Fatal flaw in socialism clearly shown once Obamacare actually took effect

The fatal flaw in socialism – whether wholesale, as it is practiced in Western Europe, or whether it is the watered-down variety, as proffered by President Obama and his governing coalition in Congress – is that it just doesn’t work very well.

 The live broadcast implosion of Obamacare in the last month has become an object lesson for those who had either forgotten or were too young to know: As a governing philosophy, socialism is self-defeating at the point where rubber meets road.

The use of the term socialism is, of course, charged. But there’s no denying that’s what O-care is.

 Young and healthy citizens are being forced into high-priced plans that they don’t want or need in order to satiate the demands of actuaries who need more premiums paid into the healthcare system.

 Those who live healthy, active lifestyles are being stripped of pricing incentives over those whose favorite form of exercise comes on the left end of the couch.

 Working families who at this time last year opted for high deductible policies as a catastrophic health care backstop have been pushed out of these frugal plans in exchange for expensive coverage that they do not want and, in many cases, cannot afford.

 Medicaid, meanwhile, once a health care safety net for the poor and infirm, has been transformed into the super-charged, single-payer health care system of first resort for millions.

 Obamacare is socialism. It just is. 

 Like so many failed schemes of centralization that evoke that term, the president’s health law is failing at the point where high-minded policy gets implemented in the real world.

 No, the ruination of O-Care is not being caused by a lack of compassion or caring on the part of the law’s critics, as a commentator on these pages recently suggested.  It is a more basic, practical equation that has rendered the health law undone – it doesn’t work.

 Millions have lost their health insurance. Millions more can scarcely afford the insurance into which they’ve been forced to transition. Job creators , under the weight of this bureaucratic albatross, are eliminating jobs.

 Dimming right alongside Obamacare is the popularity of the man whose name it bears. 

 A Washington Post poll released earlier this week shows that, not only do large and expanding majorities of Americans want the health care policy repealed, but more Americans would now vote for Willard Mitt Romney if given the chance for a do-over.

 Here in our fair swing state, Democrats up for election are fleeing from the health care law as fast as their Birkenstocks will carry them.  Mark Udall, up for re-election next year, is calling for a two-year timeout from some of the law’s provisions.

 It’s a remarkable turn of events for those who had supposed that this president had affected a permanent change in our politics and prevailing philosophies in the direction of an aggressive progressivism. 

 At this time last year, there was certainly a case to be made.  This year, though, as Obama’s Madison Avenue web ads and slick campaign mail pieces have given way to Obamacare web crashes and direct mail of a different variety (“we regret to inform you that your health insurance policy is canceled”), the fortunes of those pining for more and bigger government are not so fortunate.

 As it turns out, the best (and perhaps only) way to defeat the arguments of Obama the Eloquent is to allow his policies to take full effect.

 If Republicans made any mistake during the legislative fight over Obamacare, it may have been in delaying its implementation past the date of the president’s re-elect. 

 The sooner it was implemented, the sooner it was destined to fail, and with it the political prospects of those who supported it. 

 At some point Obamacare was destined to be found out. Socialism still doesn’t work.

Josh Penry is a former minority leader of the Colorado Senate. He graduated from Grand Junction High School and Mesa State College.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

As a graduate of Mesa State College (before it became a bona fide institution of higher “learning”), perennial Republican propagandist Josh Penry can be forgiven for confusing the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) with “socialism”.  (“Fatal flaw in socialism clearly shown once Obamacare actually took effect”).

By definition, “socialism” is “a theory of social organization based on government ownership, management, or control of the means of production and the distribution and exchange of goods”.

For 80% of Americans, the ACA is essentially a market-driven approach – conceived by anti-socialist “conservatives” – that reforms (but does not exert “ownership, management, or control” over health insurers and/or the health care “system”), but relies on selective regulations and enhanced competition between insurers to improve the distribution of affordable health care services.

For 15% of Americans, the ACA would expand inarguably “socialist” Medicaid to make affordable health care accessible to millions.

While Penry concedes that the ACA is a “variety” of “watered down” socialism, his own conflated definition would encompass most public policy proposals envisioned by both our Constitution’s Preamble and the Gettysburg Address.

What Penry fails to admit is that the “pre-existing condition” proffered by the pre-ACA health insurance “system” – with double-digit annual premium increases, arbitrary denial and/or cancellation of coverage by profit-driven “death panels”, and annual/lifetime caps – “doesn’t work very well”.

Indeed, for 98.5% of Americans, the ACA works better than Penry’s now-discredited “alternative”.  As reported by the Council of Economic Advisers (“Trends in Health Care Cost Growth and the Role of the Affordable Care Act”, November 2013), the growth of overall health care spending and price inflation are both at their lowest in 50+ years, resulting in a 10% ($147 billion) reduction in the CBO’s projections of future Medicare/Medicaid spending.

“Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” is not “socialism”.

And Hugenburg blowing his own horn. Shouldn’t lecture Penry or anyone on the Constitution of the US. By definition what would the democrap scrapping the filibuster rules and thereby changing the US Constitution be called. Communism? Gestapoism? I think you should demand a refund from where ever you received your education. Democrap U? Liar CC? Black Panther Street College? Oh! I know the University of Hill and Limpwilly where nancy pelosi is president. Take note old Bill is spousing barry hussein soetoros once prud nam of obamadoesntcare to the now cliche “Affordable Care Act.” Pffft

Contrary to Jerry Sanders’ mistaken belief, most sentient Sentinel readers know that changing the Senate’s filibuster rules did not “change the U.S. Constitution”, but rather restored it—to majority rule.

Of course, based on this and his past screes, facts just don’t matter to Jerry.

While the Sentinel’s editorial on filibuster reform (“Senate goes nuclear”) aptly observes that both Democrats and Republicans have “routinely used the filibuster to block” and/or delay presidential appointments to executive and judicial positions requiring the Senate to “advise and consent”, it implies a “false equivalency” by disingenuously downplaying the extent to which Republicans have unprecedentedly escalated the proliferation of purely obstructive (with no claim of substantive basis) filibusters to stymie President Obama.

Thus, Republican President George Bush encountered only 130 cloture votes in response to Democrats’ filibusters, while President Obama has confronted 307 (by some counts, over 400) such votes as to Republicans’ filibusters – of virtually every kind if legislative initiative except renaming post offices.  Indeed, Republican Senators have repeatedly filibustered their own bills – as soon as President Obama embraced their proposals. 

As to presidential judicial and executive branch appointments, Bush endured only 38 such filibusters in eight years, while President Obama has been subjected to 81 in less than five years.  In fact, in the entire history of the U.S. Senate, only 68 presidential nominees were filibustered prior to President Obama’s inauguration, but 79 since then.  Moreover, on average, President Obama’s judicial nominees have waited roughly three times longer for eventual confirmation than did Bush’s. 

Therefore, Colorado’s two Democratic Senators – Michael Bennet and Mark Udall—have appropriately defended their filibuster-changing votes (“Senators defend filibuster vote, cite ‘obstruction’”), reforms which are clearly authorized by Article I, Section 5, of our Constitution – and which restored constitutionally-sanctioned “majority rule”.

Meanwhile, PolitiFacts rates Republicans’ excuses for their conduct as “mostly false”.

Nevertheless, at least one woefully misinformed Sentinel reader believes that Democrats actually “changed the U.S. Constitution” by reforming the Senate’s filibuster rules, while Josh Penry ignorantly claims that the Affordable Care Act constitutes “socialism”.

Perhaps the Daily Sentinel should report more facts.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
Advertiser Tearsheet

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy