I had planned on discussing the Tom Siegfried Science News “Odds Are, It’s Wrong” article on how bad classical statistics is that many readers sent in.
But—and I’m sorry to my many non-USA readers—I was too distracted. That discussion will come tomorrow. My thoughts below probably won’t be coherent; I’m too disgusted.
Yesterday, the Democrats completed their power grab. On December 19 last year, I wrote:
Weâ€™re about to allow our Congress to secure a power grab which they believe will swing the country in the favor of Democrats in the long run. After all, who wants to vote for somebody who is not promising them Free Health Care? (Me, for one.)
Actually, however, they are going to hand over control of a significant percentage of our economy to a faceless, unaccountable, one-size-under-penalty-of-law-fits-all bureaucracy. Naturally, the Democrats feel that they will be able to direct this bureaucracy in ways most favorable to themselves.
But as they piece together this monstrosity, building the legislation out of used parts cadged from other failed bills, they should recall the lesson that Dr. Frankenstein learned the hard way. Once created, these things take on a life of their own.
Polls variously put opposition for this monstrosity at anywhere from 75% to 85%. Yet Pelosi, Reid, and Obama said they were doing this for “the people.” It was “for their own good.”
It’s been said many times: but there is no such thing as “the people.”
There are only individuals—real human beings. More harm, sorrow, pain, and misery has been caused in the name of “the people” than in the name of any other cause. Religion can’t enough light enough candles to illuminate the horrifically long body count of individuals killed in the name of “the people.”
Those who say what they do is for “the people” never give a damn about individuals.
And make no mistake: this was, more than anything else, a bill to consolidate power for Democrats, a purposeful shift towards one party rule.
Democrats knew what they were doing: after every new social “right” was created, the share Democrats received in Congress increased. And the more Republicans were forced to become like Democrats. It’s probably true, as it being widely predicted, that Democrats will take a hit in the 2010 elections, but it (unfortunately) won’t be as big as most think.
For one, November is a long way off. The most harmful provisions of the bill—the new confiscations—won’t really begin in earnest until after this time. This, of course, is by design. Democrats figured, probably rightly, that the storm of indignation would pass after a few months, when in those months not much happened.
Democrat politicians will be able to say, and say truthfully, “See? There was no reason to worry. Nothing is that different. Besides, now a lot more people have insurance.” They won’t say, because it won’t be true, that more people have more health.
This was not a health care bill, but a bill about power: it was about who gets to control health care. It is an immense difference, and one I have tried to highlight over and over. Because people will have less money and less control over their own lives, and because care must be rationed—this is a certainty given the astronomical deficits to come—the Law of Unintended Consequences is set to strike.
There will be less health, not more. “Coverage” is not what matters. Health is.
What else can we look forward to?
Unfunded mandates are being foisted onto the States, so that those States will feel a money pinch. To cover these holes, in the end, they will have to cede more power to the central government. Many States are lining up to sue, but they have little chance of success.
Deficits loom. The “rich” will be forced to pay, just to the Feds, at least 60% of their in-coming money (I say “in-coming” to mean all funds captured within a year, and not just a paycheck). This, the “progressives” say, is “fair.”
(Don’t forget the Democrats cheated with the health care bill by taking over student loans: private loans will be forbidden. The government usurped more power. This was said to create a deficit savings, which they ascribed to health care so that the bill met the technical rules of reconciliation.)
A majority of Americans—more than 50%—will be asked to pay nothing. This is also supposed to be “fair.” What it is, is a design to ensure votes.
Worst of all: most of us were against this bill, but once some of us begin receiving its benefits, once some start planning their life around the provisions, the more regular it will all seem. The remoter government will feel. The gap between us and them will grow.
Where will it end? How much control is enough? Is there any progressive or Democrat willing to state, with certainty, where the line is?
Once more, sorry all. A return to something more interesting tomorrow.