Is getting sick because of ObamaCare covered under ObamaCare?

What a night!

I don't know if there's any time in US history where more Americans are talking about congressional procedure. With the passage of the senate-version of ObamaCare in the house, all that's left (small pun) is to tack on the house reconciliation bill in the upper house.

The final vote on the Health Care Reform bill (HCR) was 219 to 212, with the remaining 4 seats vacant. Amidst heated displays on both sides, arm-twisting, thin margins and a "Hail Mary" in the form of an executive order, one out of every seven dollars in the US economy just fell under gov't purview. Who cares about the substance of the bill - do you trust the gov't with that much capacity for economic turmoil? I don't think we've had more than a few presidents with enough wherewithal to handle that, and never has there been a congress (esp. a Dem one).

This morning you wont find ObamaCare commissars at your door asking for your excess bandages. It's doubtful the sound you hear is your piggy bank emptying into a MoveOn.org party fund. The world didn't end. In fact for some of you, long sought victory was finally achieved, a goal beyond reach since Russia started towards its own socialist revolution finally attained.

So what now?

Again, it's not the end of anything. Even if 14+% of the economy just found itself under a new slate of bureaucratic regulators, that still leaves the vast portion untouched. And most of you will retain your current health insurance coverage; others will switch of their own accord (when the mechanics go into effect). It's far too early to judge the impact either socially or economically.

Philosophically, however, we might see some dividends sooner. I caught part of an interview with the old Speaker of the House, retired Congressman Denny Hastert (R-IL), and it's his opinion, shaded by personal politics and a long career in DC, that November's elections will see a negative judgment from the electorate. Now, he didn't say "1994 Republican Revolution!" all over again; he's too smart and recognizes the different situations. I, for one, believe it's next to impossible for the Democrats to lose one house of Congress, much less all of it. The margins and "battleground states" are not quite as "in play" as pundits would have you believe.

But this marks the final countdown for any number of Congressmen. It's not that people don't want health care & insurance reform (I'd like it), but the way we cross the finish line is just as important as the goal itself. There's a big government pushback going on with these "tea party" demonstrations, and despite the media largely ignoring the size of the rallies, hundreds of thousands nationwide (probably several million all told) are ticked off. And those are the ones willing to take to the streets and march or attend bursting town halls. Nixon spoke of a silent majority, and while tea partiers are far from a majority, we can consider them more than a vocal few. It's a grassroots movement, and I think they'll hammer "big government" candidates come November.

No 1994 turnover. Sorry, my fellow GOPers. Our party hasn't so much inspired a changing of the guard as it has a quick flushing of the toilet. No one likes a mess, but you don't demo a bathroom to clear out last night's Taco Bell (pardon the crudity). Congress isn't going to suddenly shift back to the GOP because of the current equation: HCR + tea parties + incumbent disapproval. You'd need to multiply that by "Dodd Financial Regulation" or "High Unemployment Two Years After the 'Change' Election" to get some traction.

A few highlights:

*Childish "baby killer" heckle aimed at Stupak and his pained expression (what did this vote cost him mentally?)
*Boehner's fire-and-brimstone "And did you ever read it?!" tirade and the rising chorus of Democratic "Yeahs!!" each time he asked it, until he answered his own question with a booming "Hell no!"

*A bit of passion for a change
*Taking rhetoric to new heights and saccharine lows (didn't you want to slap the hang-dog expression off Steny Hoyer's face? I know I did.)

*The palpable (through C-SPAN's feed) tension as the numbers for and against both crested 200
*The "executive order" now has armchair legislatures rushing to Wikipedia to judge it's validity
*Ditto "reconciliation" as well as the Constitutionality of the bill.

Expect the next big story to come out of this to be the state lawsuits. Something like 37 state legislatures have pending motions to repeal the act or at least question whether it's the Federal government infringing on State powers, though many are no doubt in Democratic-held state houses. Virginia, South Carolina, Florida - potentially the first three. Is the law constitutional? Leftists, derided that question as you might, we had a Civil War a while back over related (states' rights) issues. I don't imagine something so divisive, sweeping and impactful won't receive a clamorous response from libertarians, small gov't "conservatives," the GOP, tea partiers, etc. etc., forever and ever Amen.

A parting thought: we can argue the ideology of what just happened, but I'd hazard a guess that most of you reading don’t wish active harm on your fellow man, and believe in helping the less-fortunate. Giving of your own free will is one thing. This charity-at-gunpoint another entirely. This is a medicine Obama and his party say we need to take, for better or worse. It'll make us better as a nation. We will take from the coffers, as largely filled by a small percentage of the country who are about to "give" even more, and distribute to those who do not Have. Progressive taxation has been entrenched in society, and flat taxes and the like don't get much traction save on book tours. Progressive health care, or an expansion of the welfare state, does - and not usually positive. The reason is not necessarily stinginess, but the desire to see our dollars judiciously directed. We give from pocket straight to a charity or a group that we know handles the funds properly. The federal government rarely fills that description, so far as the poor and underinsured are concerned.

I think there was a better way to get out of this insurance fiasco. While the end result would be, ideally, the same, the rollout could've been incremental - like feeding a infant first foods. You don't give a 5 month baby peas, apple sauce, rice cereal and haggis the first time out. You go one food at a time, seeing what works - and what causes fussiness, gas or the runs - and then proceed with that knowledge to the next food. "Progressive" and "hasty" need not be synonymous.

Let's hope that lesson isn't learned the hard way by our fair country.


Unreconciled,

-Erik