Tuesday, November 10, 2009


"The cat is raaaaaaaa outta the bag!" -- Cosmo Kramer

In the October 29-November 4 Nashville Scene, Brantley Hargrove talks about U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper's 15-year-history fightin' in the "health car wars." In his essay, Brantley says we conservatives who oppose ObamaCare are "ginning up Big Government paranoia," just like we did back in 1993.

I hate to break it to Mr. Hargrove, but today's Wall Street Journal lets a big-ass cat outta a big-ass bag as it relates to health care, er, health insurance reform: If the monstrosity that squeaked through the U.S. House over the weekend ever becomes law, well, we might as well just re-name the country The United Statists of America.

Here's the Big Gov't rumpus (apologies to the Coen Brothers):

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration ... is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

UPDATE: Speaking of Rep. Jim "He Who Has No Uppper Lip" Cooper and ObamaCare, and the Wall Street Journal, check this out:

Perhaps the most unsurprising news in this drama was the collapse of the Blue Dog "deficit hawks." Enough of them always cave in the end to give Mrs. Pelosi her way. It's nonetheless worth noting the surrender of that most vocal scourge of deficits, Tennessee's Jim Cooper, who voted aye on grounds that the bill can be improved in the Senate. ...

Mr. Cooper has with a single vote made his entire career irrelevant.

I'll have more to say 'bout Rep. Coop at a later date.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?