Health Care “Deeming” as Political Adultery

[Ed Hudgins]

Health Care "Deeming" as Political Adultery

by Edward Hudgins

March 19, 2010 -- Let's imagine a woman who is getting pressure from some obnoxious sleazeball stud to cheat on her husband and commit adultery. She's tempted but, if caught, wants some excuse with which to placate her outraged husband so she can avoid a divorce. "Honest, honey, I didn't consent!" And let's imagine that the sleazeball wants to protect himself from a rape charge and probable beating by the husband.

So how could they do their deed and both cover their butts?

Perhaps, after sexy chit-chat over a few drinks in a bar, she says, "I'm really reluctant to do this." But they agree to go up to his place, ostensibly so she can help him hang his etchings or for some other lame-ass excuse that both know to be a lie. And she pretty much lets him have his way with her.

If later the husband finds out, she plays her "I told him 'No!' sort of" card. "I only agreed to drinks and to help decorate his walls!" When the husband sends the cops to haul the sleazeball off to jail, he argues that he "deemed" that she had consented and that what he did was perfectly legal. After all, he explains, she had the drinks with him and went up to his room to see his artwork, and they were just creating a fiction with which she might placate her husband. Of course, the two stories contradict one another. The police would probably rule this to be a case of adultery rather than rape and the slutty wife would face a divorce.

This is the scenario faced by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Political sluts?

Some members are reluctant to give in to the pressure from their sleazy leadership to support an abomination of a health care bill that they, the members, know will visit ill on the American people. Even more important to them since they are politicians, these members know that if they give in, their outraged constituents will give them a beating and divorce at the polls. These members want to be able to say, "Honest, honey, I didn't consent to that bill! I only voted to improve it."

The leadership wants these members to vote for amendments to the Senate bill and "deem" that because they're voting on the amendments, that the Senate bill has been passed. This approach would give reluctant members some political cover and it would spare the House Democratic leadership the necessity of first securing the votes for a bill that so many House Democrats don't want to support and then fighting political battles over amendments for the bill. Do you follow this?

This tortuous approach is being concocted right before the eyes of outraged voters. Are the reluctant Democratic House members so deluded that they believe their constituents will play their part in this charade? Do they believe voters will say to these members, "Yes, we understand that you really didn't support that terrible bill," while saying to the leadership, "Yes, we understand that in voting to amend the bill, you deemed it to be passed and you made it the law of the land"?

Blank out

The moral failing of the adulterers and the Democrats, among others, comes from attempts to be dishonest, to fake reality. But in the case of the Democrats they are relying on others to play along with them, to do what no cuckolded spouse would put up with. This should come as no surprise since the Democrats have been equally dishonest about the substance and effects of Obamacare all along.

If Obamacare grants 30 million individuals essentially free access to new health care entitlements at a time of doctor shortages and at a time when 45 percent of doctors say they'd consider quitting if Obamacare passes, how will the 30 million new patients be treated? Blank out.

If Obamacare takes a half-trillion dollars out of cash-strapped Medicare to pay for the new entitlements, how will the government be able to avoid making severe cuts in Medicare? Blank out.

Watch the face of President Obama at the health care roundtable discussion with Republicans when Wisconsin

calmly, coolly, and rationally confronts him with the ugly reality of his proposals. Watch how the president keeps his face blank as he tries not to reveal the emotion of anger at being caught as Ryan slaps him in the face with fact after uncomfortable fact.

Moral meaning

More and more Americans now understand the dishonesty of the substance of Obamacare. More and more Americans understand that Democrats who vote for the "deeming" approach are simply trying to cover their butts, to say "I didn't like Obamacare either" even as their votes make Obamacare law. More and more Americans understand what they can expect from a health care system created and overseen by those who can achieve their policy goals only by refusing to look at the consequences of such policies and by hiding the consequences from the public.

Let's hope that more and more Americans will understand the moral meaning of the whole Obamacare episode: that they are committing moral treason to themselves by rejecting responsibility for their own lives and turning their lives over to dishonest politicians to run for them.

For further reading:

*Bradley Doucet, "Why on Earth ... Are So Many Americans Uninsured?" April 24, 2009.

*Judy Kopulos, "Medicare—The Mammoth in the Living Room." October 13, 2009.

*Edward Hudgins, "Obamacare as Faith Healing." December 10, 2009.

[merjet]

If the Obama-Pelosi gang tries the "deem and pass" strategy, I hope it will face a constitutional challenge and meet defeat. (Link). Clicking on "more" at the link goes to the WSJ, but seeing the whole article on-line is only for subscribers.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[BaalChatzaf]

I do not understand how they think they can get away with such a blatant violation of the Constitution. I am positively amazed. All of the other pinko stinko New Deal Liberal Commie tricks were carrying some of the Constitutional provisions a bit far, but this is just plain illegal. It is one thing to exaggerate Interstate Commerce and the regulation thereof, but to put a bill before the House that does not match the Senate version word for word is just plain out of bounds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

If the Obama-Pelosi gang tries the "deem and pass" strategy, I hope it will face a constitutional challenge and meet defeat.

I do not understand how they think they can get away with such a blatant violation of the Constitution.

That’s exactly what I was thinking with my contribution to the caption contest:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8366&pid=93460&st=0entry93460

I forgot to put in Pelosi’s reply, which would be: “That’s not a serious opinion!”

BTW Merlin your link doesn't work at all.

[merjet]

BTW Merlin your link doesn't work at all.

I fixed it. Also, https://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/details/4475/

[Brant Gaede]

I do not understand how they think they can get away with such a blatant violation of the Constitution. I am positively amazed. All of the other pinko stinko New Deal Liberal Commie tricks were carrying some of the Constitutional provisions a bit far, but this is just plain illegal. It is one thing to exaggerate Interstate Commerce and the regulation thereof, but to put a bill before the House that does not match the Senate version word for word is just plain out of bounds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thru the media, of course, which is how Obama made President.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

One of the excuse being offered by the Dem's is that Bush did it. Another legacy from Bush.

I haven't seen this but when Paul Ryan was offering his analysis Obama give him the one finger salute.

[Chris Grieb]

I understand deeming has been abandoned.

[BaalChatzaf]

I understand deeming has been abandoned.

What is your source for this? If true, the the Democrats who vote for the health insurance bill will have to stand up to the Independent voters in November. This should be interesting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ed Hudgins]

I understand deeming has been abandoned.

What is your source for this? If true, the the Democrats who vote for the health insurance bill will have to stand up to the Independent voters in November. This should be interesting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's all over the news Saturday afternoon. Let's see what Sunday brings. Obama and Co. don't care about losing Congress because if they can put socialist health care into place, they know it will be almost impossible to repeal it. Their obsession is to put government in charge of our lives. What a sick bunch.

[DavidMcK]

I've raised this issue before and haven't gotten intelligent comment: The main problem IMHO is the ongoing problem that Ayn Rand helped us to understand, namely that Republicans have nothing to offer but their 'No'. Of course as a Libertarian I say 'No' also, but how often do you hear of an alternative to the Democrats proposal? Step one is to identify the problem (medicare, medicaid the FDA all raise costs of health care) and to propose an alternative very strongly and adamantly: Pure lassez faire capitalism. Ok, so this won't work, Americans aren't ready to give up the huge government programs and anyone who proposes this won't even get elected; so what? Trading consistency for influence hasn't done a damn thing for Republicans, in the end they have neither or they end up adopting the programs of their alleged antagonists. You just keep advocating the right thing until the country is ready for it.

Edited March 21, 2010 by DavidMcK

[9thdoctor]

Step one is to identify the problem (medicare, medicaid the FDA all raise costs of health care) and to propose an alternative very strongly and adamantly: Pure lassez faire capitalism.

Even to suggest that one of these programs shouldn’t have been created is political suicide. Yes, Ron Paul gets away with it, but then look how he was marginalized in 2008.

[Chris Grieb]

Step one is to identify the problem (Medicare, Medicaid the FDA all raise costs of health care) and to propose an alternative very strongly and adamantly: Pure laissez fairer capitalism.

Even to suggest that one of these programs should’t have been created is political suicide. Yes, Ron Paul gets away with it, but then look how he was marginalized in 2008.

More and more people are recognizing that the entitlement problem is not going away. A recent survey shows that most people know that social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the best cost drivers in our spending but lets not forget the old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon can go to China". In other word the reform may come from someone on the Left.

[dan2100]

Even to suggest that one of these programs should't have been created is political suicide. Yes, Ron Paul gets away with it, but then look how he was marginalized in 2008.

More and more people are recognizing that the entitlement problem is not going away. A recent survey shows that most people know that social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the best cost drivers in our spending but lets not forget the old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon can go to China". In other word the reform may come from someone on the Left.

A long time ago, it was the Left that was pro-freedom. The sad fact is the Right has always been anti-freedom. The Left merely changed, in the 19th century, to embrace many Right methods to attain Left goals -- as Hebert Spencer and, more recently, Jeff Riggenbach have shown. See the former's "The New Toryism" online at:

http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS1.html#The%20New%20Toryism

See the latter's "The Myth of the 'Old Right'" online at:

http://mises.org/daily/3848