Whose Tombstone?
Thursday, November 21, 2013
The often insightful Dick Morris blows it big
time in a recent Polyanna-esque column touting the de facto demise
of ObamaCare. He ends it as follows:
So all that will be left are some very good consumer protection insurance reforms requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions and a ban on cancellation or premium hikes in the event of illness.If only this were all, but no. Even such a result camouflages the very real danger Obama poses to the great legacy of America's founders -- our freedom. Northrup Buechner (who notes that, "[s]ince President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times") argues this point with startling clarity at Forbes:
Beyond that, there will be a vestigal administrative superstructure erected to run a massive, national healthcare system in which only 1.5 million people are participating. Like a monument in the desert, it will gather sand and erode over time.
Obama's legacy.
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.Gloating over Barack Obama's apparently losing battle poses the very real threat of losing the war for freedom.
Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take--actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.
-- CAV
5 comments:
Not to mention the all-too-clear intention to paint the planned failure of Obamacare as the fault of insurance companies and whatever other elements of the private market are left, in hopes that the nation will be so angry and weary of it all that they'll finally surrender to single-payer when they push it again.
Indeed.
An interesting question this raises is which is worse for individual rights nowadays, government success or failure?
The answer to that should be obvious but the government today has its tentacles into so many things that are none of its business; it possibly violates more rights when it shuts down or screws up (or doesn’t even try) than when it runs normally.
Also, I can readily believe as Jim said that Obamacare was intended to fail in the sense that it would make things worse.
But the failure of the website seems to have occurred completely because incompetence and been completely unpredicted by the White House. It doesn’t make sense to me that they wanted that aspect to fail – its too visible and it could bring down the project early before it even got the chance to be a successful failure (if you know what I mean)
Someone (the man the law is nicknamed after) not so competent inadvertently handed us a teaching moment and maybe a little time to go with it. For once, I think we got lucky.
I agree that we got lucky in a sense. Your point about government success or failure is interesting, too, and I wish more Republicans would think about it before simply wishing ObamaCare would fail, as if that means they should have a chance to make it "work".
Post a Comment