This Stilton Jarlsberg graphic and commentary* makes a compelling point about the recent comments from President Trump indicating he will allow Obamacare to stew in its juice, compelling a healthcare bill down the road after letting Obamacare “blow up” (and implicitly letting more people get seriously hurt financially). We would just prefer the blow upside the head, be limited to Democrats and their loyal rank and file voting enablers. We already knew what was in store with Obamacare and don’t need a continuing lesson.
The problem as Jarlsberg alludes to is that the dominant liberal media will work overtime to blame Republicans. As regards a percentage of Trump supporters, they will say — sure you warned us, but you promised and what have you done for me today — as they become willing to accept any relief. We fear that the original Obamacare game plan of built-in failure, culminating in clamor for government run single-payer, is still on track. The longer it takes to stop that train, well it might have arrived at the station. Our commentary continues after Jarlsberg.
Now that healthcare reform reform has been cancelled, two groups of people are celebrating. Those who love Obamacare the most, and those who hate Obamacare the most. In this way, President Trump has brought opposing political factions together in a way which we would like to call united, but will more accurately label as “schizophrenic” and probably dangerous.
At this point, it’s moot to debate the relative virtues or failures of the proposed GOP bill, but we are going to take strong exception to the idea that if the healthcare system is allowed to completely collapse in the next few years (which Trump is touting with Caligula-like glee), that America’s sick, dying, overcharged, and uninsured will blame the out-of-power Democrats for having created Obamacare, rather than the fat and happy Republican legislators who stood around this national bonfire roasting marshmallows and making s’mores.
Put another way, when Obamacare fails the voters will not reward the party that did nothing (even if the reasons were good), but will instead flock to the party that promises a quick and all encompassing fix – namely, a single-payer “Medicare For All” plan. That’s going to be the Democrats, which is hardly surprising: Obamacare was designed to fail after destroying the free market health insurance system, thereby leaving fully socialized medicine as the only viable alternative. And the Dems knew human nature well enough to understand that this would assure their party power.
We really hope we’re wrong about this, but ask yourself – if you were the patient in the cartoon above, who would you blame? The bad doctor who misdiagnosed you, or the good doctor who says he’ll watch you suffer or die just to teach the bad doctor a lesson?
If Trump would have been consistent with his admonition of Democrats as the main problem, and left it at that, politically he would be in a better position about letting Obamacare implode and or building momentum for real repeal and replace. Instead he publicly played the bluster and threat card against many of his friends, and then followed through on that, blaming them, then blamed Democrats, then went back to blaming his friends.
Trump has sense “nuanced” that expressed attitude, to one of “working together” with Democrats but to what purpose, continuing Obamacare as Democrats have insisted on, helping them continue it? Is he now for a quick fix . . . Trump says he expects a health care deal soon . . . or is he playing the sides toward real repeal and market oriented replace? We do not think he should adopt the narrative that Democrats did not have input before when the process was closed under Democrat rule.
If he can come up with an offer enough Democrats can’t refuse., that does not inculcate Obamacare, then many huzzas for him. Here are a couple of articles that provide insights into the misaligned tactics, what went wrong and what should be done.
Christopher Jacobs at The Federalist writes
Whether tanking the American Health Care Act is ultimately viewed as a ‘deliverance’ will depend on whether lawmakers can learn the right lessons from an entirely predictable defeat.
We agree with most of his analysis, except aspects of his prescription of starting anew in the Senate. It might be something to try, but if one is concerned about the Constitution, is this in essence not a tax and spending bill, now by Supreme Court definition? If it does not violate that then it might be an alternative. But we have no confidence starting in the Senate will be any better at getting to real repeal and replace. It COULD, but under McConnell we have our doubts. So much of the failure of Republicans are self-induced constructs in no way required by the Constitution that Democrats would kick aside in a heartbeat. And then we have the long track record under current Republican leadership of manipulative promises, and a track record of opportunities not taken.
Ed Fuelner has a worthy commentary at Town Hall
*posted in its entirety as permitted