Friday, May 05, 2017

Obamacare Repealed and Replaced, but not really

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Everybody is trying to judge Donald Trump (and by everybody, I mean the Democrats who think they are in the majority) by the first 100 Days of his presidency.  Do you judge if you should marry your latest fling by how they performed during the first 100 days of dating you?  Is the entire season for your favorite sports team determined by the first 100 days of the season?  While the first 100 days may be an important preview of what may be to come, in politics, it is not really a good marker.  We are a republic, and in republics, it can be difficult and time consuming to get things done very quickly. . . by design.  Dictatorships are quick and efficient.  Republics require negotiations, adjustments, and coalition building.

The 100 Day marker was created by the Democrats, for first of all, the "First 100 Days" is not as big of a deal to me as it would be to leftists.

That said, desperately trying to make good on promises in the first 100 Days of the Trump Presidency, we've seen a lot of "show" occur, without a lot of substance.  I think that may have been what the Religious Liberties executive order may have been all about.  Truthfully, that one should have been done legislatively (but we'll talk about that in a later post).

The Republicans have been repealing Obamacare ever since the Affordable Care Act reared its ugly head.  Now, with a Republican in the White House, Republicans in control of the Senate, and Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, they gave us "Obamacare light."

I get it.  Perfection is something we can't always achieve, and if we step in the right direction, it can still be considered a victory.

Dinesh D'Souza took that stance, tweeting:

"The new GOP healthcare bill is not perfect but it's a BIG improvement & THAT'S why the left is screaming so loudly" -

While I don't see it as a BIG improvement, it is a step in the right direction away from Obamacare.

Personally, I don't like the idea of "Repeal and Replace."  Repeal it, allow States to have their own systems again, and then go from there.  Besides, where in the Constitution does the federal government have authority to be involved in healthcare?  And don't give me the John Roberts tax crap, either.

D'Souza is right, however.  The liberal left Democrats are flipping out of their minds over this new federal healthcare animal.

Hard Left California Democrat (and our new Senator to replace Barbara Boxer) Kamala Harris Tweeted that "129 million people with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage and insurers could charge sick people more money":

Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment, tweeted a very insightful pair of responses explaining that the enrollment in Obamacare's pre-existing condition insurance plan never topped 115,000 people:

The Democrats are seeking to yank on your emotions.

The problem is, and the Democrats know this, the greatest addiction known to man, more potent than tobacco addiction, more powerful than cocaine or heroin addiction, is the addiction to free gifts from the government treasury.  Once the government's needle hits your arm, not only are you hooked, but once you are they do everything they can to keep you attached to their poison.

Therefore, the attitude is "get the entitlement started.  Once it is in place, it will be impossible to completely eliminate, no matter how imperfect it is."

Have we ever seen, in the History of the United States, a socialist Democrat Party program eliminated?

The Republicans have fallen for that rhetoric, and believe the American People must be weaned from Obamacare in small doses, and that the federal government must maintain at least some footing in the door when it comes to an individual's health insurance programs.

Health care services are a product.  It is the industry's job to put out the most appealing product.  Once the product is out there, the players in our free market system are then open to competing with each other to give us a quality product at a reasonable price.  There should be no insurance, no different than the idea that I should not have insurance to purchase food.  However, there are those who may not be able to fully afford the health care product, so loans, payment plans, or a healthcare safety net offered by the individual States, may be available when necessary.  That is how the system is supposed to work.

A patient-provider relationship based on product, services, and consumer needs.

Health insurance was our first problem (which was pushed to the forefront by government interference through wage controls during the Great Depression).  Then, further government influence made it worse (employer mandates, HMOs, and strict government guidelines), with Obamacare being the final nail in the coffin that could have killed our free market health system in the long run (as it was designed to do).

There is a reason that in the United States Constitution there are no authorities granted to the federal government regarding health care, or any kind of health procedures.  The federal government was not created to interfere with the lives of Americans, or the internal order of the States.  The federal government's job is primarily regarding external issues; common defense, maritime law, trade, securing the national borders, and providing necessary services that promote and preserve the union; such as the postal service, or acting as a mediator when there is a dispute between the States.

Healthcare is not on their list of duties.

As for the "healthcare is a right" argument, it is not the federal government's job to guarantee your rights, either.

First of all, healthcare is not a right, it is a product.  Second, the Founding Fathers realized that the greatest threat to our natural rights is the federal government, so they wrote the Bill of Rights as a warning to the federal government instructing it to keep its hands off our rights.  If the federal government is the greatest threat to our rights, why would we grant them the authority to be the guarantors of our rights?

The 14th Amendment attempt to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States was (and is) a leftist ploy.  Do we really want the federal government to have the authority to dictate to the States what they can or can't do regarding our rights to freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, or our religious rights?

Is the new GOP healthcare bill a step in the right direction?  Well, it's not as bad as, or worse, than Obamacare.  And, sometimes, you have to take small steps to proceed along a journey.  But, in truth, if this Congress, and this President, were truly champions of the United States Constitution, there would have been a full repeal, and no "replace."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

1 comment:

Call Me Mom said...

"But, in truth, if this Congress, and this President, were truly champions of the United States Constitution, there would have been a full repeal, and no "replace.""
" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." ~ Thomas Jefferson

And the solution?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~ The Declaration of Independence

Those who elected Mr. Trump hoped that by so doing, they were providing a path towards cutting government back to it's Constitutional role (Never mind that the SCOTUS destroyed the rule of law and the republic along with it when they arrogated to themselves the power of legislating by redefinition) and hopefully avoiding the need to rebuild - if possible - the republic.

The refusal by the Congress to do a full and complete repeal of deathcare indicates that we may not be able to avoid the unpleasant task of re-establishing a limited government republic.