The other day Bill Clinton joined the chorus of talking heads that are lecturing us "Doing nothing (about healthcare reform) is not an option." The Democrats have recently voted to pass into law the 2000 page monstrosity that The Wall Street journal calls "the worst bill ever." Granted the WSJ is no fan of Obama-care, but sheesh, this statement gets my attention. "In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago..."
The political world is becoming increasingly un-rational. The Dem leadership have been scary in their monomaniacal pursuit of something called Health Care Reform. They say that they want to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, which is indeed a noble objective. 5 double spaced typewritten pages would be enough to describe the changes necessary to accomplish that goal.
The problem here is the flaw of all design-by-committee proposals. You know what they say about a camel being a horse which was designed by a committee. The problem with committees is that rationality becomes lost to politics. The initial goal, however worthy, is subordinated to the wishes of the most powerful person in the room. Votes based on principle or logic are changed to votes based on perceived approval by the person who is in power to dispense future favors. The larger the group, the less personal responsibility for outcomes is assumed by committee members.
Obama and Pelosi have been urging rapid action, yet have been incapable of defining the specific outcomes of the laws they would foist upon the public. This is insanity.
How anyone is supposed to make sense out of a law that is so big that my PC jammed-up trying to download the bill in PDF format? No, I haven't read it. But I am nervous about some of the problems that are being raised by the opponents of the current bill:
- Stiff penalties for electing not to be insured - substantial cash fines and even felonious jail time .
What happened to freedom? The goal of helping people who need help has been perverted to
totalitarianism. We know what is good for you. Submit, or else....
- Cost - It is unclear how the current bill will reduce healthcare costs for the majority of working and retired citizens. I fear that we will be charged more money for less access than we have now. How is that fair? Or rational?
Fortunately, the Senate has to vote on this bill before it becomes law. We can only hope that some force brings our solons to their senses. When I see the four Democratic candidates for Senate arguing for the plan because it is what Ted Kennedy would have wanted, it makes me nervous.
Today they are bickering over reproductive rights. They should be discussing how to simplify the problem of funding health insurance for citizens who need it and want it.
7 comments:
"Going to make your blue eyes red ..." (Why are Dems denoted by blue and Republicans, red? Shouldn't it be reversed?)
Better watch out! You're about to lose your ACLU card.
Three big ACORN guys showed up this afternoon and beat me up.
Then they registered me to vote a few times.
The health care problem could have been solved with a very short bill called "single payer". But the Repubs abetted by some Dems in Red-leaning states took that off the table, so what we got instead is a camel. However, if you're stuck in the middle of the desert, a camel is better than nothing at all.
Rick, a camel is useless if you are in a horse race.
If some hybrid of the House and the Senate Health Care Overhaul bills is eventually enacted, it would be entirely appropriate to name the misbegotten law for Senator Edward M. Kennedy, as has been proposed. He was and is the epitome of opportunity squandered, promise betrayed, and fairness become grotesque in every salient feature.
Dennis: The thousands of people who have shown up for recent free health care clinics because they can't afford to buy insurance might say. "If you want to win, maybe a horse is best. But if you just want to be in and finish the race, a camel will do."
Post a Comment