And Obama gives a big “FU” to Bibi, too

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, this is hardly unexpected:

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Joshuapundit thinks he knows what’s up:

…[Obama’s] main foreign policy goal is to ingratiate America with the Muslim world, no matter what that entails. And part of that involves attempting to force Israel to accept an Arab dictated settlement or at the very least destroying America’s relationship with Israel.

Netanyahu appears not to have realized how deep this went beforehand, but he certainly must be aware of it now.

So far, the Obama Administration has already trashed previous agreements with Israel, told them they have no right to their religious shrines , threatened an aid cutoff, and instituted what amounts to a de facto arms embargo.

At the same time, Obama is obviously not planning to do anything about the one issue Netanyahu really could use American cooperation on, dealing with a nuclear Iran. Obama has obviously decided that he can live just fine with the Mullahs having nukes, even if Israel can’t.

So, all you Jews who voted for Obama—any regrets?

[ADDENDUM: More here.]

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

The cheerful procrastinator:

Very educational – continue to spread the word. Looking forward to an update. For too long now have I had the need to begin my own blog. Guess if I wait any longer I’ll never do it. I’ll be sure to add you to my Blogroll. Cheers!!

A big F-ing deal: the distinguishing characteristics of the HCR bill

The New Neo Posted on by

We keep hearing that the passage of HCR was historical—or, in the immortal words of the great Joe Biden, “A big F-ing deal.”

But “historical”—or even “big F-ing deal”—has no moral valence. It doesn’t mean “good” or “bad.” It just means “big and memorable” and perhaps even “unprecedented.”

World War I was historical, for example. World War II was exceedingly historical. The Great Depression likewise. But no one would call these events good.

We don’t yet know what the ultimate effects of HCR will be, although we can guess. But we do know what’s been historical about it so far.

For starters, it represents the culmination of nearly a century of liberal/progressive/leftist (take your pick) longing (I wrote about this phenomenon here). Now Noemie Emery offers a fine summary of some of the other characteristics that have made HCR so historical:

The bill passed is a historical change, and a massive expansion of government. It was also the first major bill to be passed against the will of the country, to be passed by only one part of one party, and in the face of a wave of public revulsion, expressed over 10 months in such different outlets as mass demonstrations, three big elections, and polls.

It was not only not bipartisan, but it was less than one party, in the sense that the great war of passage was the attempt by the leaders to force their members to vote in a way that outraged their constituents, by way of threats, ultimatums and bribes.

It is the first bill whose supporters say they have to sell it now after passage, as they failed so spectacularly to sell it the first time. It is the first whose passage was greeted with cries for repeal by so many mainstream and respected political leaders, the first to be challenged in court right off the bat by two different state governments, with thirty-plus more in the wings.

I would add to that list the fact that this bill affects people’s lives in the most intimate way possible—their access to health care—and (despite promises to the contrary) the majority of them are concluding that it will ultimately take away from them more than it will give. They judge that it will take not only more money from them, but their present access to medical choice, something most are quite satisfied with now. They calculate that it will take away the high standards of medicine and particularly medical innovation they have come to expect in this country. And it may even take away the country’s solvency, already highly compromised.

All this has been done by the government without their consent—unless you believe that, once an election has occurred, anything that government chooses to do is by definition done with the people’s consent, even if the government’s plans had been misrepresented before the election.

Arguments that Obama campaigned and was elected on this particular bill are ludicrous (worse than ludicrous: transparently duplicitous). The centerpiece of his campaign was a new bipartisanship and transparency, and some general sort of health care reform was going to be part of it. But the specific provisions of this bill (including, for example, the individual mandate, which he had explicitly disavowed) most certainly were not, nor was this process of bill passage. His most oft-stated promise—that you could keep your current health plan if you like it—has become another joke (unless you understood that the promise came with an expiration date of a year or two).

No, there has never been another bill like it. Historical. The comparisons to Social Security or Medicare are laughable as well. Yes, there was some opposition to both among conservatives of the time. But they were very much minority voices and did not carry the day even within the Republican Party. Both bills were hugely popular with large majorities of Americans, and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. No one had to go out afterwards to “sell” them like a snake-oil pitchman; they had already sold themselves.

The process by which the bills passed was the normal one, as well. And, more importantly (even though we see the enormous fiscal costs now), they were mostly seen at the time as “win-win” situations by the American public. Nearly everyone paid into them and everyone would be getting something out of them, and for the vast majority of Americans they did not replace better benefits that were already in place.

In contrast, the current bill is seen as taking from the many to benefit (theoretically, at least) the few, as threatening mightily to endanger the economy of the entire country, and was rammed through against the will of the American people. That’s the sort of “historical” we could have done without.

Big F-ing deal, indeed.

“Give me liberty or give me social justice” revisited

The New Neo Posted on by

Back in December I wrote an article for PJ about the HCR battle, contrasting the two sides as a fight between those who value liberty and those who prefer “social justice.”

I still see it that way. As the fight continues now that the bill has passed, the outcome will still depend on how many Americans value liberty over “social justice” (if you don’t know what I’m referring to by that term, follow the link and read the piece).

I used to think there were more of the former than the latter in this country. But now I wonder, I truly do. It’s been a long time since we’ve taught our children what liberty is, how to protect it, how easy it is to lose it, and what happens to people when they do. We have raised an entire generation without that knowledge; we have stopped transferring the most basic values of our own country to them.

When that happens, how can we continue to protect ourselves from encroachments on liberty? It’s no accident that Obama’s support was extremely heavy among the young. They may learn from personal experience what it means to lose liberty—or they may not care, having never understood in the first place.

There are other issues than liberty or social justice with HCR, of course, and they are purely economic. But those will probably take quite some time to develop. In the meantime, will the aroused American public go back to sleep, or be continually distracted by new crises and new bills to ponder—and perhaps to fear?

HCR links and an interview

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a roundup of HCR articles you might want to read: this, this, this, and this.

Plus, here’s part of a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh show, sent me by a reader. I’m reproducing a fair amount of it here for your perusal:

CALLER: Okay. For time immemorial, both state and federal regulation — and also just the industry standard — has been a 65-35 percentage arrangement: 65 in claims payment and 35 for administration and claims expense. Withholding that you store for, you know, a major catastrophe or something.

HOST: This is to pay your claims?

CALLER: No, 65% is to pay the claims. Thirty-five percent is for everything else.

HOST: That means 35% is salaries, administration costs, and the offices, all the paperwork, that kind of thing?

CALLER: It’s that as well as, you know, we are required to keep a certain amount of cash on hand as a percentage of our claims exposure to pay claims. . . .

HOST: Now, I just want to make sure I understand here. State and federal regulations set those percentages?

CALLER: State and federal regulations, yes.

HOST: So if you wanted to have 85% set aside for claims, you couldn’t. You had to go at 65%?

CALLER: Exactly.

HOST: If you wanted 30% set aside for claims and the rest were administration, you couldn’t do it. It had to be 65%.

CALLER: That’s illegal, yes. It has to be 65-35, and there’s a couple of percentage either way, but generally when an insurance company falls outside of those guidelines, they are considered financially unstable.

HOST: Well, who audits you all to make sure you are within the ratio?

CALLER: We’re audited by the state insurance departments, primarily. There are some plans that are audited both state and federally, and then you have your private auditors who will come in as part of the stock market and that kind of thing. So we’re audited often.
. . .
CALLER: . . . So what Obama just did an hour and a half ago is make every insurance company in the country financially unstable. Remember, the 15% that we are left has not only to pay salaries, maintenance, upkeep of buildings; it also has to pay the 40% increased taxes that we’ve got. I mean, there’s just no way. You can’t do it.

HOST: Well, you’re getting a little bit ahead of me here. What did Obama sign that changes this 65-35 split? In what way did Obama now sign you into permanent instability?

CALLER: The provision in the Senate bill requires that all insurance companies pay 85% of premiums collected every year in claims.

HOST: So the 65 is now 85?

CALLER: Exactly. It doesn’t matter how much we increase the premium, it won’t matter.

. . .

HOST: . . . You originally thought that your industry would survive. You’re speaking industry or just your particular company?

CALLER: I would say 99% of all insurance companies, health insurance companies in the country.

HOST: Okay. So you originally thought you might have three to five years to stay in business under Obama. Now you said it’s two to three. Why?

CALLER: Because of the 85-15. Plus the additional expenses were going to incur. Additionally, the mandates, what people don’t understand when CMS (which is the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare) push a mandate down on insurance companies, we have to pay to complement those mandates. We don’t know how many of those are in this monstrosity. So we can have our mandate budget doubled, our taxes already up 40% or whatever it is, and our cash flow immediately cut.

HOST: Well, how can you know in advance of paying any claims? Because they’ve now shifted to 65% that you have to set aside for claims to 85%. How in the world can anybody know in advance of paying claims that it’s going to amount to 85%?

CALLER: Well —

HOST: Of course 65%? It seems to be like this is a ridiculous dictate made by people that have no clue how your business works.

CALLER: Well, they don’t have a clue. But the way that that amount of money is calculated is you look at the past year, past five years, past ten years, and you see what your claims expense have been those years. Then based on your enrollment and your demographics you project forward into what you expect to be paying in the future, in the next year and the next five years. So you can do that. It’s not precise to a dollar, but you usually get pretty close. What he’s done is by saying, for example, the preventative services now —

HOST: Those are free. Those are, quote, unquote, “free.”

CALLER: Yeah, exactly.

HOST: What the hell is a preventative service covered by an insurance company anyway?

CALLER: Well, that would be your colonoscopies, your mammograms, your yearly physicals, your lab work.

HOST: Oh, so those are free now! So if I want to go get a colonoscopy today and I have an insurance policy, I’m not going to pay for it?

CALLER: Exactly.

HOST: But you will.

CALLER: Well, we will. We’ll pay out the nose for it.

HOST: (laughing) Well…

CALLER: I know, bad analogy. I’m sorry.

HOST: It is Christmas!

CALLER: But, Sir —

HOST: Well, no, I don’t look at a colonoscopy as Christmas. Don’t misunderstand. . . . But it is Christmas in the sense that I’m not paying for it. I don’t know how you can stay in business even two to three years with this kind of thing happening to you this year alone.

CALLER: I don’t think we will and that’s why I am seriously considering leaving this industry. I’m updating my resume. You know, people who I work with — even people who voted for Obama and thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread — are shell-shocked.

HOST: That just frustrates the hell out of me. Anybody with a brain has no reason to be shell-shocked about who this guy is, but it is what it is.
. . .
CALLER: And you know how many people are going to die in the interim, Sir? I say that in all sincerity, because come January 1st you’re going to see 200, 300% increases in premiums and people are going to drop their coverage. So you’ve got the woman who isn’t going to go get the mammogram or the man who’s not going to get the prostate exam.

HOST: Wait a minute!

CALLER: People are going to die.

HOST: I thought the mammogram was free.

CALLER: Not when you drop the coverage because you can’t afford three times the premium. Remember, the premiums are going up because of the government, and jobs are being lost because of the government. If you can’t pay it, you can’t pay it. So people are going to drop it. They’re going to drop their insurance before they drop their mortgage.

HOST: They’re going to be clamoring to the government to fix the mean-spirited insurance companies for raising the prices so high and that’s where Obama’s going to step in and say, “You know what? We have no choice here but than to do it ourselves,” and then you get dumped on again first and foremost with Obama portraying the government as the savior. . . .

One part of this interview I’m not at all sure about (I’m not in the insurance business! Don’t blame me!) is that 200%-300% premium hike. Ordinarily, as far as I know, all premium raises have to be approved by the insurance commissions in the respective states. I assume HCR doesn’t change that for now, although I confess I have not read the entirety of the bill. But as long as a company can justify a rate hike, it’s approved. So I suppose if their profits fell and they were in the red deeply enough, they could indeed justify such hikes. Any experts out there who can explain?

Unhappy historic anniversary yesterday: the Enabling Act of 1933

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter Artfldgr, our resident historian, has reminded us that yesterday was the anniversary of the Enabling Act in Germany, 1933. The Act (the full name of which can be translated as the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation”) helped solidify Hitler’s dictatorial powers.

Read the Wiki entry (or any more lengthy and more official history) and see how it was that, after the Reichstag fire, Hitler was able to use parliamentary means and wheeling and dealing to gain control of Germany’s Parliament, even though he did not have enough support there initially, and get that body to vote for its own abolition and to place legislative powers in the hands of the executive branch. Here’s an excerpt:

The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and thus its adoption required a two-thirds majority, with at least two-thirds of deputies attending the session.

The Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) were expected to vote against the Act. The government had already arrested all Communist and some Social Democrat deputies under the Reichstag Fire Decree. The Nazis expected the parties representing the middle class, the Junkers and business interests to vote for the measure, as they had grown weary of the instability of the Weimar Republic and would not dare to resist.

Hitler believed that with the Centre Party members’ votes, he would get the necessary two-thirds majority. Hitler negotiated with the Centre Party’s chairman, Ludwig Kaas, a Catholic priest, finalizing an agreement by March 22. Kaas agreed to support the Act in exchange for assurances of the Centre Party’s continued existence, the protection of Catholics’ civil and religious liberties, religious schools and the retention of civil servants affiliated with the Centre Party.

Fortunately, we can’t amend the Constitution by a 2/3 vote of Congress. The German constitution of the time, however, provided for just that. Perhaps the following negotiations will sound familiar, however:

Debate within the Centre Party continued until the day of the vote, March 23, 1933, with Kaas advocating voting in favour of the act, referring to an upcoming written guarantee from Hitler, while former Chancellor Heinrich Bré¼ning called for a rejection of the Act. The majority sided with Kaas, and Bré¼ning agreed to maintain party discipline by voting for the Act.

Oh, that party discipline! So important for the proper functioning of a democracy. And then there are those pesky rules:

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats initially planned to hinder the passage of the Act by boycotting the Reichstag session, rendering that body short of the quorum (two thirds) needed to vote on a constitutional amendment. The Reichstag, however, led by its President, Hermann Gé¶ring, changed its rules of procedure, allowing the President to declare that any deputy who was “absent without excuse” was to be considered as present, in order to overcome obstructions. Because of this procedural change, the Social Democrats were obliged to attend the session, and committed to voting against the Act.

Some more:

Hitler’s speech, which emphasised the importance of Christianity in German culture, was aimed particularly at appeasing the Centre Party’s sensibilities and incorporated Kaas’ requested guarantees almost verbatim. Kaas gave a speech, voicing the Centre’s support for the bill amid “concerns put aside”, while Bré¼ning notably remained silent. Only the Social Democratic chairman Otto Wels spoke against the Act. Kaas had still not received the written constitutional guarantees he had negotiated, but with the assurance it was being “typed up”, voting began. Kaas never received the letter.

I am sure that rings a small, sad bell for someone whose name is somewhat similar (hint: instead of beginning with a “k” and ending with an “s,” it begins with an “s” and ends with a “k”).

And then there was the soupcon of fear, and the final denouement:

At this stage, the majority of parties already supported the bill, and any deputies who might have been reluctant to vote in favour were intimidated by the SA troops surrounding the meeting. In the end, all parties except the SPD voted in favour of the Enabling Act…

The passage of the Enabling Act reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler’s speeches. It only met sporadically until the end of World War II, held no debates and enacted only a few laws. Within three months after the passage of the Enabling Act, all parties except the Nazi Party were banned or pressured into dissolving themselves, followed on July 14 by a law that proscribed the founding of political parties. With this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: “I set for myself one aim … to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!”

Due to the great care that Hitler took to give his dictatorship an appearance of legality, the Enabling Act was renewed twice, in 1937 and 1941. In 1942, the Reichstag passed a law giving Hitler power of life and death over every citizen, effectively extending the provisions of the Enabling Act for the duration of the war. It was finally renewed indefinitely in 1943 “by order of the Fé¼hrer”

The rest, as they say, is history. Actually, it’s all history.

Obama’s big FU to Bart Stupak, patsy extraordinaire

The New Neo Posted on by

Isn’t this special—and so unexpected, too:

A White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order [banning federal funds for abortion] Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so. Stupak predicted Obama would sign the order later this week. The White House said only that Obama would sign the order “soon.”

Obama is getting bolder by the minute. And Gibbs more weaselly every day:

It’s not clear the support of Stupak and a handful of other pro-life Democrats guaranteed the bill’s passage.

“I’m not sure that that’s altogether knowable,” Gibbs said.

And Stupak. What of Stupak, now that his fifteen minutes of fame are up? He gets more despicably pathetic, and we will leave him now, as he fades into the sunset saying this:

Stupak released a statement today defending the as-yet-unsigned executive order, placing it on a list of other significant orders that included Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and Harry Truman’s 1948 order desegregating the U.S. armed forces.

“Throughout history, Executive Orders have been an important means of implementing public policy,” Stupak said in a statement. “The most famous Executive Order was the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln in 1863.”

You may notice…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that I haven’t posted anything about the HCR signing ceremony. That’s because I have no intention of watching much news on TV any more. I prefer to read anyway—and at this point it’s better for the state of my stomach, as well.

But if you wish to observe and comment, be my guest.

The numbers games: House and Senate in 2010, and beyond

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This post won’t be offering arguments concerning the question of whether entitlements can ever be undone. I am saving that discussion for another piece. But my short answer is that I think they can, under certain circumstances, and that HCR most likely fits those circumstances. So for the purposes of this post, let’s just stipulate that repeal of an entitlement is theoretically possible, and concentrate on the practical issues.]

The HCR bill is very unpopular right now. People are angry. Most benefits do not kick in for years but payment does, and the bill and its fearsome prospects are likely to hurt the economy and stall any recovery that might otherwise occur. Thus, if the bill remains very unpopular or even increases in unpopularity, and especially if this administration and Congress do other things that further anger the majority of Americas, the election of 2010 could represent a chance for the resurgence of the Republican Party, newly energized by actual conservatism and backed by the will of the people.

There are many wild cards here, however. There’s been much talk, for instance, about the prospect of the Democrats passing amnesty prior to the 2010 election, and therefore gaining all those new voters. I have been thinking for quite some time that they would make that attempt, and I have little doubt that they will try.

It used to be said that amnesty was too unpopular for even the Democrats to touch. But we have learned that the unpopularity of a bill no longer represents any bar to them. They have become unmoored from any need to answer to the people until 2010, and they believe they will game the system to insure their victory in 2010 and beyond.

However, amnesty could be opposed even in this Congress if (and again, that’s a big “if” with Lindsey Graham in the Senate) they can get forty-one votes in the Senate against it. At this point, there is at least a chance that all of the Republicans (and perhaps even Joe Lieberman?) might hang tough on that because they now they finally see the seriousness of the situation and the threat to them and all they stand for.

You might say well, what about reconciliation or the nuclear option for the Democrats to use in passing amnesty even if forty-one Republicans are against it? The nuclear option (changing the rules so that sixty votes are not needed for cloture) is only possible at the start of a Congressional session (look for it to happen, by the way, if the Republicans don’t gain control of the next Senate—and perhaps even if they do). So it could not be used until the Congress that begins after the 2010 election. As far as reconciliation goes—every bill can’t be passed through that route. It was available for HCR only because the Senate had already approved a version of the bill prior to Scott Brown’s victory—the House had to pass that version before reconciliation was allowed.

Naturally, since the Democrats are now officially a rogue party, they might start throwing away even those basic rules that remain in Congress. Then all bets are off—including the response of the military and the American people. But I don’t think that will happen; I think the Democrats will continue to maintain most of the basic forms of parliamentary government, and just tweak and twist them when they need to here and there.

I’ve read a bit about amnesty as currently proposed (don’t have the link right now; I may add one later if I find it), and my impression is that, even if a bill were to be passed by this Congress, the process of actually giving the illegals amnesty and getting them citizenship will take far longer to implement than could be accomplished before the 2010 election. So I am not at all sure it would affect that election, although it could most definitely affect subsequent ones. That makes 2010 a watershed year for the Republicans; they must win that election battle.

I’m not going into a discussion here of how the amnesty bill under consideration will be proposing to operate. If I did, this post would become a larger tome than it already is shaping up to be. But at some future date I plan to take that topic up, too. But I will say that if amnesty remains as unpopular as it appears to be—even more unpopular than the HCR bill—some Democrats who were willing to fall on their swords for HCR because they figured the people would grow to love it may not be quite so willing to do the same for amnesty.

Even if the Democrats pass amnesty, however, it is my prediction that it would cause an electoral backlash so huge that it would make the HCR angst look positively benign. That means that the Democrats would gain many eventual voters through passing amnesty, but they stand to lose even more.

But let’s get back to HCR and the possibilities of thwarting it through the actions of the next Congress. Assuming amnesty (passed or unpassed) isn’t a factor yet in the election of 2010, there is every possibility of Republicans gaining control of the House next session. It would be more difficult to gain control of the Senate, because there are only 18 Democratic seats up for grabs there. So in order to get a simple majority in the Senate, the Republicans would have to have a net gain of 10 seats (one less if Joe Lieberman were to join them). They cannot mathematically gain enough to get a filibuster-proof majority, but a simple majority is theoretically possible (if not easy).

Of course, even if the Republicans took control of both houses in 2010 Obama could veto any legislation they might pass. But he cannot write budget bills. So the way to begin to attack HCR would be through the budget, although this is a very complex process as well (and as I’ve said many times, I am no parliamentary expert, so I may be making some errors here—but this is a discussion of the way budget appropriations bills work, if anyone cares to wade through it).

It appears that the 2010 Congress could defund current legislation through budget appropriations bills without repealing it (it could be repealed in 2012 if the Congress and the presidency change hands and there are more than 60 Republicans in the Senate). Defunding could actually be done without a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (that is what reconciliation was actually originally about—budget bills), just a simple majority in both houses. The president might veto it, but he cannot put in provisions for funding that aren’t there, and if he keeps vetoing the budget bill he would threaten to shut down his own government. Would he want to play that game of chicken? And would the Republicans be up to it?

Even if the Republicans were only to gain control of the House and not the Senate in 2010 (the more realistic possibility, I think), the two houses still must merge their budget bills into one because of the bicameral system. So there may still be possibilities even in that case for a Republican House to moderate a Democrat Senate.

As I said, I’m no expert, but that’s my understanding of things, at least from the quick cram course I’ve given myself online. I don’t know how the defunding would actually work in its details (or whether it would work), and after a quick search I haven’t found anything very specific on it, although I’ve seen it mentioned here and there during the last few months that HCR has been kicking around.

Of course, there are also the challenges to HCR pending in the court system. But I happen to think those will not go in our favor. There are also enough states incensed at this bill and threatened by its demands to their own already-strapped budgets that there is even a possibility of a Constitutional amendment to undo it if enough states feel this way—that’s a whole other topic for another time. I think it’s a longshot, but I mention it because it is a theoretical possibility—and depending on how much more this president and this Congress defy the will of the people and the will of the states, it might become a stronger possibility in the future. And of course, if the country edges even closer to bankruptcy—-all bets are off. Chaos theory and Cloward-Piven, anyone?

As with most civilizations, our biggest threats have come from within, and most be fought. Make no mistake about it, the Democrat leaders are most serious about their power grabs, and their respect for the rules of American political life has almost dissipated. They have been handed the gavel of power, and they are unafraid to wield it heavily—and, they hope, permanently.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s a post about defunding from Volokh, a law blog. Seems to be more or less in agreement with what I’ve written here, but is mercifully less wordy.]

Notes from the British HCR experience

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s an excellent letter from a British observer at the Corner, describing the British experience with government health care and contrasting it to ours. You would do well to read the whole thing. Here are a few excerpts (emphasis mine):

[T]here were no real losers in the Britain of 1948 [when their system was first set up]. Only a tiny handful of very rich people had any experience of great medical care””and they were rich enough to pay higher taxes AND private insurance premiums. Everyone else got roughly the same medical care; but now the middle class got it for nothing as most of the poor had done before. Nobody lost””not for another fifteen years when the quality of medical care began to decline noticeably. And by then they were hooked. By contrast almost every insured Ameerican [sic] is a potential loser under Obamacare. And some of those considered to be winners””i.e., the currently non-insured””will feel like losers if they are forced to insure and then remain inconveniently healthy.

So, for all sorts of reasons, opponents of this bill should not feel deterred from hope of repeal by the British experience. At the very least they have a window of opportunity to reverse the legislation of about eight to ten years. It’s doable if you think it’s doable””not if not.

The article points out that when the British system was implemented it had strong bipartisan support. This is completely different from the situation right now in this country, and the difference makes it clear that we are dealing with more—far more—than a simple difference of opinion about health care reform. We are dealing with a rogue government bent on tyranny, and their plans do not stop with health care.

Nevertheless, the same principle is true: it’s fixable if you consider it fixable. But you must remain focused on that task, and mindful of the wiliness and ruthlessness of your opponents.

The joke that is the CBO

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an explanation of how the CBO works—or fails to—because of the ridiculous rules by which it is bound.

I agree. As I wrote back in December 2009:

The CBO has become a way to give the imprimatur of fiscal propriety to bills that are essentially scams, and the CBO is powerless to do anything but be a yes-man to whatever a clever and duplicitous Congress manages to come up with.

Mmmm, let’s have some more of that tasty CBO sausage, with a heaping helping of garbage-in garbage-out.