The punditocracy has recently been consumed with a debate over whether or not the Republicans will be able to repeal the recently-passed health care bill. Outside of self-professed conservative pundits, the conventional wisdom seems to be that the odds are prohibitively against repeal (or significant modification).
This Politico article typifies the attitude of those who doubt that repeal can be effectuated. It argues that the current outrage over the health care bill is merely a part of a "familiar pattern since New Deal days: Government programs from Social Security to Medicare that were launched amid incendiary arguments within a short time became sacrosanct - protected by a bipartisan consensus that was nowhere to be found at passage."
This is certainly one possible outcome for the President's health care bill, but it isn't the only one. Here is why repeal is a real possibility. 1. This bill is substantively different than Social Security and Medicare.
My colleague Jay Cost made a critical point a few days ago: Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made use of an ingenious social insurance system - promoting the idea that we all pay in today to take out tomorrow. It was consistent with American individualism. It was simple. It was intuitive. It was bipartisan.
Obama's new system has none of those virtues. This feature is what makes repealing or substantially modifying Social Security and/or Medicare so difficult. They are entitlements that are broadly given to the middle class, who also pays for them. To the extent these programs are redistributive, that redistribution is largely hidden. Everyone, from the poorest member of society to Bill Gates, has some stake in Social Security and Medicare.(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
===========================================
The Constitution is the limiting document upon the feds; the federal government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the federal servant cannot become greater than its master........the states.
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments.
Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
Will be back around 5:00pm CDT to read post.
Author makes some good points, but also some mistakes. Inherently collectivist pension plan, administered by the government and designed by Otto von Bismarck in late 19th century to coincide with then-average mortality age, is NOT "consistent with American individualism". It's a derivative of Ponzi scheme (FIMO - First In Most Out), and given that the original Ponzi scheme unraveled around the time Social Security was established, more people should have understood then that the government has taken Ponzi's idea and ran with it.
Everyone, from the poorest member of society to Bill Gates, has some stake in Social Security and Medicare...
And that's why Democrats keep trying to reform SSS into a welfare / transfer system, which is now partially served by SSI.
In any case, Obamacare violates so many constitutional tenets, including unfunded mandates and 10th Amendment (which author implies), that it should not be able to pass muster in any reasonable court, and be declared "unconstitutional" in the words of recent decisions by Judge Bolton and Judge Walker.
After it's mortally wounded, if not dead, in the courts, the repeal should be just a matter of formality and/or a club to beat the Dems with all the way into 2012. It will be their political "Iraq of 2006-2008," only the one that was truly based on lies, and without any redeeming consequences (for them) that Operation Iraqi Freedom and the demise of Saddam had.
After this fiasco, there will be a long time / several generations, before they will try any other sweeping socialist ideas on national scale. States or cities that want to implement version of it (Massachusetts, San Francisco, etc.) are welcome to bankrupt themselves or keep losing productive people to other states and serve as examples to other states and national electorate.