July 25th, 2009

#1647: Apparently government is not going to run health care.

Brian Dunbar linked to a discussion about "CheneyCare": how would liberals feel if right wingers were in charge of their health care?

The comments got me going. The first one insists, "...government is not going to run healthcare...."

Oh really.

How about some details?
Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure....

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – a Government committee...will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you.

Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans

-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ AMA - The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors – doesn’t matter what specialty – will all be paid the same.

PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Geeze, that's a whole lot of "not running" there. If that's so, I'd hate to see what it would look like if government was going to run health care!

And there is a lot more of this "non-running" in the page I linked to. A lot more.

I suppose he has an out: technically government is not going to be in the health care business. They won't run health care the way they run, say, the DMV or the Post Office. But what they will do is have complete and total control over how health care is provided and financed in this country: a true facsist system wherein private entities are subject to operating rules written entirely by the government.

Truly I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such staggering ignorance. I assume it's ignorance. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I can assume that many proponents of socialized medicin--mostly "rank and file" members of the Democrat party--are utterly ignorant of its failures.

It is not easy to forgive someone who knows and understands the failures of socialized systems and who willfully works to enact such a system knowing it will fail solely because he wants to be in charge and have authority over all that money. And it's similarly not easy to forgive someone who defends these people.

Socialized medicine won't work, ever; not here, nowhere, no matter who is in charge of it, no matter where they went to college--it's impossible.

#1648: The things I think of....

Saw this over at Fail Blog:

fail owned pwned pictures

At first I thought the "fail" was the big iron gates across a "fire exit", but then I saw that the post was titled "College Name Fail".

"What?" I asked with some indignance. Phonetically rendered the name of the place is Goodenow College and there's nothing wrong with it.

"Enough" started life being pronounced "enow"; that's why it's spelled that way. When Catholicism spread into Europe one of the first things it did was to apply the Roman alphabet to the languages of the barbarians. Most of the weird spellings for words we have comes from when Roman Catholic monks were figuring out how to write European languages using Roman letters.

Besides all that, the British do weird things to words used for names, anyway.

* * *

Would Democrats call this "secession"?

I'm having a hard time figuring out how tanks and armies wouldn't be involved in something like this.

Look: Democrats can't afford to have any state get away with refusing to follow their diktats even if the refusal is legal and constitutional. The Democrat party has been itching to get its hands on our medical system for decades; if a major state stands up and says "NO" it could cause other states to do the same. Particularly if the first state is successful.

States have, for years, been struggling with unfunded mandates: the federal government telling states, "You must spend X on Y" but not giving the states any money. It's a violation of the 10th Amendment; and in fact most of the time the feds get around it by saying, "You don't have to follow this law, but if you don't, you'll lose your federal money...."

But concentrating power in Washington, D.C. is impossible if one pays attention to the 10th Amendment.

If Texas were to refuse to implement Obamacare, citing the 10th Amendment, the Democrats could not allow that to stand. I'd expect the refusal to be declared illegal and for them to send people to arrest the governor of Texas...and that's pretty much where it would start to get ugly.

See, Texas is only technically a state. It used to be a country and came to be part of the US through treaty, and one of the terms of that treaty is that Texas can leave the union any time it pleases. So if the government of Texas is feeling particularly ornery the people who are sent to arrest its governor could find themselves declared persona non grata and returned to the United States from the reborn Republic of Texas.

Even without secession, one could reasonably expect the governor of Texas to be protected from US federal agents by Texas Rangers and other state law enforcement officials. There would not be gun play involved, at least not at this stage: feds go to office; feds are rebuffed; feds return to their office and call Washington.

There'd be lawsuits and resolutions and other legal/political maneuvers for a while. Assuming there ended up being no way for Washington to compel Texas to comply with Obamacare--if D.C. could not oust the governor of Texas and replace him with someone more compliant--the next step would be for tanks to roll.

The sitting government of Texas would be declared "illegal" by the federal government--which is not a power the federal government has, by the way!--and Obamacare would be enforced at gunpoint.

The interesting point here, though, is that the Democrat effort to save their hegemony would result in their losing it. How many other states--seeing how Texas was being treated--would go along with a federal government which stifled dissent with the Army? Americans get contrary when outraged; seeing tanks rolling through the streets would anger a lot of people no matter how the mainstream media spun the story.

Regardless of how the story went from there it would not be pleasant. Either Texas is "pacified" and brought into line, thus dooming the United States to a period of totalitarian rule; or else there is a second Civil War, one which really is about states' rights.

This is the kind of thing I really prefer to read about in history books, for two reasons. First, because of the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." "Interesting" does not translate well to "safe and fun", you see. Second, because I can just turn the page and find out how it turns out.

* * *

So I posted on the Fiero forum that I'm thinking about converting the '85 to stick. And I've got two guys telling me they'd like to sell me the parts. I haven't even decided yet!

Oh well.