As everyone knows, liberals are far from fans of accountability, responsibility, etc. or any other concept that suggests being held to account for their words and actions. A few days ago, Thomas Frank (of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" fame) writing in his WSJ Tilting Yard column was obviously in a state of high dudgeon at the Texas State Board of Education's stipulation that High School students be required to also look at the unintended consequences of LBJ's Great Society reforms when studying that era.
In the aftermath of the Democrats handing 1/6th of the economy over to their buddies in the public employee unions - through which taxpayer dollars would be laundered back to their campaign coffers, Megan McArdle [HT: Ace], Obama-voter though she was, proposes to use the statistics (inflated and false though most of them are) the proponents of Government healthcare cited in favor of the legislation as measurements via which the effectiveness of the legislation would be measured.
I heard a lot about the 20-45,000 people who were dying from lack of insurance every year. I heard about how US mortality indicators lagged behind the rest of the developed world. I heard about infant mortality. I heard, over and over again, about medical bankruptcies, and how medical bills were bankrupting America. I heard about the CBO score that said this bill would be deficit neutral. Let me know if I've missed anything, but it seems to me that mortality, financial protection, and deficit-improvement were the three major planks upon which this bill was sold.
Forgive me, but to my admittedly naive ears, this sounds like what you are saying is that you think that if we cover the uninsured, we will have lower mortality rates, fewer medical bankruptcies, and a lower deficit.
If you don't think that any of the effects of this bill will be large enough to measure and hopefully, large enough to justify the price tag of this bill, then I have to ask two questions:
- Why the hell are we spending $200 billion a year, plus the mandated spending by individuals and employers on premiums, plus the new money the states will have to spend on Medicaid?
- Why on earth did you bring up all these apparently irrelevant statistics?
And of course, this has every liberal who cited all those statistics at "The Atlantic" as alarmed as Thomas Frank at the prospect of Texas high school students actually examining the results of liberal "reforms". All of a sudden those are not reasonable metrics, and it is now unrealistic (even "racist(!)" to demand some way of measuring, or even just use the metrics they pushed to pass this bill, whether Obamacare would result in better quality and access to healthcare for the American people.
However, the most interesting counter-charge by McArdle's opponents is to echo the media's newest tame pet "Republican" David Frum and shift the blame to the GOP. The argument goes that if any of the benefits promised by the proponents of this legislation fails to materialize, the responsibility is entirely on the GOP for not signing up to place a cherry on top of the turd pile.
There is a reason Robert Gibbs was jabbering happily about Frum's latest gift to his new masters. With the media sure to echo this same absurd narrative as premiums rise, wait times increase and businesses close, this could be a viable line of attack.
In other words, there is no profit, political or otherwise is trying to fix this bill, it is flawed from its core and cannot be fixed. Therefore there should no equivocation by any Republican, no matter how "moderate" about the need to repeal this legislation. It must be repealed in its totality even if entirely along partisan lines and using every underhanded parliamentary trick - if it can be passed thus, it can be repealed thus.
Remember, our goal is to have a Republican Senate Majority Leader and a Republican House Speaker have a bill repealing this abortion (and perhaps even replacing it with something sane) waiting for the new Republican President on his desk in the Oval Office by 12:01pm 1/20/2013.