
August has been a great month for Democracy, an active,
passionate and
vocal democracy,
very American and created by a
perfect storm that has resulted in the President
suffering a
precipitous fall in public opinion and his
signature policy initiative
going on life support in one of the "
most rapid turnabouts in recent American political history." All Presidents fall at the end of their honeymoon, but no president has ever fallen
this far this fast. The "
August Slide," as David Brooks calls it, is not personal. Pollster Glen Bolger
observes that the major hit Obama has taken in the past month is a function of a populace that still likes the President as an inspiration figure and positive image on the foreign state but is growing very skeptical and
quite wary of his
big government policies, as well as
his leadership,
down 19 points from January. The health care debate "
is at the fault line" of a larger debate about the role of government. The damaging path of the debate
caught Obama by surprise, and Charlie Cook
believes the situation has "slipped completely out of control" for the President and Democrats.
Americans are waking up to the
doublespeak the President and his Capitol Hill allies, to whom he has outsourced an inordinate amount of his policy formulation, continue to employ in frantically pushing their version of health care reform; Time calls these obvious paradoxes the
fatal flaw of ObamaCare. The WSJ also describes the President's
many contradictions, pointing out that voters aren't stupid and it's because they are listening that ObamaCare is in trouble. As the White House likes to say, "
facts are stubborn things." Notice we haven't heard much from Obama lately about his unequivocal promise that "if you like your insurance, if you like your doctor, you can keep them." Why? It turns out saying something over and over with increasing force and conviction does not make it true. The Levin Group, in a
major analysis of the bill,
estimates that 83 million people would be forced onto the "public option" under Obama's plan, losing their current, private coverage. Truly, no study was necessary to see the fallacy in Obama's claim. His purpose is sweeping health care reform that would transform the entire system... yet no individual would need to change their coverage. It's difficult to enact fundamental change if none of the players in the system change their behavior. Many Americans saw the wool being pulled over their eyes and reacted indignantly.
Speaking of wool being pulled over our eyes. Can we put to bed the debate about whether or not ObamaCare with a public option, not only would, but is designed to lead to single-payer care? Over the course of the debate,
Democrat after
Democrat,
including Obama, has been
caught telling friendly crowds that
that is indeed the whole idea. The public option, it turns out, was part of a
grand strategy developed in 2007 as a "
stealth single payer." Hillary Clinton's chief strategist
says the public option "was always meant as a transition to single payer, not merely as an aid to competition with private insurers." Case closed.
The bottom line is that a public plan will grant the federal government unprecedented power to constantly tinker with the health care sector in ways that will make one sixth of our entire economy completely dependent on decisions made in Washington, DC. This is not the way free societies operate.

Democrats would also like us to believe their sweeping reform would be deficit neutral as Obama has demanded. It was a rude awakening for them when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scored their bills between $1 and $2 trillion dollars. Director Elmendorf
said that rather than "bend the curve" on health care cost as Obama has promised, his proposals would "significantly expand the federal responsibility for health care cost." We are then to believe that health care and all of Obama's other big government initiatives can be paid for by pillaging the wealthiest Americans with a variety of surtaxes. The Washington Post has called this a "
mirage." As Margaret Thatcher said of Socialism, "the problem... is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Obama is right to preach the dangers of inaction on health care. Health care spending, especially in the form of entitlements, is on an unsustainable and dangerous path, one that could bring down the entire economy. However, the President loses me in using this fact as rationale for passing legislation that we now know would only make our
bleak budget outlook
much worse. CBO director Elmendorf told congress that ObamaCare would "put an
additional long-term burden on top of an already unsustainable path." Indeed, doing nothing would be better than accelerating our dive into the red;
54% of Americans agree.
The hard part is making sure that in transforming a system that is bankrupting the country, Washington doesn't create a new one that does it even faster. Or that in expanding health coverage to the minority of Americans who don't have it, Washington doesn't leave the majority who do have it — and who like what they have — with less.
Unfortunately, the President's proposals fail on both counts.

Clearly a lot has transpired in Washington and around the country in the last month in the tumultuous world of health care reform. There is more to discuss, but it can wait until next week as I anticipate being able to post more regularly. We'll address the question of health care as a right and the co-ops alternative, look at the absurd reaction from the left to
this great piece in the WSJ by the CEO of Whole Foods as well as cover the economy, the GOP and other issues that have been muffled by the town hall volume of health care in August.
In the meantime, cast your vote in the latest
PG Polls: Do you think President Obama will sign a major health care reform bill this year? Will Obama ever fully recover from his downward slide?
--
Posted By Pearce Godwin to
Pearce Godwin at 9/02/2009 07:58:00 PM