ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer, the board there lays waste to the “disgusting process” of enacting ObamaCare:
Arrogant approach to health care
America’s robust discussion of health care reform during the past year has been beneficial in many ways, giving the public greater awareness and insight into this complex issue. Unfortunately, the debate has been held pretty much on one-party terms as Democrats, controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, crafted the only plan allowed on the table, and negotiated behind closed doors. Now, despite the deep reservations of a majority of Americans, congressional leaders plan to ram through their proposal this week – bypassing normal congressional procedures.
It is a distressing prospect. We hope that moderate House Democrats – among them Rep. Steve Driehaus of Cincinnati, who says he “will not bend on the principle of federal funding on abortion” but will be stuck in the middle of an elaborate charade to include that funding anyway – will put a stop to this sham.
Real debate has been sidestepped, while Democrats played a childish game of Catch-22 with health care legislation: Congressional leaders wouldn’t allow Republican proposals to be formally considered, then turned around and accused them of not having alternatives. Among themselves, Democrats cut a series of backroom deals that in any other context would be considered criminal payoffs and bribery.
Here’s how blatant it’s become: Last week, President Obama nominated for a federal appeals court the brother of a wavering Democratic House member from Utah.
This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is necessary, think this particular approach will take our nation down the wrong economic path.
Obama, despite all his fine talk of bipartisanship, has proven he has little regard for the ideas – or the constituencies – of those who are not his political allies. The paltry few GOP proposals that he has indicated he is willing to consider – even here, there are no real commitments – are so token as to be laughable.
Meanwhile, an Associated Press poll last week showed that 68 percent of Americans don’t want health care reform passed without Republican support.
Supporters of the Democratic plan can spin it any way they wish, but polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans oppose their heavy-handed approach to reform. Americans may favor general principles such as universal coverage, but they are distrustful of the way this bill has been crafted and how it will change their relationship with their health care providers.
According to the Quinnipiac Poll, Ohioans oppose the Democrats’ reform plan 56 percent to 33 percent, although they agree 53 percent to 44 percent that Congress should keep trying to reform health care.
The legislation has major problems that have not even begun to be discussed in a serious way, and if Democrats have their way will not be debated at all. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, for example, calls the Senate bill “racially discriminatory” because of provisions that “in addition to being unconstitutional, will not improve health care outcomes for minority patients.”
And despite denials, the bill has worrisome implications for Medicare. According to an Associated Press news account, much of the reform bill is “financed with Medicare cuts the government’s own experts say could be unsustainable.”
Democrats are devising an elaborate set of sleight-of-hand tricks to get this bill on Obama’s desk this week, including Senate “reconciliation” to avoid a GOP filibuster.
Yes, both parties have employed reconciliation in the past – it has been used by Republicans in 14 of 22 instances since being adopted in 1974 – but its purpose is supposed to be resolving budget issues, not making far-reaching policy decisions that will alter one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
Its blatant abuse is yet further damning evidence of congressional leaders’ arrogant, condescending attitude toward the people they ostensibly were elected to serve.
