As bad as government run health care is in Europe and Canada, according to Mark Steyn it will be worse here if Komissars Pelosi and Reid are able to deliver a health care reform bill to Dear Leader. (via memeorandum)
We were told we had to do it because of the however many millions of uninsured, yet this bill will leave some 25 million Americans uninsured. On the other hand, millions of young fit healthy Americans in their first jobs who currently take the entirely reasonable view that they do not require health insurance at this stage in their lives will be forced to pay for coverage they neither want nor need. On the other other hand, those Americans who’ve done the boring responsible grown-up thing and have health plans Harry Reid determines to be excessively “generous” will be subject to punitive taxes up to 40 percent. On the other other other hand, if you’re the member of a union which enjoys privileged relations with Commissar Reid you’ll be exempt from that 40 percent shakedown. On the other other other other hand, if you’re already enjoying government health care, well, you’re 83 years old and, let’s face it, it’s hardly worth us giving you that surgery for the minimal contribution you make to society, so in the cause of extending government health care to millions of people who don’t currently get it we’re going to ration it for those currently entitled to it.
Looking at the millions of Americans it leaves uninsured, and the millions it leaves with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay significantly more for their current health care, one can only marvel at Harry Reid’s genius: government health care turns out to be all government and no health care. Adding up the zillions of new taxes and bureaucracies and regulations it imposes on the citizenry, one might almost think that was the only point of the exercise.
That’s why I believe America’s belated embrace of government health care is going to be far more expensive and disastrous than the Euro-Canadian models. Whatever one’s philosophical objection to the Canadian health system, it is, broadly, fair: Unless you’re a cabinet minister or a bigtime hockey player, you’ll enjoy the same equality of crappiness and universal lack of access that everybody else does. But, even before it’s up-and-running, Pelosi-Reid-Obamacare is an impenetrable thicket of contradictory boondoggles, shameless payoffs, and arbitrary shakedowns.
That’s why Nebraska’s grotesque zombie senator Ben Nelson is the perfect poster boy for the new arrangements, and not just another so-called Blue Dog Democrat spayed into compliance by a massive cash injection. There is no reason on earth why Nebraska should be the only state in this Union to have every dime of its increased Medicare tab picked up by the 49 others. So either that privilege will be extended to all, or to favored others, or its asymmetry will be balanced by other precisely targeted lollipops hither and yon. Whatever happens, it’s a dagger at the heart of American federalism, just as the bill’s magisterial proclamation that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board can only be abolished by a two-thirds vote of the Senate strikes at one of the most basic principles of a free society — that no parliament can bind its successors.
These details are obnoxious not merely in and of themselves but because they tell us the truth about where we’re headed: Think of the way almost every Big Government project bursts its bodice and winds up bigger and more bloated than its creators allegedly foresaw. In this instance, the stays come pre-loosened, and studded with loopholes. Because the Democrat operators — the Nancy Pelosis and Barney Franks — know that what matters is to get something, anything across the river, and then burn the bridge behind you. …..
According to Steyn, there’s no need to point to any specific page or provision in the bill to find death panels or a public option. The entire thing will lead to both. Not that many in the media see it that way. Take for instance, the editors of the Syracuse Post Standard. In their view, the end justifies the means. A bill rammed through in a most despicable fashion, no matter how patently unfair, is just fine with them. Because something is better than nothing.
It has been painful to watch, and there is plenty of blame to go around. The polarization that led to the 60-40 split in the Senate — which in effect gave every senator in the 60-vote majority the power to hold the bill hostage — began last summer, as GOP Senate leaders like John Boehner and Charles Grassley helped fuel a firestorm of misinformation about the issue. The entirely false notion that the legislation would create “death panels” is now all but forgotten, but it and other such fictions served their purpose by polarizing the debate and making passage of any bill that much more difficult.
The bill’s opponents continue to demonize every aspect of it, exaggerating its flaws and ignoring its virtues. Last week in this section, Republican businessman Mark Bitz, who is seeking to challenge Rep. Dan Maffei, D-DeWitt, next year, wrote at length about real and imagined problems with the bill, but never mentioned that it would extend health insurance coverage to some 30 million Americans who are desperately in need of it.
There are many reasons why the United States has been unable to pass universal health care legislation despite repeated attempts over the decades. Powerful special interests hold such sway over both Democrats and Republicans in Congress that the perfect bill will never be passed, and the prospect of turning even a highly compromised bill into law is daunting.
And so the nation is faced with flawed legislation — which will continue to evolve when and if the Senate and House reconcile their separate bills into a final package. But, sadly enough, it just might be the best health care overhaul Congress is capable of producing.
Neither bill addresses the growth in medical costs as aggressively as it should. Neither expands coverage to every American. But both bills would insure 30 million people, moving the percentage of insured Americans from 83 to 94. Both would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to people who need care the most because of their “pre-existing conditions.” Both, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would reduce deficits over the next decade and beyond. …
Never mind that covering those 30 million people involves unconstitutional mandates. Never mind that every government entitlement program in history has cost exponentially more than the predictions once enacted. Never mind that states like New York, which are already broke or breaking under an already expensive Medicare system, will be forced to subsidize the states that got favorable treatment. Never mind that those of us who have been responsible will be punished with higher premiums and higher taxes. Never mind that coverage is one thing and care is quite another. Never mind that there won’t be enough physicians to meet demand. Never mind that innovation will be stifled. Never mind any of that. As long as something passes, no matter how putrid, all is well in the land of the left.
Time for TEA party patriots, the New Media’s resurgent Right, to roll-out the heavy artillery… as you smell the weakness, let’s nail Dear Leader to the mat by putting a stop to the madness of ObamaCare. Pelosi can’t afford to lose more than a couple votes…
It’s more than obvious that Barack Obama wouldn’t have delayed ObamaCare final action in the House til February without a reason- and the reason is he doesn’t have the votes.
Raising cane is all we can do… but it just might work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In fact, are there or will there be actual “death panels?” No.
Will the meachanisms of the proposed system have the SAME effect? YES!
I wish some peeps would just STFU. It’s bad enough they are giving us a screwing, but to have to listen to what they spew just adds insult to injury.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0