How 'bout "Repeal and Repeal"?

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The good news: Republicans in Congress are talking about repealing ObamaCare. The bad news that worse than nullifies this? They're already planning a u-turn:

"I think the slogan will be 'repeal and replace', 'repeal and replace,'" [Mitch] McConnell [R-KY] said. "No one that I know in the Republican conference in the Senate believes that no action is appropriate."
It's bad enough that McConnell has just fallen into the "What have you got?" trap that Barack Obama laid for him in the form of his February health care summit "invitation." All the Democrats have to say to this is, "Where was this proposal back in February?" What's worse are the huge holes in understanding on many levels this reveals on McConnell's part.

First of all, on the practical level, the problems ObamaCare is pretending to address through government controls are themselves caused by government controls. No "action" by the government -- aside from the protection of individual rights -- is necessary or desirable within the medical industry, or any other. Unless McConnell has a comprehensive program for disentangling the government from our health, he could not possibly mean anything but "more of the same" in answer to the obvious question of, "Replace? With what?"

Second, and more important, there is no grasp of what is morally wrong with this bill evident in the short piece at the Caucus political blog. The "health spending law"? Excuse me while I whistle through my teeth. Is that all you've got in the outrage department, Mr. McConnell? Congress just told your constituents to buy medical coverage whether they want it or not, and that it will pay for whatever the government deems necessary for their medical care. They were just converted -- legally, anyway -- into state property. Screw spending. This is the worst violation of my person and danger to my life to come from Washington, bar none. This is also true for each of your constituents, whether they are aware of this or not.

Get rid of it, and then get rid of anything else like it. Repeal and Repeal.

If the GOP calls for a repeal of ObamaCare only to follow it with the same thing thinly disguised as "capitalism," I'll vote to reelect the Democrats. At least they aren't spitting in my face and telling me it's raining.

Try again.

-- CAV


: Corrected a punctuation error.


The GolfMage said...

I think the path of repeal should start with the Department of Education, and then this recent Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, followed by the truly hard work: the 17th Amendment, finally, the 16th Amendment. It could happen in the context of implementing a National Sales Tax.

Doug Reich said...

Thanks for excellent post.

This is more evidence that our battle is with Republicans (our supposed defenders) not with Democrats (our known enemies)

Gus Van Horn said...


I think even you aren't going far enough, or necessarily in the right order. (But I appreciate your comment, anyway.)

A properly limited government would not have taxation at all, and I think that enacting a new tax would do more harm than good, even as a measure towards attempting to back out of taxation altogether. Better would be to simplify and reduce a tax we already have -- while scaling back the welfare state -- during such a transition.


You're welcome.


I'm answering your excellent question very briefly here because you surely aren't the only one asking it: "What would you say to someone who feels overwhelmed by the current cultural tendency towards statism and feels like giving up?"

One-word answer: Don't.

A slightly expanded version is that you're focusing on the wrong things. We can hope to forestall and push back against statism a little bit in the short run, but to effect real change will require us to work to understand the ideas people must accept for themselves in order to want freedom, and then attempt to convince others of their merits. A similar thing took place on the way to abolishing slavery and can serve as model and inspiration, because only a couple or three decades before the Civil War, I am sure the idea of abolishing slavery would have looked no less quixotic.

A longer (and much better example) exists in the form of an essay by Ayn Rand called, "What can one do?" in her work, Philosophy: Who Needs It. I highly recommend taking a look at it.

Thank you for your question.


Gus Van Horn said...

"(and much better example)" In the last comment should have read, "(and much better answer) ".