question. In the meantime, I saw a letter in the WSJ from someone who said he debated the One in 2003. He said ‘this president is not interested in health-care reform; he is interested in government-provided benefits.’  O’s entire position then was that government exists to provide what people cannot provide for themselves . . . free markets are Darwinism . . . we should all take care of each other through govt. largess .  . . administered by large govt. bureaucracies . . . run by govt-employee unions committed to Democratic politicians as a happy byproduct. This is not news to anyone who reads this blog, but I like being able to go back and see that this man has never been anything other than a redistributionist w/a chip on his shoulder and probably already views Americans as his subjects.

  5. SADIE says

    Ahh…the days of baby sitting emergencies are well behind me. I do have happy memories of the moms getting together at my house during the week  (I had the largest backyard that was fenced in as well). No coffee or tea, but I did make a nice pitcher of banana daiquiris in the summer time and we always had a designated mom, who did not ‘partake’ – not to fret, we never over did anything except enjoy the company and support of one another.
     
    Marguerite,  returning us to our regularly scheduled program. The letter from the WSJ  affirms that the Zero wants total control – no surprise here.  I have stated my real concern on this blog several times that he is the head of the snake and if he is to be a one-term narcissist (do you hear me, please G-d) my general malaise with it all, is that he was groomed for the job and led to the podium to deliver the keynote speech during  the 2004 DNC by a more potent force.  If the trio of Pelosi, Reid and Zero disappeared tomorrow, the substitutes are waiting in the wings.
     
    The Trio are currently the names and faces we wrestle with now. I am actually more concerned with the faces and names that have not been revealed. I am old enough to remember  Viet Nam, the student demonstrations, the so-called cultural revolution etc. It was  not the student demonstrations that altered political decisions in those days, it was the parents of those students, who raged. I remember remarking to friends then, that the government would never again allow the middle class to exercise power by protest or any other means, since middle class America was the majority and ultimately could effect change by the ballot or by the dollar.
     
    40 years later the ballot, the dollar, the majority are impotent. There is certainly grass root efforts trying to minimize the government take all, but this process will be too slow to stem the flood. States Rights, which should have protected us have been eroding for years. The financial mess of California, New York, Illinois, etc.  will eventually be another bailout for the Feds, which will transfer power of  said State to the Feds, who will then control how that state can operate.
     
    Sorry, for going on such a long harangue here and particularly since I am not painting a rosy picture.  I hope that I am wrong and that there is some defining moment for the dullest of light bulbs and they see the light. Of course, we both know that many prefer to be led through the darkness.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Sadie #6:
    > Sorry, for going on such a long harangue here and particularly since I am not painting a rosy picture.

    Sadie, the “harangues”, as you put it, are some of my favorite reads here.  They’re honest in their content and emotion – commenters here are such good writers and you all don’t just devolve into expletives and keyboard mashings.  There’s real content in the venting.

    I agree with everything you wrote!  I’m often as pessimistic, but sometimes much more optimistic.  Probably true of most of us.

  7. Marguerite says

    Sadie – Yes, I agree he was obviously groomed, literally.  And has gone from one  government job to the next,  rising to a new level of incompetency at each step, and he has no record of personal achievement along the way.   Years of dumbing down education and teaching pc crapola (what to think, not how to think) in the place of founding principles have brought us to a place where a man with no past (thank you, incurious press) can be elected to be in charge of our future. 

  8. SADIE says

    Somewhere between 1979 (possibly sooner) and his mediocre self indulgences  followed by his transfer to Columbia from Occidental lies the key to the ‘real’ groomers.  We have all picked away at the publicity of the ‘chosen one’ or ‘the one’ while he campaigned, but in retrospect this may be closer to the truth that even I would like to think about.
     
     

Leave a Reply