|
Beginning of the end for Obamacare By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Sept. 24, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. There are certain little signs that always pop up when one side of a battle is beginning to fail.
The actions become rash and bizarre, and the claims begin bordering on the ludicrous. In World War II, the Japanese, facing a crushing defeat, resorted to methods ranging from the ridiculously simplistic — incendiary bombs on high altitude balloons meant to start forest fires on the U.S. mainland — to the tragically insane — sending hundreds of young Japanese men to their deaths in the ultimately pointless kamikaze attacks. In 2005, when Terry Schaivo was allowed to be starved to death at the wishes of her husband, supporters came out of the woodwork with all manner of claims, including that she was perfectly healthy and would return to normal if she was allowed proper medical care. However, the side that thought keeping the bedridden woman alive was icky and gross won out, and Schaivo was put out of their collective misery. An autopsy following her death showed that Schaivo suffered from severe brain damage and had no hope of recovering — giving dubious absolution to those who wanted her to die, but also showing the assertions of some of Schaivo’s supporters, however well-meaning, were clearly wrong. Now, we are beginning to see the same kind of desperation come into play in an attempt to support the faltering health care reform plans. As public disapproval rises to new highs — 56 percent as of last Friday, according to Rasmussen — supporters are pulling out all the stops. President Obama in the last two week has addressed Congress and has saturated the airwaves, showing up on five networks last Sunday — all expect the highest rated one — as well as the woebegone David Letterman show on Monday. Apparently, the president believes we’ll forget who he is if he’s not on TV 24/7. Joining Obama in his vain crusade are liberal lawmakers hellbent on imposing an unwanted plan on the American people, insulting them in the meantime. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi early last month insinuated that health care opponents were Nazis. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly hinted at using procedural tricks to pass the health care bill without debate — never mind he would be doing so not to outmaneuver Republicans, but his own Democrat senators who question the bill. Also in the debate, union thugs have beaten up protesters. Opponents have been called racists. And much of the mass media has abdicated its role as arbiters of the truth and have turned into little more than pamphleteers pushing increasingly absurd notions in support of health care reform. One recent attention-grabbing headline came from the growingly passé news magazine Newsweek, weighing in on Sept. 21 by offering “The case for killing Granny.” Very provocative, but it doesn’t take too many paragraphs to realize it’s a bait and switch. Newsweek writer Evan Thomas opens his piece with a heart-wrenching account of his mother’s final days, but then drifts into to the templated arguments — we pay too much for health care and get to little, doctors perform too many tests and waiting lists and rationed care in Canada and the U.K. are illusions. Thomas then delves into why people actually go to see the doctor. It turns out we’re all “at least minor hypochondriacs” — himself included, he admits, and the doctor makes us feel better. Funny, I always thought the doctor was for when I was sick or hurt, but I guess I was wrong. Thomas also alluded that the elderly are acting almost childish by wanting to visit the doctor, saying they were only suffering from loneliness. Furthermore, families and doctors are acting out of guilt by trying to keep people alive for as long as they can. Thomas’ article made tepid mention of tort reform to cut costs and end the practice of defensive medicine, and he suggested creating new panels of bureaucrats — after all, we don’t have enough of those. Ultimately, however, Thomas advocated that individuals should decide for themselves to simply die instead of opting for expensive life-extending treatment. Even though the article didn’t live up to the hype of its headline, it does add to the din of voices calling for radical changes to the role of government in our lives and demanding we embrace a culture of death instead of cherishing life. The article is largely a distraction from the real debate — do we want government more involved in our lives? But when one side of an argument is losing like the reform supporters are, distractions are designed to try to shift the debate. And a distraction may be all they need. Democrats still hold mathematical advantages in Congress which could theoretically be used to enact reform without majority public backing or bipartisan support. If enough key people are swayed by these desperate arguments, we could face the real possibility of a failed idea becoming the law of the land. On the other hand, Democrats embarrassed by the bizarre claims of their backers and who see the real possibility of becoming a minority party in Congress again may water reform down so much it’s no more harmful that Medicare or Social Security. I’d rather they simply admit defeat. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
Not only do the arguments become louder, they are ever more desperate and extreme.
