Failing The Lemon Test

It will be interesting to see if the health care reform projects passed by Barack Obama and his colleagues in Congress will now pass the Lemon Test. 

Mandatory health insurance is touted a great thing among the more liberally inclined folks dwelling among us. It is especially great since it reaches those unfortunate folks -- 30 million of them -- who do not currently have coverage. 

Of course, no one likes to talk about that 30 million, who they are, and what they want. Some of that 30 million includes people who hate medicine, who want nothing to do with doctors; who know that medicine and doctors are not infallible, that doctors often misdiagnose, poison, maim, wound or even kill people. Some people are just plain phobic: sadly, they MUST pay for something they not only don't want, but fear.

Another subset of the American public is that group, like some if not many members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, who do not want health insurance simply because practitioners of Christian Science seek help in different ways. Is the United States government going to force certain religiously-driven people to comply with something that stands against their religious beliefs? Is the United States government going to subsidize alternative forms of care that are religiously- and not medically-based? Is the United States going to fund care at a Christian Science facility? Is it going to force adult Jehovah's Witnesses to receive blood transfusions if needed, though such transfusions are against the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses' church? 

Seriously, the religious and therefore legal implications of the new reforms are dizzying. If certain religious people can be exempted from such insurance, then all religious people can. If the federal government is going to pay for Christian Science-based care (for example), such will be denounced as excessive entanglement in religion (which means, it fails the Lemon Test). And if religious people who DO NOT WANT HEALTH INSURANCE are FORCED to do so, the state, then, will be acting as "Theologian-in-chief," telling its citizens that the cult of the state trumps the cult of any particular church, synagogue or mosque. 

These issues are an obvious result of poorly formed, poorly planned legislation that was passed with nary a debate. This is the result of taking advantage of a manufactured crisis and its resultant fears, of ramming through something not because it was good for the country, but because it was good for a man and his party. And it is just further evidence of the Democrats' "Legislate now, think later" behavior. It is, sadly, a behavior that looks more like addiction than anything else. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

The Price We Pay

From a comment I dropped at Musings From The Hinterland:

I believe universal health care could suck the life out of living in America. It seems the end of heroism. Think of all the amazing stories we've heard about, where whole neighborhoods and towns rally around a sick person who can't afford expensive medical treatments. Think of the fund-raising, the charitable drives; think about the bake sales and motorcycle rallies and skate-a-thons and countless other awesome community-based, VOLUNTARY actions that will be lost if EVERY medical expense were covered -- FOR FREE! Oh, sure, kids will still die and their parents won't be bankrupt, but, as T. S. Eliot might have said, "Where is the LIFE we have lost in public funding?"

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

When Abraham Lincoln Sounds Hostile, Even Scary

In his Missouri speech to supporters of his health care reform projects a few days before those projects became federal law (alluded to earlier here), Barack Obama quoted, albeit brokenly, Abraham Lincoln. It is a quote he has used several times in speeches since his election. But in the wake of health reform legislation that was "historic" precisely because nothing like it (in sheer size and import) had been passed by such a partisan, ideologically-driven and emaciated majority, Mr. Lincoln's words in Mr. Obama's mouth have a very chilling, even dictatorial, quality. 

Here's Mr. Obama:

A big part of our campaign [for the presidency] was about changing the way Washington works.  It was about transforming a politics that's driven by cynicism and a 24-hour news cycle, and the cable chatter, and always focused on the next election instead of the next generation.  Our campaign was about meeting the looming challenges -- in education and in energy, in our health care system, in our financial system -- that helped bring about the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And it still threatens our prosperity.  It was about making our government actually work for you, the people:  a government that lives up to its responsibilities, including the responsibility to live within its means. [...]

You know, President Lincoln said that “the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not … do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”  That pretty much sums up my attitude.  You let people do for themselves what they can do for themselves; and then if there are some things that we do better together, we should do them together. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It is reassuring to read Mr. Obama will "let" us do for ourselves what we can. I really do appreciate that he has given us his permission.

Here, by the way, is the Lincoln quote (notice how different it is from Mr. Obama's quotation; red letters added to emphasize that difference):

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama (perhaps in deference to various court orders that may be pending) will support those states, and even those individuals, who believe they can "individually do as well for themselves" in controlling, maintaining and paying for their own health care without federal involvement. Of course, we know his answer: Individuals and states can't do it "as well for themselves" as the federal government can do it for them. 

In the corporate world, what happened this past weekend regarding health care might be described as something akin to a hostile takeover. Despite overwhelming voter opposition, significant Democratic Party opposition (15% of house Democrats opposed the legislation) and complete Republican opposition, the WE-DO-BETTER-TOGETHER powers of the executive and legislative branches eked out a legislative "victory" regarding health care. 

That is historic, I guess. Of course, since there are some things I can't do all that well for myself, I will have to "let" the government tell me what is historic -- and why. Obviously, some of us can't even opine correctly -- for ourselves.

(Alas, Mr. Lincoln, if "all men were just" indeed.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Why FOX NEWS, Mr. Obama?

There is only one reason President Obama is (finally) going on Fox News tonight: He believes he can make the channel look like a peddler of misinformation and lies. He is hoping to stump his interviewer, Bret Baier; he's hoping to inundate the newscaster with such verbosity that Baier will capitulate, or stumble and stammer; that he will look guilty and weak. This is an effort by Mr. Obama to show to the world that Fox News is against his goodheartedness, and that Fox has been in a campaign against not only the facts, but his benevolence. He's been bullied, thwarted, misrepresented.  

OK. Maybe there are two reasons for his appearing on Fox News.

Barack Obama's appearance is not about procuring more votes in the House. It's about this: 

"Look, I've reached out to Republicans, and I've EVEN REACHED OUT TO FOX NEWS, and they STILL refuse to accept the beauty, the clarity and the moral excellence of my vision for America. They continue to mislead and beguile, obstruct and obfuscate. Republicans, with Fox News as mouthpiece, continue to be an obstacle to progress, justice and equality. Hence, we are left with nothing but parliamentary gimmicks to pass health care reform legislation. This is about history, about who stands on the right side of it, and who stands on the wrong. We haven't any more time to waste on the naysayers. The need is too urgent; dialogue has become nothing more than a stall tactic. The TIME TO ACT HAS COME!" 

In other words, Barack Obama is interested in posing, in theater. In pretend. 

Look! Don't you see how earnest he is? He believes. Surely that counts for something. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

"We Have The Votes": What Comes After Mr. Obama's Speech To Congress

Barack Obama is right now addressing the United States Congress solely to justify what comes next: The Democratic Party in power is going to cram through Congress a universal health care project, and this despite overwhelming American opposition to that project. Yes, most Americans support reform, but not the kind sought by the left-ward Democrats; at best, Americans want reform of health insurance, and not of the federal government itself. But tonight you are hearing why Mr. Obama and his party are going to force legislation through the Congress and onto his desk. This is about power, leverage, control. It is not about justice, and it surely is not about health. And it is ultimately about Barack Obama's narcissism: "I will not accept anything other than what I demand."

Of course, the table was set some time ago. Do you remember the stolen election in Iran earlier this summer? Remember how Mr. Obama did not forcefully denounce the Iran regime's totalitarian arts; remember his reluctance to side with the democratic souls who marched in the streets, many of whom were arrested, with some even dying for their convictions?

Remember as well this president's absurd remarks about the crisis in Honduras; Democrats, many in the American media, and the Obama administration spoke about the Honduran crisis either in terms of political injustice or that a coup had occurred. Of course, it was the ousted Honduran president who had been attempting a coup: using his democratic election as a mandate that he could change the country's constitution, he over-reached, and was removed from office by every legal means the Honduran constitution had at its disposal. And recall that leftists -- all of whom support Mr. Obama and many of whom are in his government or in Congress -- applaud the sort of "democratic" bullying of a Hugo Chavez or the tyranny of a Fidel Castro.

The theme, then, is rather clear, and it is consistently presented: Forcing legislation is OK with the Obama camp. I have already heard, like you have no doubt heard, countless leftists say that the universal, single-payer model of health care should be pushed through because "we won, we're in power, and we have the votes." Though no single-payer type plan -- the kind that Mr. Obama and Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi ULTIMATELY seek -- was ever presented to the United States electorate during Mr. Obama's campaign to "win" the White House, Democrats still believe that the "we won" mentality is somehow not only fair and reasonable, but democratic, and thus justifies forcing health care reform onto the very people who largely oppose it because the country faces dire consequences if it "does nothing."

Mr. Obama will brook no other options but his own. He said so this evening; I heard him myself. It is about him: He is the leader.

You are not. So much for di mäk' rə sē < demos, 'the people' + kratia, 'rule'.

Peace.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.