The Entitlement Trap
Vol: 116 Issue: 19 Thursday, May 19, 2011
I was watching the news yesterday about the new wave of health care waivers and listening to the pundits analyze how they were distributed, etc. But they danced all around the real (and most obvious) issue.
But to get to it, we must first address a couple of questions. Why has the administration granted some 1,300 health care waivers? While we’re on the subject, what is a heath care waiver? Maybe we should tackle that one first.
A ‘waiver’ is an exemption from some part (or all) of the provisions of Obamacare on the grounds that implementing it would be so prohibitively expensive or difficult that complying would run them out of business!
(That also takes care of the ‘why’ question).
What brought the whole health care waiver issue to the forefront of national attention was the discovery that 20% of the waivers granted in April were granted to businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home district.
By itself, that might raise eyebrows, but a closer examination of the businesses involved ought to be raising voices. Waivers that ordinarily would go to small mom and pop restaurants to prevent them from going out of business went instead to restaurants with $60 steaks on the menu.
Pelosi famously told Americans that the Congress had to first pass the bill in order to find out what was in it. Apparently, one of the things in the bill we didn’t know about until after it was too late was how easy it would make it for politicians to buy cooperation from the public.
Waivers have been granted to the United Federation of Teachers, McDonalds, the entire State of Maine, the Cement Mason’s Union Local 60, Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Health and Welfare Fund, 24 Hour Fitness (with more than 1,758 enrollees) – check out the HHS list here.
Altogether, the latest round of health care waivers granted by the HHS for April included twenty-seven waivers for health care and drug companies(!) and thirty-one waivers for unions.
There is a reason why the Democrats have been pushing for the nationalization of the health care industry – which is what the health care bill accomplishes – and it was never about affordable health care for the poor.
If it was affordable there would have been no need to create a health care waiver system to prevent the plan from crushing small business.
It was always about control.
The health care plan could just as well have been designed by 19th century philosopher Georges Hegel – there is little doubt in my mind that he was the inspiration for the plan. It is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic in operation.
A government “entitlement” describes a government benefit to which citizens are entitled by virtue of their citizenship. An “entitlement” is much like a birthright. As such, an “entitlement” is unconstitutional.
Under the American system, rights can only be granted by God. The government’s role isn’t to grant rights, it is to guarantee them. The Founding Fathers didn’t give the government the authority to ‘grant’ rights – they were fighting for freedom from that very system.
When a monarch needed popular support, he granted this group or that group special favors, rights or privileges in exchange for their support. Many of the officers and men fighting against the American revolutionaries did so in exchange for the promise of land grants, titles or special privileges from King George III.
The United Empire Loyalists remained loyal to the Crown because the Crown promised them free land, allowed them to keep their slaves under a 1790 law and even granted them a special hereditary title.
In the 1930’s FDR re-introduced Americans to the royal system of granting entitlements, or hereditary privileges, not so much as a reward for current service as an investment for services yet to be rendered.
The passage of the Social Security Act, for example, guaranteed the government a permanent lock on the senior citizen vote. No matter how outrageous a government plan might seem, all it takes is a threat to Social Security to get every government-dependent senior onboard.
When you want to pass something that will damage workers, take it to the seniors. Conversely, if you need to convince workers to get onboard, then you threaten future Social Security benefits.
It’s a pretty effective system since everybody gets old. But it isn’t foolproof. The degree of influence a threat to SSI has is directly proportionate to the age of the demographic involved.
Threats to SSI didn’t used to scare teenagers and twenty-somethings – now it doesn’t even scare people in their forties. They know the jig is up, the con has been exposed and they won’t ever get their retirement money anyway.
The threat has lost much of its power.
But everybody gets sick. Little kids, teenagers, twenty-somethings alike. And the MOST exposed demographic is the group that was least exposed by SSI – parents in their thirties and forties.
They have no illusions about SSI. They are less poor than their younger or older demographic counterparts, so they are less dependent on the government for survival. But they have kids – and kids get sick.
Control the health care system and you control the population. Indeed, you enslave the population. The health care systems in the UK and Canada are terrible in comparison with the US free-market system – but they are the only game in town.
Threaten their free health care and they will stand for almost anything.
Obamacare takes it to the next level. Instead of threatening to withhold health care, the Obamacare threat is that it will be imposed, unless one gets a waiver. Control the corporations and businesses first – worry about how to control individuals later.
Like the stimulus money before it, health care waivers are being passed out as ‘thank yous’ for political support, as incentives for future support, or as plain old bribes.
The proof is in the pudding. Obamacare is a system so terrible that those with clout are willing to do whatever is necessary, give up whatever is necessary or go along with whatever is necessary.
And yet there are millions of Americans prepared to defend both Obamacare and Nancy Pelosi.
It is a manifestation of what Michelle Malkin (or was it Ann Coulter?) describes as LDS, or “Liberal Derangement Syndrome.”
Here we have a system so destructive that even McDonald’s and Walmart can’t afford it, one so bad that the government can’t deny it, one so dishonest that even the Democrats can’t hide it . . . and yet still it has millions of blind, knee-jerk defenders of a system that is aimed at their enslavement.
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” (Romans 1:28)
To me, this is one of the most astonishing prophecies in Scripture. First, it is my opinion that being a good Christian and being a good Democrat are mutually exclusive positions.
I do not see how a saved person can support Democrat priorities like abortion, the abolition of public prayer, restrictions on parental rights and so on. (Evidently some can, but it is the how of it that escapes me.)
So I am of the opinion that the majority of Democrats, particularly those on the Left, do not like to retain God in their knowledge. Now we move on to the part about a ‘reprobate’ mind doing things that are not convenient”.
(Reprobate – Greek: adokimos means “morally worthless”) (Convenient: kathehko means “fitting, as in one’s best interests,” etc.)
The idea of defending a policy like Obamacare, particularly in light of the fact it is so destructive that the government has to grant waivers to keep it from collapsing the economy, is certainly not in any American’s best interests as a citizen.
Yet there are millions that do.
I used to wonder how it could ever come about that the antichrist could get America to go along with some of the policies the Bible says he will introduce, like the Mark of the Beast, for example.
I don’t wonder about that anymore.