Some comments on the events of last night, in no particular order:
The costs of this thing will be its undoing. And ours, I suspect. The move towards governmental power will invariably accelerate. Exponentially so, when given such a boost as we saw last night. What nobody has mentioned thus far is the costs have a tendency the to accelerate exponentially, as well.
As I’ve indicated in other threads, insurers will no longer be such, at least in any meaningful sense. As increased government regulation of insurers takes hold, there will be increasingly less resistance to government taking over their roles entirely. I for one, do not consider this a good thing.
As big government takes hold, it not only changes the business aspects but it also changes the very character of the people . It also changes the relationship of the individual and the state. We’ve already seen this as a huge negative in the places where governmental health care has taken hold. It’s gotten to the point where there is large movement afoot to reverse course in those countries , away from government run health care. I should point out that the move away from cradle to grave government in those situations has been only marginally successful.
Then there’s the issue of the cost involved; This plan such as it is is unaffordable. Take a look at Canada, and the whole of Europe. And you will notice that the first thing that they drop in the face of these unaffordable costs of big government here at home is global military capability. For that matter, as the costs have risen for cradle to grave government, there seems a question as to whether not Canada and Europe can support any kind of defense force whatsoever. Canada’s military in particular has become something of a neighborhood joke.
I suggest that this will lead to further attacks against these United States as our enemies smell weakness.
So what do we have here, in total?
We have a bill that took massive amounts of corruption, and quid pro quo , to get passed. The fact is there was more corruption in the writing and passing of this bill and then what the Democrats have offered as heretofore, which is of course is saying something.
We have less health care, fewer doctors, longer wait times, all of these points in ample evidence in every situation where government driven health care has taken over. The history of the thing should have been alarming enough to cause the vast majority of Americans to reject the bill. (Oh, wait… they did that. Never mind)
We have more government bureaucracy, including a large expansion of the IRS, a debt load that makes our debt heretofore seem minuscule by comparison, and an inability to react a global military situations as they arise, even within our own borders.
It remains to be seen whether not the American people will react appropriately to this breach of trust … (after all the vast majority of Americans, even the majority of Democrats wanted nothing to do with this bill ) … but the bottom line is that if that mattered, the Democrats would not pursue this course in the first place. They now have socialism built into our Healthcare system. Even assuming a large turnover to the Republicans come November the chances of overturning this monstrosity seem small it best.
At least, in terms of Congress itself overturning it. The next act in this tragedy is going to play out in the midterm elections and in the courts.
Very shortly we’re going to find out how the lawsuits against the Federal government and particularly the Democrat run Congress and the White House fare in the face of state’s rights lawsuits.
There is that, along with the election campaign.
If we can take the special elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts , as well as the close call a New York 33 as any indication it’ll be a mere eight months, when we’re going to have a shift in power in Congress. And two years beyond, another presidential race. So, between now and then we’re going to see a massive effort on the part of the Obama White House and on the part of the Democrat machine to convince the voters that this bill holds something of value for them. It’s my suspicion that they will be singularly unsuccessful in convincing them of this, the politics of health care are nothing if not via little. Certainly, the only thing that is certain for the Democrats their immediate sense upper hand, is uncertainty. I point out again, however, that the history of this thing around the world is pretty well laid out in favor of big government.
And the trump card has yet to be played, there. (I’ll get to that in a minute)
For us in the meantime, we have is a law that will unquestionably remove a number of freedoms. I watched last night as Nancy Pelosi wandered around in Congress with a huge gavel in her hand. The symbolism was both startlingly clear and convoluted. The speaker in her delusional state apparently equates the monster she forced through last night with the civil rights legislation of the ’60’s. What the Speaker apparently doesn’t recall is that the civil rights act of 1964 was passed by Republicans, over the objections of the Democrats, including LBJ. She also misses the point that the purpose of the legislation was to guarantee freedoms. The fact is what passed last night will do nothing to the sort, but rather will take freedoms away.
The question remains what the reaction will be. What of the trump card?
Billy this morning [1] points to WC Varones, who in turn suggests that the electorate is far from static. [2].. That Obama and company have immigration legislation on their plate, the plan being to grant amnesty to illegals living here now. Current estimates put the totals something on the order of fifteen to 30 million people. The assumption that they would become immediate and lifelong Democrat voters is a logical one, and the kind of numbers being bandied about would suggest that any backlash against the Democrats over this monstrosity and others in the next few elections will be more than overwhelmed by the number of new Democrat voters brought in by way of “Amnesty”.
But to me, it looks like this is the reason that the Democrats feel absolutely no need to listen to the wishes of the majority of the electorate right now. Simply put; they are not legislating for this current electorate. They are legislating for the electorate-to-come, the one that will exist after Amnesty is granted to 15-30 million new Democrat voters. It’s a trump card. Essentially, this means that 2008 could end up being the last major election that our current electorate (as demographically constituted today) will ever have participated in. Thus, they know that they might never have to answer to this current electorate again.
What will happen at that point? Billy has what seems to me the most logical answer:
America is being legislated out of existence. I am no great fan of Milton Friedman, but he was absolutely correct when he pointed out that you can have free immigration or a welfare state, but you cannot have both.