Socialists still need a few GOP sheep to hide behind

None of the Democrats’ current health care “reform” bills will meet President Barack Obama’s stated goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress’ budget umpire warned last Thursday. In fact, they could break the bank.

The sobering assessment from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf came as House Democrats pushed to pass a partisan bill through committees, while in the Senate a small group of lawmakers continued to seek a deal that could win support from both political parties.

From the beginning Mr. Obama has insisted that any overhaul must “bend the curve” of rapidly rising costs that threaten to swamp the budget of a government that unwisely started treating medical costs as an “entitlement” for the elderly and poor 45 years ago.

Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., if the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that — as things stand now — “the curve is being raised.”

Explained Mr. Elmendorf: “In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the budget director’s warning should be “a wake-up call,” adding, “instead of rushing through one expensive proposal after another, we should take the time we need to get things right.”

The insurance industry opposes key elements of the bill, saying a government plan “will cause millions of patients to lose their current coverage,” as private insurance carriers could find it uneconomical to provide expanded, govenrment-mandated coverage at the reduced rates required.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., chairman of the Blue Dog Democrats’ health care task force, said his group would need to see significant changes to protect small businesses and rural providers and contain costs before it could sign on. “We cannot support the current bill,” he said.

President Obama was doing all he could last week to encourage Congress to act quickly, before the deal falls apart. He met Thursday morning with two potential Senate swing votes, Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

After that meeting Sen. Nelson released a statement that “For my part, I suggested we not impose an arbitrary deadline to get something done. I also assured (the president) that I am working to be constructive and to move the process forward, so we can develop bipartisan reform that reduces the cost of health care, raises the quality, expands choices and extends coverage to those who cannot attain it today.”

But, Sen. Nelson added when he was done with the happy talk, “While we pursue those goals we must not detrimentally impact those with health insurance or worsen the national debt. I don’t know if all of that’s possible. …”

Uh-oh.

Since Democrats have enough votes to shove almost anything they want through the Senate, why suddenly all this talk about seeking “bipartisan reform”?

Because Democrats can’t tell the truth. They know socialized medicine will cost enough billions to lower the standard of living for millions of Americans, but they have to pretend they believe otherwise, that it will somehow “save money.”

They can’t run for re-election in 2010 — any more than they could run in 2008 — on an honest platform of “We’ll raise your taxes to the sky and borrow the nation into bankruptcy to get to our real goal, which is socialized medicine, a ‘single-payer’ system that tells old people they may just have to die waiting in line, because it turns out tax-funded medicine always creates more demand than we can pay for, and we’ve had to start rationing to cut our costs.”

They know they can’t win again in 2010 after enacting such a monster unless Republicans sell out, neutering their own ability to tell that straight story on the campaign trail with an added “We told you so.” Democrats need at least a token number of Republicans on board their bandwagon.

So why do Republicans go along?

The loyal opposition is not there to get invited to the right cocktail parties, or to enjoy favorable puff pieces in The Washington Post. They’re there to vote “No” on socialism, restore the competitive free market wherever they can, call a spade a spade, and dump the freedom-hating redistributionists (now rapidly and unwisely casting aside their sheep’s clothing) as soon as possible.

Time to find a spine.

4 Comments to “Socialists still need a few GOP sheep to hide behind”

  1. Foxwood Says:

    “Gimme, gimme gimme,” is all the useful idiots know. The Commie lib Socialists like this and take it up to promote their agenda.
    http://animal-farm.us/change/gimme-gimme-gimme-542

  2. Phelps Says:

    Fucking A.

    Either carry out the wishes of your constituents or resign.

  3. Eric C. Sanders Says:

    “reform that reduces the cost of health care, raises the quality, expands choices” – where’s the problem? (a) Eliminate licensing requirements, leaving enforcement of standards up to the free market; (b) Eliminate federal regulation of ingestibles – including, of course, “drugs” OF ALL KINDS – again, of course, leaving quality up to the market. Once the AMA and other unions lose their hammerlock on the doctor racket, we may see the return of doctors who are more interested in doctoring than golf and sportfishing; once the market controls which drugs are available and at what cost, we may see those costs drop, too. Without federal regulation of insurance, we may see the establishment of mutual associations willing to insure anyone willing to accept creative coverage design – policies unlike anything now known. Licensing and other similar regulation paradigms decrease competition (among concepts as well as among people) and increase costs. To Hell with all such – but don’t hold your breath. Government dies without constituents, and eliminating types of regulation eliminates constituencies, so I don’t expect anything except stronger chains.

  4. Anton Sherwood Says:

    Vin, you’re confusing what the Republicans are there for with what you’d like an opposition to be there for.