Will You Settle for Obamacare-lite?




Pop quiz:  When is it a good idea to free people from taking responsibility for their own needs?

Answer:  Never


The Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare is out there now and it doesn’t fail to disappoint this conservative.  I don’t know all of the details of what’s contained in the bill, but I know this much:  it contains “refundable tax credits” to help lower income people buy health insurance and this is unacceptable to me, as it should be to anyone who calls him/herself a conservative.

Refundable tax credits are just the Republican version of the Obamacare subsidies, which means that the great, long-awaited Republican plan leaves in place the most communistic feature of Obamacare.

From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.

Sound familiar?  That’s what a “refundable tax credit” is all about.   Taking from those who have, with or without their consent, and giving to those who don’t have.  It’s the infamous Marxist creed.  This wonderful plan looks like it has the fingerprints of Paul “Means-Testing” Ryan all over it, and that’s scary.

In the many years I’ve been blogging now I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen the famous Margaret Thatcher quote, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” invoked by conservatives.   Now, I happen to think that the problem with socialism is that it’s wrong to take other peoples’ money against their will regardless of whether it runs out or not, but be that as it may it will be interesting to see how many conservatives will remember Thatcher’s words when they are called upon to support this stupid bill.

“What’s so wrong about making everyone chip in to help the “less fortunate” buy healthcare, CW?”

Let’s start with the fact that while RINOs like Paul Ryan love to talk about means-testing none of them ever talks about needs-testing.  By that I mean that all of their clever plans and schemes to help “the poor” never take into consideration the reasons some people are poor.  The failure to do so means that someone who invested four or more years and a lot of money to get a college degree so that they could enjoy a higher standard of living must now subsidize the guy who dropped out of school because he preferred doing drugs and, as a consequence, has a lower-paying job.  It means that the self-made entrepreneur who sacrificed having fun in his younger years to build a business for his family must, when his hard work finally pays off, subsidize the surfer bum who works part-time at 7-11.  It means that the young woman who resisted temptation and waited for the right man and the right time, financially, to start her family must now subsidize another young woman who made the wrong choice and became a single parent when she wasn’t prepared to take on that financial responsibility.  Isn’t it funny how the liberals that are ostensibly obsessed with “fairness” never see the unfairness in any of this?

THAT’s what’s wrong with socialism and “refundable tax credits.”  We have no say about who gets to benefit from our hard-earned tax money.

I’ll say it once again for anyone who’ll listen:  The way you “fix” the healthcare crisis is to remove artificial (i.e. government imposed) barriers to affordable healthcare so that everyone can afford to take  responsibility for themselves and their children as long as they’re willing to step up and do so.  All bets are off when you take personal responsibility out of the equation.

I know that political pundits like Charles Krauthammer, whom I usually admire, are saying that it would be political suicide for Republicans not to provide a substitute for the Obamacare subsidies because the entitlement now exists, thanks to Obama.  This was the scheme all along, of course.  But here’s my question for Dr. Krauthammer and everyone else who wants to reward this scheme:  How is it any less suicidal for Republicans – supposedly the party of liberty, the Constitution and the free market system – to become enablers of the Left’s Marxist scheme?  We win nothing by becoming the lighter version of Barack Obama, and if you gave money, as I did, to help elect or re-elect Republicans to fight the evil empire of socialism you can’t be happy with their plan.

Please contact your senators and house representatives and implore them not to vote for Obamacare-lite.






Categories: Political

Tags: , , , , ,

12 replies

  1. Sorry for not commenting lately I have been real sick. Getting better, all is good.

    I am not saying that blacks are the only ones who take advantage of welfare, but people should read Frederick Douglass’s work. I think his quote on “What to do with the Negro?” is applicable to this situation and for anyone taking advantage of welfare. Clarence Thomas actually quotes Douglass on some diversity cases in his SC decisions.


    • Hi Patrick!

      I’m so sorry to hear you’ve been sick – I was a little worried about you. I’m glad you’re on the mend.

      I can remember reading a biography on Frederick Douglass in grade school and finding his story to be fascinating. I will have to look into the work you’re talking about. I suppose he’d be a “racist” these days.

      Fascinating post on technology today, Patrick.


      I think it’s true that just about every technological advance brings about negative consequences that are unforeseen. I delayed the age at which my two boys could watch TV/movies, play video games and have cell phones relative to other children we knew and I noticed a significant difference in their ability to entertain themselves and stay focused on an activity when compared to their friends. We make serious tradeoffs for the convenience of technology but I also have to confess that as someone who has always been direction-ally challenged I am quite addicted to my car’s navigation system. And in defense of the nav system I have to say that the other drivers around me are probably safer when the Garmin gal is giving me directions then when I’m trying to read a map and drive at the same time. Texas, without the mountains of Colorado for landmarks, is much harder for the direction-ally challenged! 🙂


  2. It was never the lack of personal responsibility that tanked our health insurance industry or that have overburdened our healthcare providers. It has been the imposition of micromanaging regulation and bureaucratic red tape at the federal level.

    We’ve been forced to pay for Medicare our entire working lives and should expect a return either of what we paid in plus market rates of compounding interest or else the health care equivalent.

    True there aren’t any in Congress with the balls to cut the welfare state down to provide a true safety net only for those truly unable to care for themselves, but that will happen whether Congress acts or not because there will be an unavoidable collapse of our economy as inevitable result of this entire debacle.


    • The federal government created the lack of personal responsibility, but I don’t want the federal government to mandate that responsibility as a legal matter either and that’s the backroom talk starting to reemerge in DC. the only question they’re grappling with is how to pull it off.


      • Let me first say that while I don’t think Medicare was the proper thing for the government to do in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Americans are entitled to what they were promised. Same for Social Security. I am against any suggestion that people should have to forfeit what they were promised and what they invested in and to those who argue now that “we can’t afford it,” I say let this be painful lesson about letting liberals be in charge.

        With respect to personal responsibility, we are getting to place in this nation where the government (i.e. taxpayers) are assuming more and more of the cost of providing care and/or insurance to a growing segment of the population, the majority of whom are not disabled or otherwise incapable of working. That equates to a decline in personal responsibility. I would never suggest that the gov’t mandate personal responsibility and it isn’t necessary. If you stop rescuing people from their own failures and bad choices, the consequences will provide the incentive that makes people choose to become responsible on their own.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I agree that the federal government should NOT be involved in the acquisition or delivery of health care.

    BUT, the problem is that government HAS been involved and the “takers” are so invested in the expectation of that entitlement, that I sincerely doubt that we can ever sever those ties. Unless a clear majority of voters become truly conservative, I predict that it will never happen. On top of that, we don’t have enough brass ballage in Congress to ever attempt to dramatically reduce anything that (some) of the public has learned to expect.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not asking Republicans to undo Medicare or even Medicaid at this point, Garnet; but politicians who purport to be conservatives ought to AT LEAST be able to agree that able-bodied, non-elderly people have a responsibility to pay for their own healthcare and not be subsidized by other taxpayers. If we can’t agree on that much we should just forget this pretense that there’s any difference between Republicans and Democrats.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I just finished reading Ben Shapiro’s piece about what’s wrong with this revised ‘lite’ plan. He listed five big problems with it, but just barely mentioned the unconstitutionality of it. Like many folks, he’s resigned to the fact that we’re stuck with it, constitutional or not.

    In their infinite wisdom they also kept the coverage for pre-existing conditions and the high risk pools, so it barely qualifies as being lite, as it’s being called.

    Elsewhere I read that the bill will block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding, so that’s at least one small bright spot. Very small.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Needless to say I think this is our last best chance for the American people to reject the philosophy that the government has the right to rob Peter to pay Paul when Paul should be perfectly capable of providing for himself. If we don’t do that, then repeal and replace is an utter failure in my book, and Republicans from every branch of government will be equally complicit in sending us down this tragic path.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Judge Nap agrees with you…

      “Regarding the new Republican health insurance replacement plan:
      The consequences of failure to comply with the new individual mandate is the payment of a fee — it cannot be called a fine or a tax because the government does not collect it — to private insurers. Any government action that takes property from A and gives it to B constitutes a taking, which is condemned by the Fifth Amendment and numerous SCOTUS rulings.
      The entire new scheme institutionalizes the concept that it is a duty of the federal government to provide affordable healthcare. It is emphatically not. It is nowhere in the Constitution. As well, it continues the federal management of healthcare which is 16% of domestic economic activity. The feds can’t deliver the mail and they want to manage healthcare.”

      Since Trump tweeted about their ‘great new plan’, then either he doesn’t know what’s really in this version…OR… he’s just as big a liar as the rest of the Rs who ALL ran on repeal and replace, not re-word it and shove it back down our throats. And if all the flap I’m seeing today is any indication, this could go down in flames. In this regard, flames would be a good thing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thanks for adding that, Kathy.

        The great irony of this whole thing is that we wouldn’t need the federal gov’t to provide affordable healthcare if it would just get the hell out of the way of the free market! Healthcare is not some rare, limited mineral. It is a renewable commodity that would be in affordable supply if not for artificial forces such as the enabling of millions of able-bodied free-loaders.

        Trump is like a lot of Republicans who just don’t comprehend that Obamacare is rights issue, not a policy issue. If you tackle it from the perspective of FIRST preserving people’s rights under the Constitution, then the proper policies will follow; but if you don’t get that and all you do is try and make the math work like Trump and Paul Ryan, then we’re doomed to get more of the same.


      • I don’t think he or his people read it. They just took Ryan’s word that it would accomplish the goals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: