Congeries of cross connected concepts
As we wind our way down to the really final ultimate terminal end-game of health care nationalization, I am still stunned that the Democratic Party caucus in Congress is trying to pass this thing. As others have noted everyone expects any meeting with constituents will result in negative pressure for the legislation, which is why the Democratic Party leadership is trying to get this done before Easter break. But, if everyone knows it, why doesn’t it have any effect now? Is the expectation that, once past, voters will give up in resignation and disgust? And if it’s pure ideology that’s driving, what difference would objections from voters make anyway? It’s simply bizarre to me.
P.S. I think its going to pass and do massive damage to our nation and our health care, but it will sure be good for the lords of the plantation.
| cjm Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 18:48 |  |
i don’t think it will pass, and if it does, it will be repealed.
the dems have forfeited power for at least a generation, maybe two.
| Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 20:57 | |
It won’t be repealed. That would require either a President Obama signature (which will not happen) or a 2/3 GOP majority in both houses of Congress (which will not happen in 2010 nor 2012).
| Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 17 March 2010 at 22:44 | |
For instance, we have this from Power Line
If Obamacare passes, President Obama and the Democrats will become part of, and perhaps dominate, most of these conversations. Every excessive wait, every missed phone call, every postponed appointment will become Obama’s fault.
Yes. And so …? As if people in other nations with socialized medicine don’t have similar conversations and complaints. And what is done? Nothing. You don’t have to spend much time looking to find some true horror stories of the NHS but I am sure this will be waved away with the “it would be so much worse without government funding” just like the results of the recent stimulus package. How much of that has been repealed?
P.S. Don’t forget, our health care insurance premiums will go down by 3000% once this thing is law.
| Bret Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 00:17 | |
aog wrote: “It won’t be repealed.”
True, it won’t be repealed.
However, it won’t be funded by future congresses so it will be neutered.
There’s also some chance that some of it will be found unconstitutional so it’ll be back to the drawing board.
| erp Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 08:44 | |
Oddly enough over at the VC, usually reliably sensible, all the legal eagles opine it is constitutional.
| Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 10:04 | |
I was just thinking about the Slaughter Option where the Senate version is deemed to have passed without an actual vote, and Mr. Eagar’s earlier question about “why don’t they just have a straight vote on it?”. I think the former clearly answers the latter in basically the same way I did then.
| Bret Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 10:33 | |
erp wrote: “…over at the VC … all the legal eagles opine it is constitutional.”
They haven’t gone through all 2000+ pages with a fine tooth comb yet.
| erp Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 10:34 | |
It’s been quite a few years since I’ve had the need to bring my formidable intellect to the fore, so perhaps I’m not doing the arithmetic correctly, but can something be reduced by more than 100% without dropping into the nether regions?
If one’s costs/debt are reduced by 100%, doesn’t that mean they are zero. In other words, it don’t cost nuttin and you owe nobody nuttin.
Reducing costs/debt further means ????
| AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 10:57 | |
As we wind our way down to the really final ultimate terminal end-game of health care nationalization…
Nah, this is just an interim stage. The real RFUTEG of health care nationalization is an NHS - which is where we’ll end up in a decade or two. The financials of Boomer retirement would seem to demand it.
However, it won’t be funded by future congresses so it will be neutered.
Many of the sources that I read are thinking that, since the legislation will result in higher gov’t revenues now, whereas the costs come later, future neutering is kinda the point.
It’s like SS: We overfunded the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Fund, paying higher-than-necessary taxes, based on the promise of future benefits. Congress used those surplus revenues, and now comes the benefit-slashing part of the con.
…can something be reduced by more than 100% without dropping into the nether regions?
No.
“Down by 3000%” was Obama misspeaking, and AOG is using the quote for sardonic effect.
| erp Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 12:10 | |
Bret, I was referring only to the Slaughter House caper aka “deem and ream,” not the actual bill.
| cjm Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 17:17 | |
not only will it be repealed, the dems might just have gathered enough kindling to get the constitution amended to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
