I got up close and personal with the Liberal mind last weekend — lunch with a talented and bright family member (let’s call him “Dan”) who is an Obama supporter and a proponent and defender of Obamacare (“talented / bright” in the same sentence as “defender of Obamacare”? I know, it doesn’t seem to add up, but that’s why the country is in the mess it’s in).
The conversation turned to Obamacare, which I had hoped to avoid, but there it was, and away we went. Things stayed cordial, which was a relief, although I suffered a great deal because I had to hold back a great flood of rhetorical intensity so as to protect relationships all around.
In the end I was left with even more respect for how Barack Hussein Obama hijacked a Great Nation. This is because he saw so clearly that Democrats / Liberals who sought payback for the Bush years were astoundingly ripe to be recruited (read: used) into supporting just about any alternative to the existing health care system, even a terrible one, or a diabolical one based on lies and smoke and mirrors. And not only did he see this advantage, he hung onto it, through the Wall Street disaster, which he ignored, and through the Scott Brown Senate victory (the Ted Kennedy seat went Republican for fear of Obamacare).
I now see that such a gamble was no gamble at all, and well worth it to him: central government control over peoples’ bodies and health was the ultimate Great Leap Forward for a young Marxist wanting to stifle freedom in the most free nation ever to grace the face of the earth.
And so I heard the following arguments from Dan:
- Many other countries have “better health outcomes” than we do here in the USA, and that therefore our pre-Obama health care system had to be fixed with the ACA;
- The unconstitutional, unilateral delays in ACA implementation are merely “the way politicians always phase things in, particularly legislation with uncomfortable changes”;
- The notion that Barack Obama is a Marxist, or a man whose policies are influenced by his many Marxist mentors, professors, and family members, is a laughably nutty notion and not worthy of serious consideration;
- Some people’s health insurance costs are going down because of the ACA;
- Because I drive on roads and highways, that were paved by the government for my and everyone’s benefit, I must therefore submit to the idea that everything government does is right and good and effective for all the citizens;
- The Affordable Care Act, while imperfect, is a good solution that can work
Each one of these is easily dismissed (see below), but the overriding point is that no matter how bad the employer-based health insurance model was, the ACA is and will be increasingly far worse.
The cure is worse than the disease, plain and simple, and this makes Obamacare a moral crime.
This is already readily apparent not only from news reports, but from individual experiences all around us and including ourselves (my wife and I lost our insurance and then were told we could “keep it” for double the price). All arguments against the previous system are literally irrelevant, because to say that the antecedent was terrible is to say and prove nothing about the Frankenstein’s monster that is its replacement.
But one by one we go:
>”Better health outcomes” in other countries?
Is the ACA modeled on health care in any of those other countries?
No, not even one little bit.
>Delays in the ACA implementation are “business as usual among politicians in Washington”? No they are not. Barack Obama has audaciously blazed a new frontier: the selective enforcement of laws, a power that he does not have unless given expressly by statute. He is violating his oath of office. As Charles Krauthammer recently observed, imagine how Democrats will feel if a future Republican president decided that the IRS should not collect capital gains taxes any more because, in his or her opinion, such taxes were “anti-growth and killing jobs”…
This is called lawlessness, a state in which a country can disintegrate rather quickly. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances to censure and curb the recklessness of petty dictators such as the one we have occupying the White House in these sad times, and so Congress must hold the executive accountable for such vicious abrogation of the Constitution. But a Harry Reid Senate will not convict, and a population of voters that is increasingly on the dole is also unlikely to stand up and demand accountability (against their source of the Free Lunch? As if).
>mr. Obama’s Marxist influences and the Marxist ideology inherent in his policy prescriptions are not relevant to discuss? Yes they are relevant, as are the influences and beliefs of every presidential candidate past present and future.
Does Dan think that mr. Obama’s professors and family friends were not Marxists? He is wrong — they were openly Marxist in their political ideology (check out Frank Marshall Davis, to name just one strong influence on the young man), and mr. Obama himself casually admitted in The Audacity of Hope to his association with the “Marxists” in college (a set of connections so strong and undeniable he had no choice but to cop to it as he planned his bid for the presidency).
Does Dan think that Marxism is a Tea Party fantasy and not a real thing in the world? That would be a gravely mistaken fantasy indeed, as the 45 million souls who were starved to death by Mao’s Great Leap Forward (collectivization of agriculture) could attest from the other side of the veil. From the New York Times:
The worst catastrophe in China’s history, and one of the worst anywhere, was the Great Famine of 1958 to 1962, and to this day the ruling Communist Party has not fully acknowledged the degree to which it was a direct result of the forcible herding of villagers into communes under the “Great Leap Forward” that Mao Zedong launched in 1958. <source>
Sounds pretty real to me.
Marxism is a real political philosophy and one that has tortured and murdered hundreds of millions of people.
The look on Dan’s face when I mentioned Marxism in the context of mr. Obama was priceless: he shook his head and even put a hand on my shoulder (!!), as if to say my medications would be coming soon, so crazy am I.
But Dan’s reaction is very familiar to me in this late-stage of the American experiment because who among us has experienced the likes of Nazi Germany, or Stalin’s purges, or Mao’s mass-starvation of tens of millions? None of us has. Our entire lives have been essentially sheltered in the bosom of American global hegemony, and inside the average American mind the history of human atrocity somehow seems to reside not just in the past but permanently in the past — it can’t happen again, and it cant happen here, so there’s no need to be on guard.
If history is any guide (and it should be), this mind-state is ludicrous, and the one that is truly deserving of a friendly hand on the shoulder: it has happened before and can happen again, so perhaps we ought to try to keep eyes and ears open for the slow encroachment of central power.
>Some people are getting cheaper health care?
Maybe from the Easter bunny?
>Government paved the roads and didn’t screw it up, and so therefore I must submit to the idea that government can manage health care? When you read that sentence you almost don’t need to make arguments to dismiss it, so laughable it is.
The funny thing is, I am seeing this argument more and more in Liberal circles: THE ROADS.
Garrison Keillor, the host of A Prairie Home Companion, lately has been saying that he is a “tax and spend Liberal and proud of it”, and one of his favorite explanations is that he “uses the roads“.
This line of reasoning — that coordinating the provision of health care for 310 million people is no more complex than paving roads — is so wrong in so many ways that I am going to dedicate an entire essay to it, and by the end of those words, it will lay in ruin forever.
>The ACA is a good solution to the ills of the previous system? My first response to this was to ask “How do you know?”. The imperial president has gutted the implementation of his own law in order to prevent its full damage from being done until after the next series of elections, and so its full effect is impossible to assess. Before you say that therefore I cannot condemn the law on the same grounds, I say: sure I can, because the ill effects are real and being felt RIGHT NOW, and because if the law were going to be helpful mr. Obama would not be scrambling to delay its implementation at every turn.
My second response was to list all the smoke and mirrors that define the ACA: so-called “sign-ups” are unverified and many have never been consummated through actual payment; the back end of the website is non-existent, meaning that insurance companies have no idea who is covered and who has claims to what; more people have lost insurance than have signed up under Obamacare, creating a net loss for Americans, and this will accelerate dramatically as the law grinds down on us in the next few years.
The Worst of All: Liberals Invite and Coddle the Totalitarianism that they Claim To Despise and that Grows Under Their Very Noses
Finally, the most disappointing thing of all when it comes to American Liberals is that they fail to join me on situations where we should be natural allies. I am for freedom and against central government oppression of citizens; for free choices and against Control. Liberals claim to hold these same views and often decry the plutocracy and the immoral and corrupt power of Wall Street firms and the military industrial complex.
And yet, they will stare you right in the eye and defend the Affordable Care Act, which has given (a) insurance companies a license to steal from and wage war against the middle class, fully backed the awesome and fearsome power of the IRS, and (b) waves of government bureaucrats direct control over our health care decisions, starting with the requirement that people buy insurance even though they don’t want it, and including Obamacare star chambers like the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a government body so fascistic that Barney Frank is now against its creation (since he left Congress) (“Barney Frank backs IPAB Repeal“).
How can this be?
They seem to forget that central government control and its inherent abuses led to the American Revolution, and that a cabal of government bureaucrats is one of the scariest things on earth, particularly when led by a megalomaniac leader. They get all agitated when a Republican inhabits the White House, but turn deaf and dumb and blind when a Democrat steps in.
Again the Chinese experience with centrally planned agricultural production:
As the catastrophe unfolded, people were forced to resort to previously unthinkable acts to survive. As the moral fabric of society unraveled, they abused one another, stole from one another and poisoned one another. Sometimes they resorted to cannibalism. <source>
And the megalomaniac leader’s reaction to the scale of human suffering he himself caused was….
At a secret meeting in Shanghai on March 25, 1959, he ordered the party to procure up to one-third of all the available grain — much more than ever before. The minutes of the meeting reveal a chairman insensitive to human loss:
When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.
Note the logic of the Marxist’s zero-sum-game: forget any notion that “everyone can eat”, and instead sign onto the notion that half must starve so the other half can barely subsist….a Marxist redistribution lesson of tragic proportion.
So how can American Liberals argue in favor of powerful corporate interests and government control of our lives?
How can they support the growing Leviathan in Washington DC, which is now getting involved in our choices of doctors, health insurance plans, hospitals, and more?
Why are such people so willing to so easily and naively throw away the freedom our forefathers won for us through bloody conflicts?
And when the next Reich is firmly in control of our lives, invited into power by such well-intentioned people, the result and the path chosen will be a Great Shame that will echo through eternity: people who lived free chose the yoke, again, but this time from the loftiest heights humanity ever reached.