I’ve done a little surfing to see what people are saying, and it’s a mixed bag.
First, we have the Messiah worshipers who applaud whatever their hero says – even when he says that some people want to repeal Obamacare.
From that rare commodity, an honest democrat, Representative John Dingell (D-MI), while discussing deaths due to our current healthcare system: [emphasis added, HT to Michael LeMieux, added post-post]
Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people [I’m sure he meant 300 million] in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
Next my buddy Jim at Chestnut Tree Cafe has a post up. Here’s a snippet:
Now, here’s the thing. In a broad, general sense, and setting some overheated hyperbole aside, I agree with all of these people. The recently-enacted “health care reform” is indeed a terrible idea, and it is indeed unconstitutional. It will indeed increase the sway of the central government over all our lives, and it will indeed hasten the economic collapse of the US. What I don’t get is what’s unique about it, and why it is so intensely upsetting to what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call “the right.”
Has the FedGov not already set the current configuration of American “health care?” Where did the whole odd concept of health “insurance” come from, except WWII-era government controls on income (and the subsequent exemption of that form of compensation from taxation)? Where was the explosion of rage when Saint Dubya decided to create a federal benefit for prescription medicine?
Then J.D. Tuccille has written a piece titled What’s good for the goose that starts this way:
Many years ago, I had a law school professor who opened his very first lecture by telling us, “law is violence.” His point was that any use of the law — or of government power in general — involves force or the threat of force. That professor and I disagreed on many issues, but we both knew that to call for the passage of a new law or the enforcement of an existing one is to invoke men with guns, handcuffs and prisons — and, ultimately, to be willing to kill in order to achieve a desired goal. So it strikes me as absurd to see members of Congress — professional makers of law — get their knickers all knotted because some of the people affected by controversial health care legislation have responded with harsh words, disturbing letters and even bricks and bullets.
His “bricks” link contains the following:
The lawmakers voiced what one senior aide who was present described as “serious concern” about their security in Washington and in their home districts when they return this weekend for spring recess.
What do you suppose Thomas Jefferson would say to that? I think he’d say the following – again:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
But my favorite reaction – by far - comes from down south via an AP story:
HAVANA (AP) — It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.
Hey, if Castro approves, how can we complain?
Recent Comments