HillaryCare vs ObamaCare - a difference in approaches - Granite Grok

HillaryCare vs ObamaCare – a difference in approaches

And those differences are going to prove deadly in many different ways.  HillaryCare was brash, in your face, frontal attack.  In the mindset of a newbie to Washington and a "I know better what you need than you do; just trust me and all my secrecy", it was repulsed. 

It actually was fairly easy to defeat – Hillary and her minions made themselves the object of concern by not being transparent and not willing to share with the public on what they were scheming.  When it was time for the unveiling, they made a frontal assault – sometimes the easiest attack to defeat as all of the fight was in the open and in one spot.

Not so much this time!  Learning from that experience, the assault to control my healthcare and yours is already battle joined.  Obama, and his lead general on this, Tom Daschle, learned from HealthCare I and from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Huh, you mutter?  Sure!  The lesson learned from HillaryCare is that the single point of attack will be doomed, so don’t do it again.  Rather, they are modeling this new assault on the idea that "speed wins".  Yes, Rumsfield was right – all other things being equal, he who moves the quickest, wins.  Add to that, he who attacks in the most number of places at the same time, wins.

In effect, freeze the enemy (yet another Alinsky-ism?), confuse them, and then out-manover them.  Right now, the Statist / Big Government / Progressives / Liberals are in the process of doing that in trying to take any control you might have over your healthcare away from you and your family.

And they are going to do it in small increments – after all:

Baby Human Shield 

Step 1: S-CHIP

Yes, first, "It is for the Children!" with the passage of the latest incarnation (with the witches brew of stuff in it, I think a better word may well be incantation) of SCHIP – the first spear stab in getting government to take over our healthcare.  I blogged about it here and summarized the change in focus of this from protecting the poorest of our children (which I am in favor of, by the way): their goal is to make family income and parental responsibility irrelevant.  This is the program (if you look at the table at the link) that will force, via taxes, a factory worker to pay the the kids of a stock broker.  Nice, eh?  After all, why would a smart stock broker be willing to pay out of her pocket for insurance for her kids when the government will do it "for free"? Two parents, three kids – cut off is over $100,000.

I’d love to be that poor.  And again, someone at $20,000 will be paying for her kids!  Talk about class warfare!

And, it doesn’t work anyways!  I also blogged about Hawaii’s attempt at Universal Healthcare for kids, Keiki Care, here.  Result?  Well:

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don’t believe that was the intent of the program."…

…State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn’t need it

Read: Costs soared beyond estimates when people realized "why pay for something when I can get it for free?"

In this case, in this current ObamaCare, that IS the plan – price the government sponsored "insurance" correctly so as to kneecap the private insurers.   back…in another psot.


While some might not think this will be bad, think of your local DMV!  In fact, speaking of botched Federal government programs, just think of the current "DTV boxes"; at a mere $1.4 Billion, the "free" coupon program for the switchover to digital TV from analog, already needs a delay of 4 months and another $700 Million….this is not giving me the warm fuzzies – you?

Back to Hawaii’s botched attempt:

Politicians lambast private insurance companies for measures taken to manage costs and discourage medical over-consumption, but you can be sure that Uncle Sam will be most aggressive in these areas. Look to countries with government-run healthcare to get a glimpse into the long-waiting lines for medical procedures and government-imposed rationing that Americans can expect once we move fully to a single-payer system…

What lawmakers soon learned was that it isn’t just the existing pool of uninsured who wants to take advantage of a free government alternative; many parents dropped their private coverage in order to qualify for the government-funded plan. A staggering 85 percent of those who enrolled previously had health insurance.

And Hawaii is not the only state to have tried and failed; add Tennessee to that same loss column, Massachusetts is in the process ("…dead man walking…") and California was all but ready but jumped away at the last second.

So, WHY will this work at the national level when it fails at the State level? Actually, the only thing is the intent

President Barack Obama said the SCHIP expansion amounts to "a down payment on my commitment to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care."

So, just like with taxes (where he said that he would raise taxes to be "more neighborly and fair" even if it cost the Feds in actual revenues), it isn’t the cost that is important – it will be that Government will be in charge – not you.

And remember, some states are using it already to cover adults!

So, SCHIP is being used to expand the scope and reach of Government, right?  Betcha all Republicans in the Senate voted against it, right?  Er, Michelle has the tale of the roll call:

  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Hutchison (R-TX)
  • Lugar (R-IN)
  • Martinez (R-FL)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Snowe (R-ME)
  • Specter (R-PA) 

In the House, the similar bill got 40 Republicans to vote for this enlargement of Government (another Republican ideal of limited government down the drain – and weakening that of self-responsbility).

Side note: Sorry, I believe that self-responsibility carries over to families as well.  If you cannot adequately care for you, your spouse, and your children then don’t start a family.  I understand emergencies – that’s not what I’m talking about.  What I am are those folks that earn only minimum wage, marry someone of the same earning power, and then proceed to have children for which they cannot afford.

This extension and expansion of SCHIP socializes the above bad decisions upon the rest of us.  Once again I ask – what is the consequence of people making bad decisions?  More and more, it seems that the bad decision is to try to be responsible in the first place – it no longer pays to be the ant and does pay to be the grasshopper.

And how much are their votes going to cost us to expand SCHIP?   $32 Billion MORE over the next 4.5 years.  Fiscal responsibility, eh President Obama?

And if you don’t believe that Democrats will happily use children for political points, try this:

In an impassioned response, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, asked, “Is a child in New Jersey worth less than a child in other parts of the country simply because of the happenstance of where they live?”

 

 

Step 2:

OK, this post has gone on too long….and I have to go.  I’ll be

>