Lieberman still saying he will oppose
day I expressed my doubts that Sen. Lieberman could be trusted when he said that he would filibuster the health care bill if it had the public option. Now he’s repeated
his commitment, more insistently than before. But I still don’t trust him, and neither do lots of L-dotters
. As one of them shrewdly puts it:
So if they drop the public option will Lieberman support the bill? Of course they will add it back in conference.
That sounds like a plausible scenario to me. However, many L-dotters think Lieberman is sincere.
And here the Wall Street Journal quotes a liberal journalist who states clearly what the bill is really about.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let’s give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that “it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 11, 2009 01:25 AM | Send
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. “The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,” he writes. “Let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration … is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.”
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of “making the United States a more equitable country” and furthering the Democrats’ “political calculus.” In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, “Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted.”
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.