Skip to comments.(Vanity) Obamacare and the Politics of Personal Destruction
Posted on 07/19/2009 6:43:14 AM PDT by grey_whiskers
One of the favorite tactics of the left seems to be the politics of personal destruction. Like NFL players, however, they seem to do it most when they think nobody is looking. NFL players seem to like to drive an opponent crazy with illegal hits, jabs to the face, etc. -- and then, just when they are about to retaliate, asking the ref to watch. So when the aggrieved party *does* hit back, they're the ones who get the blame. Think of the inconsistency in the treatment of Sarah Palin's family vs. the Telemprompter-in-Chief's family.
But as we shall see, this doesn't just happen in the football field, nor within the field of political grandstanding. Democrats also like to play another form of personal destruction, regardless of who's watching: they tend to be destructive of their own country's institutions, and all too often, personally self-destructive.
Which brings up Obamacare. Everyone privately agrees that it will be a boondoggle, that you cannot save money while expanding coverage for the uninsured. There are articles beginning to appear in the state-run media about why rationed care is good. And look at the author. Princeton Ethicist Peter Singer, who approves of retroactive abortion, euthnasia, sex with animals...but not common sense.
Hint to the elitists: this is exactly why Middle America approves of Sarah Palin over Ivy League educated politicians.
But it's not just that the political elites want us to die quicker, to save themselves money. No. They want to keep the Lexus plan for themselves, as the Wall Street Journal reported on July 18, 2009:
"In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the "public option" -- a new federal insurance program like Medicare -- but if it's good enough for the middle class, then surely it's good enough for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats disagree.
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy -- voted nay."
(And by the way, I just noticed. Ted Kennedy. Doesn't he have a brain tumor or something? How much is it costing to keep him alive? Someone ought to ask Peter Singer.
Which brings me to my main point.
If -- as they say -- this is about controlling costs; and if -- as they say -- people with pre-existing conditions should not have a blank check for things which are preventable (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure) --
shouldn't we exclude from the new health care the following people?
Yes, I can hear you recoil in horror: state control! Lack of Freedom!
...Brave New World!
But if they do this, aren't the Democrats systematically eliminating their own voting base?
Talk about self-destructive.
Very good points. What is more self-destructive than AIDS-infected homosexuals espousing Marxist control of society? Who do they think is going to be “expendable” first?
Of course, they are mentally ill and self-destructive by definition, poor things.
***”But it’s not just that the political elites want us to die quicker, to save themselves money. No. They want to keep the Lexus plan for themselves, as the Wall Street Journal reported on July 18, 2009:”***
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.