Featured Post

The Right of National Defense

Writing this post on Memorial Day, my thoughts, of course, turned to those who fought and died to preserve our country. My thoughts also tur...

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Note to Conservatives: Making Democrats Happy is Bad for America

A little over a year ago, I wrote a little piece titled, "Thinking Aloud About Conservatism . . . " I noted my growing angst over modern American conservatism, in particular over conservatives' reaction to the candidacy of Donald Trump, and stated that,
I find more than a little boring and even irritating the ongoing and intense debate over whether somebody or another is a "true" conservative. Much of it reminds me of the debates one saw in communist-socialist movements as different factions argued over which held truer to St. Karl's vision. These debates often turned bloody as various factions of the left, e.g., Stalinists, Trotskyites, Anarchists, Fascists, turned on and murdered each other. 
Conservatives now appear doing some of the same--no murdering, however, at least not yet. I tire of the virulent tweets, the purple-prose articles, the angry televised debates, and the vile insults to-and-fro in arguments over the conservative credentials of, say, Trump vs Cruz vs Rubio vs whomever. It does little in terms of practical politics but to benefit the progressives busily destroying our country day-by-day, institution-by-institution.
Watching the unfolding of the debate over the "repeal and replacement" of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare, I was reminded of that post. We can argue all day and all night over whether Ryan's proposed replacement, "The American Health Care Act" was ideologically pure and whether it wasn't just Obamacare-Lite. I, for example, would have preferred a radically simple one line bill which stated, "As of (pick a date) 'The ACA' is no longer the law of the land, and as of that date health care shall be shaped and guided solely by the free market."

I know, I know, that's too simple. Nothing politicians do can be that simple. Look, I, therefore, was not a huge fan of "Ryancare," but it did do away with some of the most intrusive and anti-market features of The ACA. It still left, for my taste, too much government involvement but, but, BUT it was much, much better than the horrid Frankenstein's monster we now have. So thanks to conservatives in Congress, we do not have Obamacare-Two Percent, we have Obamacare-Whole.

How do we Americans benefit from that? The Democrats are happy with the result, that should give you a solid clue that it is bad for America. That is a Diplomad Iron-Rule, "That Which Maketh Democrats Gleeful, Bestoweth Only Misery to America."

Perhaps this was Trump thinking long-term, setting up Ryan for failure, bringing him down a notch, making him more pliable and subservient for further efforts on taxes, immigration, and even health care. Maybe. But in the meanwhile, we are stuck with Obamacare and the gloating images of Pelosi and Schumer and, apparently, a halt to the Trump "winning" narrative.

This better not be the pattern on topics such as taxes and immigration, or we are in deep, deep trouble.

28 comments:

  1. The problem is that Obamacare was full of laws that required different treatment to pass or to revoke. For this reason the three step plan made sense. However someone, some special interest groups got ahold of the bill and wrote so many crappy things into it that we are actually better off without it. Most Trump voters didn't want to replace Obamacare and even those willing to replace it didn't want Obamacare lite. Repeal it. That was the promise and that was what got so many Republicans elected. Don't enshrine into law things that a handful of people like. The federal government has no business in health care insurance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wholeheartedly agree with the Freedom Caucus's decision to stop this abomination -- humorously titled called 'RyanCare' by the pundits. We don't want a replacement. We want a FULL repeal of ObamaCare; then pass a version of Rand Paul's common sense alternative.

      Delete
    2. How many times do you have to be told that you can't do a full repeal without 60 votes in the Senate?

      Delete
  2. I will forever be grateful to "Little Marco" Rubio for thwarting that provision in the original ACA that paid taxpayer money to make health insurance companies whole for the losses suffered under this liberal assault on Americans. But the OC law is still insidiously designed to destroy those old insurance plans ... to get to a single-payer system ... so fixing it is not simple ... kinda like putting the Preparation H back in the tube. So I suppose the only solution is to pound out the message that this is the Dems problem and they need to fix it ... tough to do with the MSM blaring out the opposite

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why don't they fix the problems and bring it up for a vote again?
    It sounds like the end of any repeal going forward at this point, and I don't understand why.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As some have said, put it all in a bill, pass it in the House, send it to the Senate and let the Democrats kill it. Few believe that part 3 would happen where all the good things have to be passed again in the Senate requiring 60 votes or by the nuclear option if the GOP has the guts. I am so angry at the progressives that my tolerance has been destroyed by their intolerance. The disruption of the CA AG's town hall is the beginning of the conservative backlash. I hope the ~230 cells taken by the police from the rioters in DC that were arrested show the connection to the Democrats. James O'Keefe's exposes seemly do nothing to the Democrats since the MSM ignores it, just as they ignore the rape of the 14 year old in MD by two illegals at a high school. Now the MD House has passed a sanctuary state bill. I am really tired of what is happening to my country by the progressives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. D, I read your blog and like it. But I disagree with this utopian statement "health care shall be shaped and guided solely by the free market". I wish healthcare was so easy, but it isn't. Here is the good place to start learning about healthcare: http://akinokure.blogspot.com/ -- read at least several latest posts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To misquote Rex Harrison, "Why can't health insurance be more like car insurance?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the flip side, iirc, Obamacare still needs continual appropriations bills to pass in order to function.
    Trump choses whether to sign or veto those bills.

    If the GOP *really* is that unsure whether America wants Obamacare repealed, they could also pass a law repealing it as of Jan 4, 2019. Then they'd have given the rinos a grace period whereby they could gain a majority and save the future of socialized medicine. On the other hand, the GOP *still* wouldn't be putting into practice what they preached in order to get elected.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  9. It amazes me that Democrats will take years of political casualties to do what is wrong, but Republicans will take no casualties to do what is right. Maybe that is why the Left always wins in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  10. While we are all focused on the main bill, Trump has managed with little fanfare to roll back some of Obamacare's nastiest elements, like certifying on your tax return that you carry health insurance. He did that quietly, by Executive Order, and it means healthy twenty-somethings no longer have to subsidize "uninsurables," thus hastening the failure of Obamacare. Now the question is, will Republicans or Democrats be in the majority when Obamacare is finally declared dead? If Republicans, we might get some free market fixes. If Democrats, we will get single payer, and with the crony capitalism that party has brought to a fine art, we will get really expensive healthcare coverage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That seems risky. The executive can say whatever it wants, but people are still obligated to follow the law. If the dems win the whitehouse in 2020, will they just come back at all those who didn't buy insurance according to the mandate and fine/jail them?
      Obama told a bunch of illegal aliens that they wouldn't be deported, but as far as I can tell, by registering themselves with Obama, they just made a giant "deport me" list.
      I know a lot of millennial snowflakes will be really upset that "the government" told them one thing and then did another, but they can hold that against the people who lied to them, namely Obama.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Reader 482 -I agree that we are obligated to follow the law. I can just see the good guys (pun) in the IRS using an ideology filter when deciding who to audit because they did not complete the medical cover field. It could be months before the filter is discovered. By then thousands will be inconvenienced.

      Davod

      Delete
  11. I think that the healthcare bill was a kind of test run. Everyone got to see the congressional factions and the lobbyists in action and the wheels came off. Trump meanwhile did his job, no more no less. He created transparency. As Obamacare gets worse the other players including the people will have to get their act together to solve it, or not. It is like the parenting style with older kids that allows them to experience the full natural consequences of their actions. The parent keeps strict boundaries and does not bail them out. After all Trump has a larger goal than saving the health system. He intends to radically reform the entire federal govt including the executive-congress relationship. This debacle may have been necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Conservative Treehouse has an interesting piece on the interests, including media interests, behind the Obamacare debate.
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/25/healthcare-controls-and-the-benefits-of-the-blame-game/#more-130482

    ReplyDelete
  13. First of all this isn't the end of the world. The administration isn't mortally wounded.
    My opinion:
    1. It was a crappy bill to start with. Too big, too complex and, as noted, ultimately too full of "ifs, buts & carve-outs."
    2. If this was the only way possible, the bill was very poorly sold. Wonky powerpoints do nothing for the average voter.
    3. If the rumor is correct that DT sent Bannon to a co-equal branch of government to announce "You have no choice but to vote yes" then it was an unforced rookie error. That's not art of the deal, that's a way to get a congressional middle finger.
    4. DT is in the WH in large part because the voters are sick & f-ing tired of listening to: "we'll pass this now and fix it later." Later never comes and we don't fall for that gag any more.

    The Freedom Caucus wasn't acting in a vacuum. They and other members were getting an earful from their constituents. This wasn't so much a litmus test of pure conservatism as mistrust of the entrenched interests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oldav8r

      I agree with you. I wrote it differently and had slightly different reasons for reaching same conclusions as you - I don't trust Ryan and especially, a massive, complex, hobbled together, rushed through bill he controlled, and Trump team is showing hubris if they think they really understand this cobbled-together bill (plus Obamacare and how the two, after the Senate made changes, would or wouldn't mesh) in the limited time there was. But we are making the same point. I also don't trust a 3 step approach.

      I agree Admin. is not mortally wounded, except of course, media paints it so. WSJ wrote earlier this week that Trump was on verge of a "failed presidency" - two months in! Er, aren't there a few days, weeks and months left? And what about what he's already done?

      So much for the WSJ as a purveyor of journalism! But so much generally for "Conservatism, Inc.," the demise of which I wrote about in a post below.

      Delete
  14. The wailing from the lefty-side health care consumers is interesting. "I'm going to lose my mental health benefits," is a common one. As if health insurance companies, in the absence of OC, would not provide multiple policy coverage options to suit market demand.
    I wonder if the middle-generation of young parents and the "millennials" (however they are defined) are not now so accustomed to routine & ordinary health care being covered by insurance, co-pays, and deductible provisions, that they simply cannot conceive of it being any other way?
    Angelo Codevilla's "The Character of Nations" posits that the regime under which one lives forms not only expectations but also fosters or stifles the abilities of individuals to act: it alters the perceptions of "self-interest."
    Economist Arnold Kling has some interesting thoughts today on his blog:
    http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/the-cultural-roots-of-americas-health-care-policy-mess/#comments

    ReplyDelete
  15. The brilliant, extraordinary Publius Decius Mus (Michael Anton then writing under pseudonym, now working at the W.H) said everything there is to say about modern "Conservatism, Inc." Conservatism, Inc. did not like seeing themselves in the mirror and one by one threw major hissy fits. Anton's "The Flight 93 Election," read by Limbaugh on air, might have swung the election by putting a stake through the heart of Conservatism, Inc.

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/

    https://amgreatness.com/author/publius-decius-mus/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Respectfully, disagree with Diplomad re failure of healthcare bill. My reason: it scared me. This bill scared me because Ryan put it together and the loyalist experts on the Trump team can not possibly have had time to really understand all its ramifications. I don't know whether Trump was truly in favor of it. If so, this, imho, would be the first time to be critical of him for over-confidence I.e., that in this limited time, he and those experts who he can be sure are loyal really understood the totality of heath care issues, all of Obamacare, this bill, what changes the Senate would make, how the final bill and Obamacare do or do not mesh and what health care will look like - especially, as MedicAid is given to the States. (My wonderful Calif. legislature has voted to cover illegals for everything. And MediCal gives much better coverage than Medicare.) If Trump thought his judgment alone was adequate in understanding all that needs to be understood, imho that's hubris. Also I don't trust 3 step plans, when the bad stuff is first and we have to trust the 2nd two steps can be achieved later.

    I hope Trump's support was some sort of Machiavellian plan to get Ryan defeated in his 2018 primary. (But if so, an awful lot to put the country through in furtherance of such a plan.) How can Trump trust anything Ryan does? Priebus and Pence are both close friends of Ryan. They probably trust him. I hope Trump doesn't. After that last budget that Ryan gave as a present to Obama, how is Ryan not every bit an Obama-like, destroy America, open borders, let unvetted Muslim male refugees of military age in, globalist? (Surprise, surprise. He and Cruz wrote the legislation giving Obama fast-track and secret negotiating power on the TPP.)

    Why is my reaction wrong? That I feared for America and even more for Trump with this cobbled together, hurried Ryan product that Trump loyalist experts could not have possibly had time to really digest? Change is needed, desperately needed, but I don't want it under Ryan's control and I want a more deliberative process. And as much as I respect Trump, he understands cost to business, but no, he isn't a competent expert on the American health care system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about Price? I thought he would have good judgement.

      Delete
    2. To Anonymous

      Yes, I would think/hope Price has knowledge and good judgment. BUT 1) I never heard Price weigh in on this bill nor did I ever hear any part of it was his plan or done in consultation with him. Am I mistaken, and just missed it? I didn't follow day by day every twist and turn and I haven't been watching the Sunday shows. Was he working with Ryan on the bill and then out there promoting it and I just missed it? That's possible. 2) Even if he had a hand in it and/or supported it, imho, my comment still stands as to the cobbling together process (different people from different factions and interest groups writing different parts), rush and resulting absence of time to really figure out if it's a cohesive whole and look at all its ramifications - I don't think Ryan even really digested everything. How could anyone in such limited time, especially as constant changes were being made? 3) How do you feel about 3 step plans, the bad stuff in the first step and no guarantees steps 2 and 3 will ever be legislated?

      Delete
  17. Step 1 of the process was missed:

    All members of congress must be enrolled in Obamacare, not their gold-plated plan.

    Let them live with it for a year or more, then start some real conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Latest interesting post:
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158812654486/trump-and-healthcare

    ReplyDelete
  19. I actually was happy with the demise of the R's health care plan. I look to a free market free for all with the TV being saturated with commercials and such.
    Those with pre existing conditions should be placed in a gov't pool that would include gov't subsidies but not infect the regular market.

    ReplyDelete