An anonymous commenter recently took umbrage over one of my posts regarding the numerous legal and policy defects in Obamacare, posting what I called an obtuse comment to the effect that the only reason for the opposition to that law was that Republicans and conservatives are just unremittingly hostile to the president.
I replied that the observation was obtuse because I’m not a conservative, couldn’t care less about Republicans (most of them, anyway) and oppose Obamacare for the same reasons I oppose increasing statism no matter who pushes it.
My rejoinder has drawn a reply from that same individual. I post it here:
I won’t make a case for England or socialized medicine because the ACA is not socialized medicine. It’s nowhere close. Furthermore, if you ask anyone in England which system they would prefer–the one the US has now or the one England currently has, I would venture to say 95 percent of the English would say let’s keep our socialized care.
Do you think otherwise?
Yes. The legislation sets in motion incentives that will turn the country into a “single-payer” system, but well before that happens, people will suffer from declining quality and availability of care. Read Dr. David Gratzer’s book The Cure to see how bad the system is in Canada for those who can’t afford to obtain needed treatment in the U.S.
As far as my obtuse comment, I would say this: How else would you explain the massive amount of fear mongering and mudslinging and misinformation? From the pejorative “Obamacare” to death panels and “authoritarianism” conservatives have been out to tear down not only health care reform, but Obama in general. Never mind that Republicans INVENTED the mandate, that it is a free market based solution, that Obama purposefully offered mandates as a means to get the GOP on board, knowing of course that it would be impossible for the GOP to disdain an idea that they created and used.
Politics is full of fear-mongering and mudslinging, but nothing I have posted about either the unconstitutionality of this legislation or its adverse effects on the quality and affordability of medical care is either. It is my view that this legislation is blatantly unconstitutional, and I’d gladly argue the point with anyone. It’s also my view that the legislation is a disastrous policy mistake, plunging the nation further into a politicized medical care system, when the very problems with the status quo are rooted in previous political intervention — a case that Sheldon Richman recently made in an article I posted. If there is an argument to be made that the great increase in government domination of the market for medical care actually will make for better and more affordable care for Americans (not just nice intentions, but probable results), I would be glad to debate that, too.
The only explanation is the GOP wanted to make this Obama’s Waterloo, facts be damned.
Again, I have no interest in what the GOP wants. I want to see all legislation that undermines our constitutional framework defeated, no matter what party is behind it. I want to see all legislation that increases the federal government’s power to dictate to free people what they must and must not do defeated. I want to see all legislation that takes more money away from the individuals who earned it so that politicians can squander it on their vote-buying schemes defeated.
Serious legal and policy arguments will be debated here if and when they are made.