Wednesday, December 16, 2009

A Sense of History or Legacy

An article in today’s Boston Globe puts the health care bill into its proper perspective, albeit inadvertently.

With the public option seemingly out of contention, President Obama is urging the Democrats to pass what they can for historic purposes.   There are no fewer than seven references to the historic importance of the passage of the bill by the politicians interviewed.
Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois: “What remains is dramatic. We just don’t want to lose the opportunity, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.’’

“If Congress passes a health care bill, those who voted for it are going to be part of history,’’ said Senator Paul Kirk, Democrat of Massachusetts.

The historic significance? “The bill would require that nearly all Americans buy health insurance and would provide government subsidies to those who can’t afford it on their own.”  In short, an historic expansion of government control over health care.  
Rolling with the loss of the public option as a minor setback in the central plan, Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee reported Joe Biden’s wisdom in a closed-door meeting, “other major entitlement programs began as bare-bones programs but were gradually built up over time”.

“He said: ‘Look, be joyful, this is really great what we’re doing here, it’s so significant, it’s a moment in history, and we’ll build upon it in the future, as with Social Security and Medicare,’ ’’ Baucus said.

Leaders believe that once a compromise bill is written by a House-Senate conference committee, lawmakers will be more reluctant to vote against it because of the historic nature of the bill.

The bill is historic – in its expansion of governmental powers; but the dangling bait of history proponents of the bill are using to whip up the Senate is one personal legacy, not history.

If any of them actually were interested in history, they would each understand where such central planning has historically led.


2 comments:

Rational Education said...

LB,
the ideological, principled consistency of the left is what is winning them the day -the most brazen among them constantly bring up the fact that Republicans do not oppose Medicare. It was under the conservative Bush that statism/collectivism has had the largest increase recently in SCHIP and some drug coverage programs if I remember correctly.
There is no principled opposition in Congress or Senate from Republicans. Is there a single idea that has had circulation for what Republicans propose -No. Why? because it would mean they would have to take a principled stance against government involvement in medical care, i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP etc -and there is not a single one of them who has the courage to do that.
Bad ideas win only when there are no better ideas proposed.
I do believe that "public option" and the latest dropping to 55 year for Medicare were mere ruses that these statists were fully willing to take off the table at this time and bide their time for the not so distant future. They kept these ruses so that it did not look like they got the victory too easy (and they could have even gotten lucky and passed them immediately -it was worth a try!) and yes a "whole lot of debate" took place before the bills were passed! A manipulative mentality such as this is beyond even the comprehension of some of us!
Jasmine

Beth said...

Nicely stated, Lynne. Thank you.