The uniqueness of the ACA
Noemie Emery has a fine article summarizing why the ACA is different, and more unpopular, than all the other seminal and sweeping bills passed by Congress.
You may have forgotten some of the details of the story. Emery gives you a refresher course. It’s also a good article to send to others, be they for or against the ACA.
ACA must be totally repealed. Not fixed but it can’t be fixed.
This week Joe Manchin said he would vote for repeal. He retracted within days.
I’m sure Reid, Schumer and Pres. Jarrett got to him.
The ACA might be unique in that, factually, resistance has grown stronger. However, that is only due the fact that the welfare state cannot sustain it.
Politicians are addicted to the welfare state. It’s what they can do. But our Constitution recognized, by its brevity, what politicians should not do.
If ACA had been passed in lieu of Social Security, and the Social Security passed when ACA was passed, Social Security would have been equally resisted. It’s not the welfare, per se; it’s the breakdown, finally, of the horses pulling the wagon of deadbeats.
It’s like a drug addict or an alcoholic. If they, say, think they can solve their addiction by “giving” all their money to another person so they won’t have money to spend, the addict hasn’t really confronted the true problem. He has also created a problem of what the person might do with his money.
Now if that person like’s the addict’s money, he might promise him all the drugs and alcohol the addict wants. But soon, the addict isn’t making money and the parasite is affected.
No doubt a “moral” person cares about those who cannot care about themselves. The Torah limits that amount to about 30% of one’s paycheck, and amount, by volition. The required amount is quite less. The basic law that each individual create for himself carries the consequence of poverty.
If a society has reached a point where more than 30% of a man’s paycheck is required by gov’t, then that society must reform or be destroyed.
SS, medicare, etc. are ponzi schemes, they require an endless stream of ‘investors’ to keep the whole scam afloat. They are doomed to eventually collapse like all other ponzi schemes. Obamacare is different. At the barrel of a gun it takes money from Paul today to pay Peter today. The bureacracy of HHS/IRS is set to swallow 1/6th of the economy and determine who will win and who will lose. It will eat up discretionary spending by imposing high costs for health care on producers (tax pyers) and this will ripple throughout a very shaky economy.
BTW, I use the term barrel of a gun because ultimately compliance is enforced by armed government agents hunting you down if you fail to comply.
It’s just another zombie virus. Nothing new there.
I used this metaphor with a leftwing nutter, who was actually struck by it.
I told her, “The Obamacare Act is the equivalent of evicting all of us from our private apartments and homes and forcing us into the projects — and demanding that we be grateful for ‘govt. support.'”
I have come to absolutely detest the Central Government, which I no longer recognize as American.