Anyone remember Nancy Pelosi deriding any health reforms by drips and drabs? She made fun of any approach except for the bull straight ahead method. Why? I thought getting the reforms “for the American people” was the goal? Does it say somewhere that health reform will fail unless it is all done in one fell swoop? If so, I missed it.
Sorry folks, but this is the gay marriage argument all over again. Recall progressives get angry if one does not favor gay marriage. And even though I favor every single measure of civil unions and all the equal rights thereof, I just do not want to see it called marriage, yet for that I was even blessed with a writer doing an article about me and what an ass I am for my position. So even when I support every single element of gay marriage except for the name, I am still a homophobe according to progressives. Does that not prove without doubt there is more going on here than progressives are willing to admit? Sure does to me.
Same for health reforms. For the sake of argument, here’s what we have before us – a sweeping health reform proposal that is so massive no one really knows what it will do or not do, and progressives are all for it. On the other side we have Republicans who are saying “slow down and let’s try doing a few things first and see how that goes before we overhaul the largest health system on Earth.” Progressives scream “no way” to the Republican proposal. Why?
Again, if the progressive goal is to actually bring down costs, as they claim it is, then isn’t one step in the right direction a good step? And if the one step works out, then we can take steps two, then three and so one. Would that not serve the goal of reforming the system in a positive manner?
Tort reform should be first, followed by portability. It has been estimated that these two things alone would drastically lower health costs to consumers, and again, that is what progressives claim their goal is, so why are they absolutely dead set against such an incremental approach?
The answer is simple and obvious – this isn’t really about reform, it’s about control. Successful reforms that lowered costs would solve the issue, and that would no longer keep it a desperate need the progressives claim. Once the “desperation” element is gone, the impetus and power of progressives is gone too.
The reality is control, and I can prove it. Which of the two major ideologies in the nation, progressive or conservative, argues for less government, less control and more individual autonomy? Conservatism. So would solving the problem serve the big government desires of progressives if it was done by a small government fix? Absolutely not! And therein is the progressive problem.
Every writing of progressivism is all about forwarding the concepts of Marx – collectivization, redistribution of wealth, government control and direction of economy, anti-capitalism and tons more. But our health system is what? Capitalism, yes? And if progressives are against capitalism, and according to their writings they are no matter what pretty chin music they play to the cameras, then they must resist any capitalist fix.
Also I believe there are other less overt elements of control. These would be lifestyle mandates, etc. What is that, you ask? Gee, NYC mayor banning trans fats (yes Bloomberg is a R, but a progressive) for example. No smoking in public and forcing the tobacco companies out of business. If there is someone mandating a citizen how to live and what’s best for them, it is a progressive doing so. What better way to exert complete control over lifestyle choices then to have control over the cost and dispersion of health care services?
If the government pays for it the SCOTUS has already ruled that government can then “regulate” anything the public’s dollars pay for. Get it? This ain’t rocket science, and it isn’t paranoia either – it is the fact of the matter.
So when progressives scream “no!” to incrementalism, know that is because of two reasons – one, it will fix the issue thus removing it from the progressive list of ills they claim only they can fix, and two, because any fix that does not further consolidate progressive authority is a bad one in their opinion. Of course they will not admit that, but can one find any other rational explanation?
When control is what every word of one’s ideological literature expounds, then control it is. Freeing citizens to make autonomous choices does not serve progressive literature’s stated ends. Their ideology is directly descended from Marx, and their ends are near identical in manner, working and appearances.
Incremental reform will not serve the progressive wish list because it does not empower them – it empowers the individual, and clearly progressives believe individual autonomy is one of the problems. They believe central control and central planning is the only way to go. And don’t forget the “redistribution of wealth” aspect. If I can afford the best, and Joe Blow cannot, to a progressive that just cannot stand and begs for government to step in and redistribute because they believe in equality of outcome, whereas me and mine believe in equality of opportunity. What one does with that opportunity is up to them, except to a progressive who sees that as inherently unfair.
And that’s where we stand at present.