House of Eratosthenes

Vulnerable Senate Democrats plan to introduce a bill as early as today that would alter some of the mandates in Obamacare and delay others, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Among the proposals likely to be included is one backed by Messrs. Begich and Warner offering a new kind of insurance plan, a “copper” plan featuring lower premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs than the “bronze,” “silver” and “gold” options on the government-run health-care exchanges.

Lawmakers also would like to make health care more affordable for small businesses by expanding certain tax credits and making them available for longer…
:
Many Democrats in tight races this fall have made clear they are committed to keeping the health law but want to fix it, drawing a distinction with Republicans who want to scrap it entirely. “The law is very good; it has some very good parts to it,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat running for re-election in conservative-leaning Louisiana. “I do not believe it should be repealed—my opponents do.”

This is a trap for Republicans. If they go ahead and help the Democrats by applying a bandaid to this gaping wound, it won’t help consumers and would dispirit the base of the party. On the other hand, that’s just what these Dems are counting on. By refusing to help “fix” Obamacare, they can run on the notion that Republicans don’t want to make the law better because it benefits them politically if it remains a mess.

There’s no reason for the GOP to alter what they’ve been doing. The mid terms will be a turnout election and anything that might keep their voters from going to the polls should be avoided. On the other hand, only those predisposed to think that a few minor tweaks could actually “fix” Obamacare would be influenced by the Democratic argument of GOP obstructionism. It’s far better for Republicans to keep the pressure on vulnerable Democrats than help them make meaningless changes to a bad law.

Thing is, though, this isn’t about applying patches to a bad law to make it into a good law, or correcting the implementation of a good law so that it’s a bit less messy. It’s about incremental movement. The questions have to do with quantity and not quality: How much of the poison can we swallow on any given day, or any given election cycle. How much furniture polish can you put in the stepkid’s soup before she complains about the taste and doesn’t eat it.

The way forward is not open to any sort of question or deliberation; it’s not on the table. I know this is true because I subscribe to the democrat party’s e-mail updates. They’re writing in this morning to get me all excited about taking back the House of Representatives. They need me to get fourteen people from my city to chip in $3 or more, so they can bring 218 seats under democrat control; see, that’s the thinking. When-are-we-done. What’s the bare minimum — to achieve iron-fisted, dictatorial control on a whole host of issues. When can we start forcing people we don’t know to do everything our way.

The question that would naturally come up to a truly political party trying to achieve success in a constitutional republic, would be: What would it take for us to win 300 seats? Or all 435? It is astonishing that liberals, as we understand that word today, have so little interest in such things. They know that the answers would have to do with chipping away at the agenda, giving something up. They don’t want to give up anything at all. They’re extremists by nature. They have no reason to be anything else; they know the ratchet effect works in their favor.

They know exactly what policies they want. The question is the size of the incremental steps, how quickly the electorate can be persuaded to absorb the “change” in each election cycle. This is much bigger than President Obama, He’s merely a device to speed up the sale. A bit of salt and seasoning in the poisoned soup, if you will.

And they’re doing this so we have better medical care? Been awhile since you’ve heard a democrat talk about that, though, hasn’t it. “The law is very good” and “has good parts to it.” But what about results? All of their talking points are “gonna-dooz” and very few of them have anything to do with “hav-dunz.” Even the disgraceful debunking of that cancer patient was chock full of “would be” and “will hit.” They have very few anecdotes to offer about people receiving better medical care at lower cost, and even fewer statistics to offer about a population staying healthy, or getting healthy, or saving money, or enjoying any other perks of state-managed health care services.

Like everything else they do to “help” people, it’s really all about control. Charge this much, pay that much, don’t own this, must own that. And how many such new rules can they pass this year without losing elections. And how many elections can they afford to lose without losing control of this-or-that chamber.

They’re not really representing people at all. They’re in our capitol to represent an agenda, not constituents. Whatever they haven’t outlawed or forced, they merely haven’t outlawed or forced yet. Republicans, as usual, suck at communicating so that hasn’t emerged as the central issue. But it’s really all about that. It has always been all about that.

Jim Geraghty nailed it:

Many progressives organize their worldview in the reverse order: They pick the good people – themselves – and everything else is negotiable. And as it’s currently practiced, liberalism doesn’t really require much of anything. Or, when liberalism starts asking sacrifices and commitments of its adherents beyond liking and sharing on Facebook, the energy and enthusiasm disappear. Close observers of Obamacare have noticed that the Millennials and other young people who voted for Obama in droves aren’t willing to pay several hundred dollars a month for health insurance.

The currency of progressivism isn’t policies, and it certainly isn’t results. It’s emotions.

(via Ace).

Trying to figure out liberal principles bedeviled me for years. That’s because I was looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. I read my Locke and Hobbes and whatnot and thought that the State was the instrument through which we — society, humanity– achieved Security for our Rights. (Sorry about all the capital letters, but I really am talking about the big stuff here). But, like ~~George Washington~~ whomever said, government is like fire, useful but dangerous. The State is itself a threat to our Security, so we want to minimize it.

I used to think liberals understood it in basically the same way, but with a different emphasis. They thought we could get even more Security if we turned the State knob a little bit closer to 11. Which is misguided, but understandable, and that’s where I tried to debate them.

But I was wrong. They consider the state to be an instrument, all right, but its purpose isn’t big stuff like Society or Security, it’s little stuff. Indeed, it’s the littlest thing of them all, their pwecious widdle feewings. They need their binkie and a hug, and they’re going to use the biggest, most powerful instrument at hand to make sure they never go without either ever again.

That’s the message the GOP needs to hammer home: You people need to grow. the. fuck. up. already. (But, you know, without the profanity). It’s not the American taxpayer’s fault that Daddy spanked you once too often (or not nearly enough). Your issues are your issues; the management is not responsible.
- Severian | 03/27/2014 @ 08:43
“…offering a new kind of insurance plan, a “copper” plan featuring lower premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs…”

Maybe we should have a “unicorns and rainbows” plan. The plan would feature absolutely no premiums and zilch out-of-pocket costs. Yes, that’s right kids, it’s free!

But how would this work you ask? Who the fuck knows, it doesn’t have to, you misguided idealist. Like the rest of Obamacare, it will be exempted, indefinitely delayed or just outright impossible to sign up for that it doesn’t have to work, it just has to FEEEEEEELLLLLLL good.

Like voting for Obama.
- tim | 03/27/2014 @ 13:20
Absolutely on target – as usual!
- jeniferbrd | 03/27/2014 @ 14:02
I’ll say it again: Leftism is the lifelong struggle to relive high school and make it come out right.
- nightfly | 03/28/2014 @ 09:30
So the “new” plan is to “allow” the same insurance policies that were canceled as “not good enough” under
the Pelosi/Reid gavel, just as long as they’re “Centrally registered”, and collect a “small processing fee” for HHS and the IRS?

What is the proposed “fine” for actual medical professionals providing unauthorized/undocumented medical attention, or pharmacists dispensing “unapproved” (yet prescribed) “controlled substances”, (you know, like OTC antihistamines, quinine, or anything with bella donna) to actual adult citizens without the
appropriate National PP ACA Tax ID certification?

I suspect that cash payment would alleviate the otherwise ill-at-ease licensed professionals.
I want to hear more about the inevitable war on women “unfair to women’s (and trans(ish) gender self esteem” tax on false breast implants and botox injections, “special” exception.
Are tampons/prophylactics/diaphragm- spermicide considered “medical devices”,… yet?
- CaptDMO | 03/31/2014 @ 06:15
Yo Morgan? No posts in a week?

On vaca…???

You alright? Hope so.
- tim | 04/03/2014 @ 09:56

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Pushing the EnvelopeThursday, March 27th, 2014

Pushing the Envelope
Thursday, March 27th, 2014