From Volokh Conspiracy:
A large and permanent majority of the American people immediately accepted Social Security as a constitutional solution to poverty among the elderly and to massive unemployment (since Social Security would open up jobs by encouraging people to retire sooner). The American people have not accepted Obamacare as a constitutional solution to health insurance problems. If the American believe that there is a “crisis” about the high cost of health insurance, then the American people can also believe that the solution is not to send people to prison for refusing to buy overpriced insurance that they don’t want. The American people can reject the notion that our Constitution should be contorted and distorted to accommodate such a destructive and intrusive scheme.And then the Constitutional debate commences.
What now for Obama? Climate change? Grant amnesty to illegal aliens? Bring education under the total control of the state?
The euphoria shown by the Democrats, I will submit, hasn't registered with Americans because the economic landscape remains bleak (and this bill will do nothing to lower the debt) and they now have to deal with one of the most polarizing Presidents (ironic given his transformational image) in recent American political history.
***
Victor Davis Hanson chimes in here.
Apologies? What for? You are You and I am me, period. You are an individualist, I'm more of a collectivist which does not mean that I abdicate my personal responsibilities but I do think some governement is necessary to promote social justice.
ReplyDeleteFor me the pursuit of happyness includes social justice, not just my wellbeing.
Some governements do work for that, as awkwardly as they may, others do not. I'll save you the list.
It was a humorous jab at your last comment. I apologize for not "giving it up" and posting more on the matter.
ReplyDeleteAnd therein lies exactly why I do:
You seem to think we can't achieve social justice without the state. See. I believe in the power of you and me. Sounds cheesy, but there's more power in YOU AND ME than the state DICTATING how we can achieve social goals and justice.
Alas, you've conceded we do need a middle-man (albeit on reasonable terms but you and I know that's not the case), to get between us.
This is more than "some" government Paul. Obama has shown he's no pragmatic centrist. That's bull shit. When you MANDATE people to buy insurance coercing them by threat of fines and jail time that's a direct infringement on PERSONAL CHOICE.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? I know here in Canada and in Europe we've been bitch-slapped into falling under the sway of big government and brother but in the U.S. the notion of individualism still has a pulse.
I'm not so sure anymore. Name me one place on earth where the PEOPLE have true control of their own destiny now?
Another shocking piece in the bill is now children can stay under their parents insurance plans until their 26. 26 is an adult. What signals does that send to a society? Why are they intervening this way?
No one questions the need to reform and to help those who truly need it. It's just that this bill - and the way it passed with all the ugly politics. The American people weren't UNITED behind it - is really bad according to too many people for my taste.
All I saw was: The ends justify the means and tyranny of the minority.
I respect your ideology, I just don't share it. Compulsory health insurance, like automobile insurance, is a sensible thing. To have to resort to fines and jail to enforce it just shows the level of irresponsibilty the general citizen has reached under the US freedom or death attitude.
ReplyDeleteOur Charter allows for "reasonable" infringements on our freedoms and the Supreme Court is our buffer. The USAers want to see it otherwise...their problem; but a leader is there to show the way, not to be shown it.
How is personal choice and the power to have it an "ideology?" I'm just being me.
ReplyDeleteThat's all fine what you wrote. Just don't say we're "free."
If want to believe it's all sensible go right ahead. To equate threat of jail and fines to sensible social policy in an effort to "discipline" people is totalitarian at its roots. But that's me.
Don't get me going with Quebec's pathetic "no-fault" insurance scheme. I never AGREED to that but I guess I should shut up and "trust" the state.
Man I'll defend your right to disagree and say it anywhere, anytime.
ReplyDeleteAh, Voltaire! Now the conversation takes a wonderful turn!
ReplyDeleteSuch is the main characteristic of a free state: being able to disagree with the state and still enjoy the benefits and one's liberty. Liberty and freedom are not licence to do everything or shun everything. If you endanger yourself you expose others at the same time directly or through consequences of your actions or absence thereof. Hence the need for some rules, even coercitive ones without going overboard and jailing uninsured people may be a bit excessive but I have not seen that anywhere save in the Republicans demagogic campaign. That firebrand last sunday night did not even mention it in the House when he ranted. Must mean something, no?
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I reciprocate.
ReplyDeletePaul, you have not read any of my links nor do I think you're reading the right sources. At this point, it's so easy to pin down. Just google it. People HAVE read the bill and broken it down. It so happens most of it by people who don't accept Obama as an article of faith.
It's plain black and white: it's not GOP scare tactics. That's just leftist nonsensical gibberish. There are other examples of GOP exaggerations perhaps but the Democrats are just as guilty.
You perpetuate the same strange narrative pimped out: The GOP nuts; Democrats rational.
The Democrats used coercive tactics, used fear-mongering and appealed to the emotions to sell their bill.
I love when Republicans are attacked as "firebrands" or "nucases" yet some of the most obscene comments I've heard came from Obama, Pelosi and Reid: The Power Troika. When a liberal leaning politician says something stupid and depraved (which is way too often for my taste) somehow it gets glossed over; even ignored. But when a lousy radio announcer says something, it gets mangled and scrutinized to the point of madness by "centrists."
In Italian we have a saying: Ma va! Get outta here. The double standard is so evident it's mind boggling.
Are people paying attention?
As to your description of liberty, you're right. Again, leftist ideology (and some among the conservative ranks no doubt) believes "freedom" is a license to do anything. Nothing is further from the truth.
But I don't want to get into it. There is a fundamental lack of understanding of what Jefferson and the FF thought of freedom, right on down to libertarians.
I have read some, but not all, of your links. Maybe I did not read the right ones nor thoroughly enough.
ReplyDeleteYes both sides have gone overboard to the extent that the main aims have been blurred beyond recognition.
Basically allowing everyone regardless of means and present state of health access to the care they need and that is part of the right to life and nothing says that it is a privilege reserved to those who can afford it.
Will the bill accomplish that? Maybe not but judging from the stock exchange yesterday it was good for business so I'm not sure it is such a socialist measure after all.
Good point. I don't think it's "socialist" as it's made out to be. It certainly increases control but I'm pretty sure the insurance companies - who are already tightly regulated. Something Obama doesn't say - got something or else, as you say, the markets wouldn't have reacted like they did.
ReplyDeleteIt's more of a question of: Did Congress over step its constitutional boundaries and the relationship between state and private individuals.
And Virginia is taking that point to the Courts.
ReplyDeleteI think 11 states are.
ReplyDelete