Mark Steyn:
I try to be a sunny the-glass-is-one-sixteenth-full kinda guy, but it’s hard to overestimate the magnitude of what the Democrats have accomplished….
Mathew Vadum:
America suffered an atrocity of catastrophic proportions last night and it’s not clear if the nation will ever recover.
David Horowitz:
The President was right about one thing. The vote on Obamacare tonight was a historic one. The Democratic Party has…revealed itself to be an anti-democratic Party and an anti-liberty party. It is a party that has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitutional framework, for the democratic process, and for the expressed will of the American people. Its brazen contempt for the compact that holds the diverse factions of this country together has initiated a political war at home that will extend not only into the next elections but into the next generations….The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Tonight’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle. It is the beginning.
From the “Idaho Health Freedom Act”, passed last week:
The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services.
It is hereby declared that the public policy of the state of Idaho, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable rights of liberty, is that every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.
The thread is open for your comments, quotes, links, etc.
Well they got their death care now if
Canadians want something fixed what the heck are we supposed to do.
From the former Democrat supporters at HillBuzz:
“The Democrat Party is a Leftist party only now. If there were moderates and conservatives truly on the blue side of the aisle, they would never have allowed a bill like that to be passed. This was not how healthcare reform should have been done — with all the bribes, the unconstitutional mandates, the overreach of federal authority, and the Orwellian elevation of the Health & Human Services Secretary into an arbitrator of life and death for millions of Americans.
“We don’t see how a center-right nation embraces Democrats after this…not when Democrats have proven themselves to be so reckless, so Marxist, so un-American.
“We also don’t see how the party can ever be brought back from the Left now.
“There is just no going back possible.”
(…)
“Democrats might think they won their big lottery yesterday…but we believe they’re going to lose everything, and will probably not exist as a major political party 10 years from now as a result.”
Well, the nice thing is that the bill does stop short of further destroying the Canadian healthcare system. Nothing in there to prevent Danny Williams from hitting up the Mayo clinic again.
Important note to SDA commenters: if you use the word “insurance” there’s a good chance that your comment will be caught by the spam filter. Use something else – “ins”, for example – instead.
As we all know, winning elections is more important than fighting for what you ostensibly believe in. The health care act will never be repealed; the goal posts have been moved.
“The health care act will never be repealed.”
Kevin, a few pundits agree with you, but – for what it’s worth – I’m not so sure. I think there’s going to be a serious, erm, chipstorm over this. The legislation is certainly going to be challenged on constitutional grounds. Even before the bill was passed, lawmakers in 35 states “filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates.”
When Nancy Pelosi was asked – I’m paraphrasing – where in the Constitution is there a provision for the government to force people to purchase a government service, she replied,
“Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Not really a sound constitutional argument, certainly not one that would hold up in, say, the Supreme Court.
I don’t think this one’s over, not by a long shot.
I’ve never seen so many otherwise calm pundits, politicians and citizens so P.O’d, not just about the actual legislation but about the anti-democratic, unconstitutional process that led to it.
I agree, EBD. This is clearly in violation of the tenth amendment. I think that sometimes people forget just how powerful U.S. state governments are within the country, because most non-Americans mostly see the federal side of the country. There is going to be some serious push-back against the federales on this one ~ indeed, recall that the country was originally formed by the states’ rebellion against the then British federal overreach ~ which could ultimately even result in a new constitutional amendment further damning this kind of behaviour. As Augustine of Hippo noted in Saturday night’s reader tips, patience is the companion of wisdom in a case like this.
The election of the massive marxist Obama awakened the slumbering silent majority in the US. The Constitution shredding “health care” bill has now angered them. I expect to see huge marches on Washington – with only minor (derogatory) mainstream coverage. There will also be several States who flex their Constitutional muscles.
Liberty defenders will not surrender without a fight.
Now all we have to do is wait for that giant surge in popularity. Cause it sure still just looks like noise from here.
They’ve been violating the Tenth Amendment for a long time – think Social Security and Medicaid.
I hate to admit it, but I must agree that this will not be repealed…at least not until the US is much closer to economic Armageddon.
David Frum (a pox on his smugness) points out over at the NP (I will not link to that guy) that in 2 years, you will never get the votes necessary to revoke a person’s insurance because they had a pre-existing condition.
It’s just not going to happen – just as the Republicans never moved against the other anti-tenth-Amendment entitlements.
Even the New York Times agrees with the right
( well… at least on a important few points )
»…Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote…»
»…Mr. Obama has lost something — and lost it for good. Gone is the promise on which he rode to victory less than a year and a half ago — the promise of a “postpartisan” Washington in which rationality and calm discourse replaced partisan bickering. …»
Read the rest here,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/health/policy/22assess.html?hp
I think the Dems knew this would kill them in the November election. We’ll just have to see if they’ll be buried for good.
What a pity the first Black president had to be such a dud.
We live in interesting times.
One of the major “accomplishments” of Obamacare is to invalidate the very concept of insuranc (just trying to avoid the filter) as such.
When insurers cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, it is only a matter of time until people realize it is a total waste of money to buy coverage at all. If you can’t be denied coverage for any reason, why not wait until you get sick to buy coverage? That is exactly what will happen. At that point, Obamacare will collapse into just another welfare entitlement, which is what he wants anyway.
If the state passed a law mandating that fire insuranc companies could not deny anyone coverage based on a pre-existing condition of their house, no one would bother purchasing fire insuranc until after their house burned down. Can you imagine how well that system would work, or how many companies would even bother to get into such a money-losing enterprise in the first place?
How about using prepaid medical plan in place of insurance. I read that somewhere else on the web, and it does seem to fit the Democrat idea of health insurance anyway.
Insurance implies protecting against a low occuring event. Running to the emergency room or doctor’s office with strep throat doesn’t seem so unusual.
For all of you lot thinking about constitution this or that, by the time the cases reach the supreme court, Obama will have it stacked and the paper won’t be good beyond toilet paper because it will mean what the Democrats say it does.
Take that to the bank. Short of civil strife, or State’s declaring independence (even nominally,) there will be no repeal of this crap.
Steyn in right. The end is upon them. The West’s time is over. The last hope is only that the decline is drawn out rather than quick.
I’m not so sure either way, EBD, Vitruvius. It’s going to go one of 2 ways:
You can say, oh, well, the polls show most people opposed to it, but, if that mattered, the Dems wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. Their bet is that it can’t be undone, and that over time, as I’ve been saying for years now, governmentalized health care not only changes the relationship of the citizen to the state but the very character of the people.
that Americans need a tipping point that causes their anger to boil over and start disobeying the State en masse. The passage of ObamaCare with blatantly illegal parliamentary tyranny and unconstitutional mandates, that puts us trillions of dollars more in debt, that the great majority of voters hate, that jeopardizes the physical lives and health of all Americans – yes, that should do the trick.
…
“Anger, outrage, and the desire for vengeance is the best motivator for voters. If you want the Dems to get really and truly wiped out in November, you should want ObamaCare to pass. If it fails, everyone will celebrate to the moon, and with that comes hubris and overconfidence, which leads to complacency and letting one’s guard down so the Dems can stage a November comeback. America needs a real outright rebellion to cleanse itself of fascist government. Passage of ObamaCare would precipitate it.”
It will take a while to find out who is right, but find out we will. I’m not saying either of you is wrong – I’m just not sure.
Seems that some of the key provisions don’t kick in until 2013 or later, which could mean that a new president (like Palin) would be in place. If there is a reversal of the balance of power in the 2010 elections, we could be seeing various forms of rollback on this legislation as early as next year. I am not convinced that this is a permanent, unalterable set of changes; some of this may survive, but other portions may eventually be reversed. The other possibility is that health care on the ground will adapt in unforeseen ways, and that the American system will remain essentially better than our own.
I note that a major Democrat theme was that being against the Health Bill, was ‘against the poor having medical care’. What a vicious and ignorant statement. The Republicans aren’t against health care for the poor; they are against the method being proposed. There are several ways to pay for one’s health care.
1) Do it all youself. This is fine for regular care, and at least 10 million in the US choose this method (part of Obama’s false data set of those who are without ins). It’s the least expensive. Its problem is that it is hard to fund major care this way.
2) You can get a group together to pool funds, invest, and use it for major care. You might choose to continue regular care with your own funding, and use this pool only for the risk care. This is inexpensive because the administration of this fund is small.
3)You can use the same strategy but with a more organized system (medical ins.) that gathers money from many more people, invests and administers it. You can choose whether to access this money for various levels of health care. This is more expensive because you are paying for more administration.
4)Govt run health care. This is the most expensive because the costs of administration balloon exponentially. The bureaucracy to administer such a massive total system, which includes overseeing income, investment, payouts, accountability, etc becomes enormous and very expensive.
This method requires everyone to provide money ..or does it? ALL the other methods require that you choose to pay into the pool, and you actually do pay. If you don’t pay you don’t get coverage.
This method is different. This method sets up a situation where a large ratio of Users do not contribute to the money pool! They don’t pay taxes.
BUT – they have full access to the money in the pool!
Obviously, the result is:
– higher taxes on those who do pay taxes
=having to reduce other services to pay for those users who don’t pay and to pay for the enormous bureaucracy, which leads to…
– reduced quality and quantity of care
Dennis said, “…it is only a matter of time until people realize it is a total waste of money to buy coverage at all…”
No, at the crux of the bill in it’s current incarnation is a “You must buy ins. or the state will just take the money you would have spent on it away.” clause.
Via Michelle Malkin:
“Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office confirmed last night.”
Money quote from Cuccinelli: “At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.”
It’s true; the mafia has, but the US government never has.
Here’s South Carolina’s Attorney General, in a statement released last night:
“The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution of the United States. It contains various provisions and federal mandates that are clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed to stand.”
Florida’s Attorney General, announcing that he will file a lawsuit on constitutional grounds:
”The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty.”
You know, I saw a sports blooper showing a receiver, running for the endzone, who mistakenly thought he’d passed the last defender; he spun around and ran backwards to make a “bye-bye now” wave to the opposing team – turned out that the opposing teams safety was between him and the end zone.
Oof!
The receiver, playing for the Dems is Obama, and the free safety, playing for the states, is the Constitution.
Like I said, it’s on.
For all of you who think this will lead to a big GOP sweep in the fall, I ask: So What?
What have the GOP done in the last 2 decades to reduce the size of government? The answer is LESS than zero. To get UP to zero, they would have to have NOT increased the government themselves. They would have NOT passed “no child left behind” even though education is a state mandate. They would have had to NOT pass the prescription drug give-away. They would have NOT increased the budget of every 2-bit federal agency.
The GOP isn’t an alternative. No matter how bad the dems are, no matter the scum and villainy they are responsible, the simple fact is that the GOP are useless wankers.
There are some good free market based ideas within the bill, but unfortunately the bad ideas more then outweigh the good ones. Mandating someone to get health insurance is just plain bad policy. I don’t understand what this is supposed to accomplish.
@EBD:
> Kevin, a few pundits agree with you, but – for what it’s worth – I’m not so sure.
Well, CPC won the election on the ‘repeal the registry’ platform, and here we go. F ’em.
Stupak turned out to be Nancy’s toy boy…A punk that was a pretender….
The USSC will have some problems with previous president Re: individual rights to Chose…(The Health bill is in conflict with Roe Vs. Wade)
The Republicans could Make Abortion rights an Issue (poison Pill) by an Amendment to the House Bill…. Democrats would be hypocrites not to abolish abortion, now they have the power under the Federal Health Bill…
Vegas odds on who will survive Easter Break 1000-1
Dana Loesch:
“Last night, our legislators officially broke the contract with America that is the Constitution. Last night, they ceased to represent us. Last night, a new party was born; the malignant tumor that is the progressive caucus consumed the Democrat party from within and gave birth to the mainstream Socialist Party.”
“I don’t understand what this is supposed to accomplish.”
Create windfall profits for the “evil” insurance companies under the pretense of sticking it to them.
My statement is not incorrect. If you choose not to buy ins. you will have to pay a “fine”. If this fine is set at a rate lower than the cost of ins., as seems likely, why waste your money on ins.? But if you pay the fine mandated in the bill, what the state buys for you will not be ins. It will be welfare, plain and simple. It will not be financed by funds taken from a pool of investments based on actuarial studies to cover the cost of infrequent, catastrophic events, which is what ins. is supposed to be.
K Stricker; yes you are right. You have to pay a fine for not buying the HC ins.. It is over $300 for the first year and goes up from there.
Every single “progressive” initiative does one or more of the following:
1.Expands government bureaucracy
2.Expands NGOs
3.Expands unionization
4.Expands the number of citizens dependent on government largesse
The result with each “expansion”, is a flood of progressive voting tapeworms.
One thing the debate the last couple of days showed was that there is no such thing as a Blue Dog. Stupak bowed down before his master (Obama or Pelosi – your choice) and voted for this abominiation of a bill. He said he was cursed, threatened and worse and every ounce of pressure came from the Left! His mea culpa was his speech where he derided the Republicans for being the bad guys when it was the left that blew his socks down and made him eat sh*t!
Dennis,
The fines will eventually be 2.5% of income.
If you’re low income it will be subsidized. If you’re high income, it will make sense to buy ins. There might be a range in the middle class somewhere where you could save money buy not buying insurance, but then still you’d be out 2.5% of your income, have nothing to show for it, and still have to pay any medical expenses out of pocket.
Nope! We win, you guys lose. Yep. Health care for all. Now stop whining.
So many things will happen because of this vote it’s hard to know where to begin.
Here are a few:
1. expect a massive jam down on immigration reform and then cap and trade. Dozens of congressional dems will be home over Easter and realize that they will be unemployed nov 2. Obama can deliver then jobs in return for votes for the above.
2. This bill like the bills fdr passed In his first term will be picked apart and much of its content will be ruled unconstitutional by the scotus (obama’s going to live to regret his dissing of them in his SOTU address).
3. The endowment bubble is already in the process of bursting – the US many loose it’s AAA bond rating this year.
4. For the dems this bill serves another objective in that funding costs will force the US to drastically cut defense spending and thus reduce it’s role in the world.
5. Expect a very large percentage of Doc’s to retire within the nex three years. Many make above six figures and already avoid the low reimbursement they get from Medicare services they provide. Many will say to heck with it and decide to live off their savings. (and expect recruitment of third world Docs to fill the breech in Canada to get a lot more difficult as the US begins competing for them)
6. a big chunk of the US workforce will go underground as employers and employees try to avoid paying the premiums or fines that the (unconstitutional) mandates require. Southern italy here we come.
7. The dem party has lost all credibility as a partly pro-life party. This will make them extinct in Dixie and much of rural and suburban America over the next six years as the senate goes through it’s election turnover.
8. Finally, rinos and blue dogs will be unable to get past the primary stage in many states. The seeds have been sown for another even bigger reagan revolution (with tim pawlenty as POTUS?) in 2012. Let’s hope that America has what it takes to reap that harvest.
So many things will happen because of this vote it’s hard to know where to begin.
Here are a few:
1. expect a massive jam down on immigration reform and then cap and trade. Dozens of congressional dems will be home over Easter and realize that they will be unemployed nov 2. Obama can deliver then jobs in return for votes for the above.
2. This bill like the bills fdr passed In his first term will be picked apart and much of its content will be ruled unconstitutional by the scotus (obama’s going to live to regret his dissing of them in his SOTU address).
3. The endowment bubble is already in the process of bursting – the US many loose it’s AAA bond rating this year.
4. For the dems this bill serves another objective in that funding costs will force the US to drastically cut defense spending and thus reduce it’s role in the world.
5. Expect a very large percentage of Doc’s to retire within the nex three years. Many make above six figures and already avoid the low reimbursement they get from Medicare services they provide. Many will say to heck with it and decide to live off their savings. (and expect recruitment of third world Docs to fill the breech in Canada to get a lot more difficult as the US begins competing for them)
6. a big chunk of the US workforce will go underground as employers and employees try to avoid paying the premiums or fines that the (unconstitutional) mandates require. Southern italy here we come.
7. The dem party has lost all credibility as a partly pro-life party. This will make them extinct in Dixie and much of rural and suburban America over the next six years as the senate goes through it’s election turnover.
8. Finally, rinos and blue dogs will be unable to get past the primary stage in many states. The seeds have been sown for another even bigger reagan revolution (with tim pawlenty as POTUS?) in 2012. Let’s hope that America has what it takes to reap that harvest.
I find the debate about pre-existing conditions fascinating.
Obama has demonized insurance companies for not insuring those with pre-existing conditions, yet the new bill makes purchase of health insurance mandatory.
Another question about the US system for anybody who cares to answer it.
As I understand it, health insurance is tied to employment. If a person loses their job, they lose their health care coverage.
So, how is the transition handled … or is a person left to their own?
I understand the process sucked and the Dems might be punished for it, but how is an unemployed person supposed to pay for his coverage once he loses his job through no fault of his own (company goes bankrupt of whatever)?
Nope, Gord Tulk is wrong.
Of course, my assumption was that employers will continue to shoulder a lot of the healthcare burden. But this plan isn’t really for those people. So, point taken Dennis 🙂
Awe, ‘set you free’ is finally seeing the realities of a flawed system.
Who operated the “HillBuzz” site? It seems to be a completely phoney kind of thing.
Ben just saying I’m wrong only puts you in a bad light. You need to refute my statements point by point – especially here on a site that you must agree is more inclined to agree with me not you.
Re: set you free at March 22, 2010 4:17 PM
“I find the debate about pre-existing conditions fascinating.”
I know, it’s the oddest thing. I got a chip in my windshield last week and SGI doesn’t want to let me add the appropriate coverage to my package policy and have them fix it.
It’s an injustice really. Windshield care for windshields with pre-existing cracks should be a vehicular right.
This great experiment in attempting to take a centre right country towards socialism will hit a climax this November.
I’m thinking the socialists really won’t know what hit them.
They had a chance to reflect with the election of Brown in Mass. Instead they decided to cover their eyes, jump atop their unicorns and ride into their utopic wonderland.
From David Hogberg’s “20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms”:
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Section 1302).
15. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for (Research and Development)? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
I may have misunderstood the intent of this bill, but then I think most of the Congressmen that voted for it don’t understand it fully either.
Under provisions of the bill then, if you choose to forgo ins. and get fined, I gather that the U.S. government is not going to pay for your medical care either.
I’m just curious as to how this squares with the notion that this bill is supposed to provide for universal health care. At least, that’s how its proponents have been playing it up.
I sense flint knapping and powder being poured into pans.
I used to refer to Obama as the Worst President Ever. He’s beyond that. He’s aiming to be the President Who Destroyed America (temporarily, I pray).
It will never get out of the senate and with November in sight by June, the reps won’t pressure the senate. We may dodge the bullet yet. Then if it does pass it’s up to the states to opt out under 10th amendment rights, so the system will be far from universal.
SYF: far be it from me to defend/explain the plan but insurers will be mandated to sell coverage to everyone and everybody will be mandated to buy it – much as car liability insurance is here in Canada. Not surprisingly many insurers will exit (stage right) and many people will choose a government provided plan option and over time – voilà – government-run healthcare for everyone.
Occam, the major bill has already passed. The senate is debating relatively minor changes. If they don’t pass (which they will) Obama can still enact the original bill.
It might be a good time to view this Youtube video called The Reagan Obama Debate.
It is slightly over 8 minutes long. It begins with Reagan:
“One of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America…”
Obama @ 5:30-5:48
“…break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution … that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties – it says what the States can’t do to you, it says what the Federal Government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the Federal Government or the State Government must do on your behalf…”
DemocRats finally stopped pretending, dropped the pretense of fair play they usually try to keep up, and went for the gold.
Gloves are on the ice. Time to dance.