Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
At the risk of sounding too pessimistic, here are a few predictions of what will happen now that the House has passed HR 3590 by a vote of 219-212, and once President Obama signs the bill into law:
• Several states and thousands of individuals will sue to enjoin the federal government from enforcing the law. Most of those cases will fail. The Supreme Court will wound, but not kill, the law. The 10th Amendment will be effectively read out of the Bill of Rights. And even if the individual mandate is voided, it won't much matter when the vast majority of private insurers are regulated out of business.
• The Republicans will take back Congress in November, but the margins will be insufficient to mount a successful repeal effort. This will be a great disappointment to many voters, who will stay home in 2012. Unfortunately, those disappointed voters would have voted for Obama's opponent.
• The regulations will be worse than anyone can imagine. The result will be to force out of business all but two or three of the largest health insurance companies in the United States. Those companies will eventually be protected by future legislation aimed at "fixing" the flaws of HR 3590. But in practice, the companies will be government proxies.
• American quality of life and lifespan will fall slightly over the next 30 years. The reason lifespan won't decline significantly is that federal regulators will successfully tax or ban substances or foods it deems harmful to Americans' health -- which, we will soon learn, is an expensive commodity indeed.
• The United States will never have a single-payer system quite like that of Canada or the United Kingdom. Rather, it will be a two-tiered system that still gives the very wealthy and well-connected access to care and treatment that the vast majority of Americans simply cannot receive.
• The new system will not reduce the deficit. It will not cut waste, fraud or abuse. Congress will need to pass new laws against new crimes that innovative con men and swindlers will invent to exploit or circumvent this law.
• There will be other unintended consequences nobody today can imagine. How do I know? Because it was ever thus.
• Most Americans will shrug and try to go along to get along. We'll be a poorer people, if not in wealth, then in spirit. I likely won't live to see the worst of it -- ironically, I'll have the feds to thank for it, I'm sure -- but my kids will.
Some glib fool on Twitter wrote after the vote: "It sounds so calm outside! And America is still here!" Of course it is, you preposterous ass. Freedom ends not with a bang, but a whimper.
Update: David Frum offers a few bullet points of his own in a post titled, perhaps appropriately, "Waterloo." The gist:
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Frum wonders if compromise was possible. Compromise may have been possible, but hardly desirable. The result would have arrogated to the benefit of the state. "So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry," Frum writes. "For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours." Frum should perhaps have a drink and find some nerve. What happens going forward, even if defeat is inevitable, requires men of character and possessing strong stomachs. I strongly doubt that David Frum is such a man.
Comments
Frum
Frum was at a speaking engagement in Raleigh two weeks ago and met with our staff for a sort of editorial board. I cannot agree with you more, Ben. He's a trimmer who's been cocooned inside the BosNYWash corridor far too long.
I reviewed his Dead Right for Reason in 1994. He had a much different view of the role of the right then -- much more skeptical of (and willing to resist) statism. He's always been a chameleon. Look for him to lead what's left of the DLC soon.
RE: Frum
His "half a loaf" mentality is an argument for slightly slower incremental statism. If the GOP does not stand against a health bill that requires the hiring of thousands of more IRS agents to keep up with the "cheaters," dozens of federal boards that will decide national health policy, and a tax increase of around half trillion dollars ... what the hell good are they?
Should the GOP have tried to hammer out a "compromise" of only half a dozen new government health bureaucracies? Perhaps just a $400 billion tax hike? Of course, my fear all along was that the Dems were going to sweeten the bill with just enough GOP goodies — like HSA expansion or dropping the interstate health care plan ban or even tort reform — to peel off a few Republicans as Frum might have wanted.
But, somehow, in a 3,000-page bill and 18 months of debate and haggling, there just wasn't room for it. What exactly would Frum have had the GOP do?
Re: On the health care vote
Ben, one of your best insights -- a refrain of sort, about a variety of issues -- has always been that government action won't be as awesome as liberals think it is, that there will be always be unintended consequences. I don't doubt that you're correct.
But, forgive me, it appears here you've responded to utopianism with hysteria. (And I am well aware of my own occasional hysteria.) The bill probably won't be an unmitigated good -- though, I believe, on balance it will end up heavily weighted towards the positive side of the scale -- but even allowing for our different viewpoints, I seriously doubt that it will end up as the near-unmitigated bad that you present here.
If you really believe that freedom has ended with a whimper instead of a bang, I suppose you're welcome to start wearing shackles and chains to illustrate the point. Even without such adornments, though, I think you're wildly overreacting.
Beyond that, though, I'll refrain from much comment here at InfMonks. Most of the folks here are upset and anything I say might be seen as rubbing salt in the wound. I'm not really interested in doing that.
Re: Whimper
"If you really believe that freedom has ended with a whimper instead of a bang, I suppose you're welcome to start wearing shackles and chains to illustrate the point. Even without such adornments, though, I think you're wildly overreacting."
No, I don't think so. Read it again. The country is essentially the same today as it was yesterday. The Senate will have a chance to make some mischief. And there will be push back in November. But I contend that this is one more heavy, heavy blow, in a long series of heavy blows. Just as Rome didn't disintegrate in a day, the decline and fall of the United States as we know it will play out over decades. As I say above, I don't think I'll live to see the worst of it. But I'm not at all optimistic.