The Care’s Lousy, but at Least It’s Expensive

The toughest Family Feud question ever would be “Name a government program that reduces costs,” especially given the rather non-politically invested families that seem to appear as contestants.  Survey says that, for Washington, going broke is when the real squandering starts.  Worst of all, they blame you: your leaders think you can’t spend or save properly, so they’d like to take care of budgeting for you.  This financial setup will be on a compulsory basis, naturally.

Specifically, some have abruptly realized that a government proposal designed to give millions of people free health care while removing all cost accountability might be pricey (h/t Ericka Andersen).  President Obama can deliver yet another lecture about how it will be cheaper than our present setup to insure everyone with no competition, but we haven’t fallen, aren’t falling, and won’t ever fall for it.

He may in fact be reading the same speech every time.  It’s become such a chore to follow his incessant campaign that his staff may have realized they can get away with slothfully feeding the same words into the teleprompter every morning.  Regardless, the counterargument remains consistent: no federal program has ever saved money, and the first to do so won’t be one that commandeers an entire industry.

Still, they’ll try to pull magical quarters out of our ears until they have enough to pay for the charade.  Their most recent stab at cunningness is to not say how much Democraticare would actually cost.  That strategy explains why, whoops, they forgot to mention the plot’s real expenses.  Like Jerry Lundegaard-style car dealers who announce the cost of sealant only as the deal’s being closed, they’ve been caught trying to sneak through yet one more cripplingly brutal cost.  It’s all for the right to buy a junky late 80s GM car.  Nobody wants to pay loads extra for a Cutlass Ciera.

Unsurprisingly, national health backers frame the issue incorrectly.  For one, they think offering exemplary care levels at rock bottom prices is possible by passing a 2,300-plus page bill with the shiftiest of tactics.  If proponents maintain reams of legislation will simultaneously improve costs and care, it has to happen that way here in reality, right?  They shouldn’t but will be astonished to learn that passing a law doesn’t turn intentions into results.

Further, they’re offering something that’s not theirs to offer.  We and not the Steny Hoyers of the world are supposed to take care of life’s details, including our well-being.  The White House and a portion of legislators can ignore it all they want, but they’re only trying to revoke our freedom to be accountable.

Health care is a commodity.  It’s not a right, and we’re certainly not entitled to it.  To clarify for our misguidedly persnickety liberal friends, we have the right to acquire insurance but not be handed it.  The product in question might be important and necessary, but it’s still our responsibility to obtain it.  Actually, rumor holds that the bill makes the word “responsibility” illegal, but nobody’s read that far without suffering boredom-related trauma.  In the meantime, there’s still presently hope for those reactionaries who think humans ought to take care of themselves.

It’s not as if any Democratic bill would leave us destitute but healthy.  The government, in their governmental way, will figure how to reduce the quality of care but not expenses.  Some states have already pulled off this perverse miracle: for one, Tennessee failed to improve its citizens’ bank accounts or selves with their take on collective care (h/t Jay Riemersma, MI-2’s next congressman).  Such a racket won’t work any better if imposed upon both the Volunteer State and their 49 neighbors.  Ask Mitt Romney for another example, and he’ll reflexively cringe.

When they’re not relying on financial sorcery, Obamacare enthusiasts will merely neglect to mention any possible downside of their machinations.  For one, they’ll fail to admit how taxes to fuel their monster will be collected immediately even though the plan itself will be immediately mothballed for a couple years.  On a related note, you can reduce your food budget if you only eat four days per week.  While Michelle Obama might consider the strategy to be a useful obesity-fighting measure, it’s fair to classify it as an unhealthy approach to fitness.

But we’ve come to expect such crooked legerdemain from everyone attempting to Cubafy our health care.  Their most absurdly shameless fraud so far has been trying to pass the bill through the House without passing it.  Don’t worry: they’ll find a way to sink lower within a week or two.

Perfectly appropriately, the House and Senate face a prisoner’s dilemma.  It’s an applicable term not just because many of them are under investigation and/or act like felons: more specifically, each side is currently pondering what the other will do and accordingly acting in a manner conducive to their own goals.  With that in mind, representatives could pass the bill and hope the upper chamber twits then pass the promised modifications.  Should they fall for it?  Do you trust Chuck Schumer?

All the confusion, nonsense, and subterfuge stems from a preposterous effort to turn an item we should buy on our own into a free handout.  The genuine competition that would emerge as a byproduct of allowing insurance purchases across state lines would do more to lower costs than Washington ever will on anything.  But Democrats will eschew allowing more people to buy a plan in favor of attempting to get more people on medical welfare.  There’s nothing cynical about noticing that every one of their initiatives expands federal control over everyone but Guantanamo inmates.

Of course, they’re also simultaneously ruining the word “insurance,” as the service is supposed to be obtained voluntarily to protect against possible future calamity.  Instead, people will wait until becoming sick to enroll, then sign up and suck up all the rationed care available.  While it’s an infinitely safer bet, the house will inevitably go bankrupt.

And Obama won’t stop moaning about health insurers denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.  Next, he’ll complain that home insurers won’t sell policies to those whose dwellings are presently aflame.  They’re so greedy, and probably connected to Wall Street fat cats somehow.

If the present Congress passes any health bill, the only way to limit costs will be spreading out care evenly.  I’m sure someone has broached the inevitability of rationing panels.  It will cost so much to get much less, but at least we’ll suffer together.  Turning America into South Quebec will make our lives resemble the situation on The Office: we’re essentially stuck in a lousy job where the only coping mechanism is being unified by contempt for the ludicrously misguided boss.  Whether Steve Carrell or Ricky Gervais comes to mind, we’re not suffering alone.

It’s too bad morale had to sink this low in order for us to bond.  But at least we’re making new friends.  Best, we share common interests: the new crew is entirely composed of folks wise to the philosophical and financial catastrophe that congressional and executive Democrats wish to inflict upon us.

Like a Greek organization or sports team initiation, the misery has bonded us together, and not in an Eric Massa’s Naval career way, either.  We’re united with our honorary brothers and sisters by the belief that the only thing worse than surrendering freedoms to the state is getting a thoroughly lousy, woefully overpriced service in return.  Other than that, we’d get a good deal.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Popularity: 1% [?]