No, not from me. From William Saletan at Slate, arguing these midterms were actually a victory for Dems:
Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. This time, they succeeded. In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren’t going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it.
Even if you liked Obamacare, this should be a bone chilling statement to you. It is predicated on the idea that a group of our “betters” should, whenever their divinely inspired noble wisdom tells them to, buck decades of clearly expressed popular will (not to mention the foundational principles in the Constitution) for the good of the masses who are too stupid to even know what’s good for them. Further, it should be done in such a way that to the extent possible, future generations should be unable to undo it.
People are certainly entitled to believe the masses are ignorant of their own true self interests. But if that’s your entering argument for justifying government overreach, congratulations – you’ve just taken your first logical but inexorable step over to actually opposing freely elected governments.
~~~
The reason “universal healthcare” failed for decades was because Americans don’t want it. We don’t want cradle-to-grave nanny statism, which “universal healthcare” creates in a way that no other entitlement possibly could. There is simply no reconciling the leftist ideas above with the idea that we are a free people with government as our servant rather than our masters.
Saletan acknowledged that Obamacare is:
[A] huge structural change in the relationship between the public, the economy, and the government.
The American people should never be saddled with such a profound structural change without their prior consent. Besides – it’s incredibly short sighted. If government can ram through a policy you do like, they sure as hell can ram through one you don’t. If this process were to become acceptable to those in power, we’d stop voting representatives and elections would be nothing more than deciding which dictator to suffer under. The real problem would come when a majority of Americans stopped granting legitimacy to such laws – then we’d have a crisis indeed. The question all lefties should ask themselves is, “Would I be OK with George W. Bush having this kind of power?” (I voted for the guy twice and my answer is still, “Hell no!”) Because anything enacted under a President you don’t like will probably still be law under one you don’t.
That Saletan – or anyone else – believes this is acceptable is nothing more than a rigorous defense of benevolent tyranny. And no tyranny ever stays benevolent for long.
My sister was outraged when San Francisco passed that ridiculous ban on happy meal toys. Yet she is in full support of tax payer funded health care for all. She, as most people that support the Obama health care plan, just doesn’t seem to get the obvious here. If you start asking the taxpayer to pay to fund your health care, then the taxpayer has a legitimate interest in maintaining your health as he/she is bearing the cost of your decisions.
I really don’t want the government dictating my diet, my sleep habits, my exercise routine, my choice of employment, my alcohol consumption — all things that affect my overall health. This is the logical next step. It’s just part of the ” huge structural change in the relationship between the public, the economy, and the government” we’ll see in the future if we continue down this path.
Jenni, like a lot of liberal ideas, I imagine your sister will find all kinds of things wrong with Obamacare once it moves from the White House’s PR to her family doctor!
In some ways, good for San Fransisco for showing us the reducto ad absurdum consequences of liberalism run amok.
I really like Jenni’s point. If someone is paying for my healthcare, then they have a stake in my health….thus, it seems it would go that they could dictate the things she mentioned. I don’t think enough people think of healthcare like that, or that very least, are not presented with that thorough line of thinking.