ObamaCare’s First Few Years

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—otherwise known as ObamaCare—is almost four years old. Despite the technical troubles, what every American should know about the law is that whatever its provisions, whatever the press propagandizes or reports, the individual has no control of, or choice in, health insurance or medicine. Not if you’re a doctor, patient or policyholder.

As many are beginning to realize, health plan terms, prices and treatment are under central government control. Medicine and insurance are no longer in any meaningful sense a profession, a term which implies a degree of autonomy on the part of professionals. This is despite opposition, to the extent it is opposition, from conservatives including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who, to his credit, tried to stop ObamaCare. His effort makes Cruz ObamaCare’s most recognizable political opponent.

Cruz rails against “extremism” and “absolutism” in his attacks on ObamaCare, though he read from Ayn Rand’s absolutist novel Atlas Shrugged, which he fails to fully grasp, during his 21-hour standoff. And Cruz undercuts his own case by opposing a woman’s right to abortion while claiming that ObamaCare violates individual rights. So his crusade is crucially limited by his contradiction.

Except for a few voices for reason, no one understands and rejects ObamaCare’s moral premise, which is the ideal Ayn Rand rightly identified as the root of government-controlled medicine: altruism.

Rand convincingly argued in Atlas Shrugged that egoism is the highest virtue in ethics and therefore that capitalism, which inherently recognizes this morality, is the system which fits human nature. Capitalism, like the United States of America, is based on the principle of individual rights. So, any politician advocating a ban on abortion contradicts the argument for abolition of a government takeover of medicine. We simply cannot win the case for capitalism without asserting the fundamental right to one’s own life, which means drawing the distinction between potential and actual life.

ObamaCare is not the end of the world. It is, however, the end of free choice in health care. This historic dictate, as some of us warned, is a deathblow to liberty, a leap toward dictatorship. It’s been the law for over three years and all the tinkering, grandstanding and maneuvering will not stop it. It will proceed on its premise, which is to say it will lead to dictatorship and death, mass death.

Those who protest ObamaCare and think that the mandate is wrong must oppose the law on moral grounds. They must admit that health care is not a right – and assert that free choice in medicine is – and speak up, write and elect those who accept pure capitalism as the ideal and nothing less … or prepare to scream for bloody life – your own, your child’s and grandparent’s life – in a new, American dictatorship. Those who support ObamaCare already know it’s based on the idea that health care is a right.

For those who reject the law or, reading this, think my words are too extreme and haven’t decided what they think about ObamaCare, when the reality hits – and it will – brace yourself and remember that bureaucrats are made, not born, and that the best in medicine will shrug, quit and leave. You will hear that the dictate is helping others—you’re already hearing it, accompanied by its underlying message: helping others is the moral ideal, so there are simply winners and losers—and that ObamaCare is the law. In other words, if you’re worse off, tough luck. These are the same types that rail against capitalism as dog-eat-dog.

When you hear the slogans, ask yourself if ObamaCare is helping you. If it is, ask yourself at whose expense and by what right. Remember, too, that slavery was once the law and that half the country claimed with some degree of credibility that they were gaining from the enslavement. The Orwellian-named ObamaCare robs from some to pay for others, destroying everyone’s right to choose health insurance, doctors and treatment.

In practice and in theory, ObamaCare is what its proponents claim it eradicates: a brutal system pitting the powerful against the powerless. Three years of ObamaCare already demonstrates that fact. The nation’s health care system may not withstand three years more. The law is the law, so we must resolve to undo the law. It can be done. But abolition of a death-premise dictate can be achieved only by the love for life, with reverence for the right to control one’s life. No counterfeit claim will do.

  • trimmerman

    Nice post Scott. I wasn’t expecting the dictatorship part. I was expecting lousy medical care and long wait times but not jail. This makes what Canada has look pretty good, it isn’t. Citizens of the USA will not accept this forever. This is the kind of government screw up that kicks voters in the head every week. Slow, quiet, rage is not what sane politicians want to foster in voters before an election.

  • mkkevitt

    ObamaCare ain’t the end of the world, but what’s that saying? It might not be the end of the world, but we have the right to the fullness of human life according to our knowledge. We know of individual rights, egoism, reason and reality. So, let’s get going. We don’t have time to talk, intellectualize and educate, except while making war preparations against the criminal regime out of D.C. which has displaced the law & gvt. which operated under individual rights.

    I’m talking about physical, lethal shooting war against the ape, criminal regime in D.C. where we are out to kill the enemy and re-install gvt, by law under individual rights. Your proposal to elect better candidates can only be instrumental to that. And that would be moral, responsive (retaliatory) force against initiatory force going back many decades.

    I advocate the U.S. gvt., by us, to violently overthrow the criminal regime operating out of D.C., and that it re-install itself. Elections, talk and all, is just helpful to the success of that necessary action. Talking is too many decades behind the curve to do it by itself. It must supplement FORCE.

    I know what I’m saying. If you prefer, report me to the ‘authorities’ of the criminal regime. I don’t care. Sic ‘em on me, starting (or ending) with the one cop who patrols the little town I live in, Brookford, NC, immediately south of Hickory. His name is Ken (or Kenneth). I don’t know his last name. We gotta act, not just talk. Mike Kevitt

  • mkkevitt

    The dictatorship part is quite inescapable, which is why I expressed the extreme things I expressed in my comment to Scott’s post. It’s not a gvt. screw up. It’s a criminal plan to carry out brute initiatory force. The criminal perpetrators don’t mind fostering ‘slow, quiet rage’ in voters before elections, as long as the voters don’t know what the ‘freedom’ they think they want requires. As long as the voters don’t know, they’ll snatch at anything else. As long as they don’t know, they’ll snatch at another form of criminal plan. That’s fine with the criminal perpetrators. They’ll swing with that. They’ll get the votes, and get re-elected. This is a ‘democracy’, after all. Mike Kevitt

  • trimmerman

    Mike: Calm down start thinking things through. All of this is incredibly frustrating. Yes, Obama-care is not the problem, it’s a symptom. It’s a symptom big enough to be a problem but it’s still a symptom. What is your take on why the Republicans picked such a lame candidate in the last election. Especially when a far better candidate was available. I looked at the specs on each of them. It was a dead heat and voters will always pick a known hazard over an unknown one. It’s pretty simple math. I am not a fan of anarchy. They just tried it in Russia. It is already slipping back towards socialism. Try to think this through. Figure out what should happen. Then we can peacefully improve.

  • writeby

    This goes beyond politics, which rests on ethics, which in turn is derived from a view of Man’s metaphysical nature, which is derived from metaphysics & epistemology.

    The politics of socialism rests on a self-sacrificing ethics, which in turn rests on a vicious view of the metaphysical nature of Man–that he is innately flawed, imperfect, etc. (see Plato’s mind-body dichotomy).

    The view of Man’s metaphysical nature, in turn, is the product of a primacy of consciousness metaphysics (reality is a product of the mind–of perspective, need, wish, whim) and an emotionalist epistemology (“Yes, We Can!”).

    Stop me when this “secular” supernaturalism begins to sound like the philosophical foundation for another kind of supernaturalism.

    Those who run the government today are either a) nihilists (Obama) or b) pragmatists (almost everyone else). Killing them all would only result in their replacement with more of the same.

    This is a battle of ideas, not men. Senseless violence would only beget more of the same–or worse.

  • axiom537

    I disagree that Cruz undercuts his own case of individual rights when
    he stands against a woman wanting the right to abort another human.
    Quite the contrary, he is standing up for the most fundamental of all
    rights, the right to life of the unborn child. A child that has unique
    DNA from its parents from the moment of conception, which is and can be
    used to identify it from every other human being, including its own
    mother.

    From the moment of conception, it is a separate
    and unique human being. It just happens to be a human in its earliest
    stage of life. Yes, it is dependent on another human at this stage of
    its development, but then so are infants, young children, some mentally
    retarded and some handicapped, yet we would find it reprehensible to
    consider it our right to end their lives simply because they are
    dependent upon others to help sustain them.

  • mkkevitt

    The far better candidate was still a hazard, and an unknown one? Probably. He was probably still in the statist spectrum, which includes both left AND right. The other side is radicals for reason-egoism-individualism. The distinction is statists v radicals for r-e-i, where statists includes the right wing & left, and the radicals for r-e-i are fundamentally understood and seen as distinct from the whole statist spectrum (plus, where radicals for r-e-i have a better name, individualists, perhaps).
    There certainly won’t be any radical for r-e-i candidates for the foreseeable future. The whole culture is overwhelmingly too statist. I know what SHOULD happen, in general: the peaceful improvement. I just doubt there is time, because WE are too microscopic a minority, so, as we try to educate anybody, they’ll just mow us down. It’s beyond frustration.
    Of course, this means the ‘U.S. gvt.’ can’t possibly overthrow the criminal regime operating out of D.C. as I advocated. So, I doubt we have any choice than to be smothered by the statist march. The physical power is totally lopsided toward statism. It’s not anything like the face off between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
    Rather than go down swinging and end up dead, I suppose it’s better to go down talking (educating), and probably be told to shut up, but still be alive, such as it will be. At that point, the time for violent revolt will come, with freedom of speech denied. But, I think the time for violent revolt can come even with freedom of speech still allowed. Mike Kevitt

  • mkkevitt

    I hadn’t yet read this reply of yours when I made my reply to trimmerman, above. In that reply, I admitted the inadvisability of force at this time. But, in the case of actual, violent revolt, yes, I’d kill and/or capture them all, but not to let more of ‘em replace ‘em. I wouldn’t do it unless I could divest them of the physical power, then SEIZE it to re-establish law & gvt., then hold it, jealously, forever, not just let some more jerks perpetrate crime. Whatever violence wouldn’t be senseless.
    There’s no such thing as an idea. There are only ideas thought up and HELD BY MEN. It’s a battle of men holding different ideas. Ideas are physical. They have physical form, namely, that of men who have them. Therefore, FORCE is the final argument, in the hands or reason or of unreason [responsive (retaliatory), or initiatory, respectively]. Metaphysically and epistemologically, where does the greatest potential of power lie? ‘Guess.’ It’s an open secret.
    So, let’s get going. Educating, campaigning and elections are still the place to start and, hopefully, end, with individual rights and freedom secured. But, like I’ve said, I doubt we have time, now. Am I wrong? Mike Kevitt

  • writeby

    Conception begins human life? A group of cells the size of a pinhead make a human being? Only if you believe that at conception some supernatural being imbues those cells with a mystic component called a soul.

    A human being is defined, in part, by individuation. Where is such individuation in those cells growing in another? Moreover, though those cells may potentially in 9-months become a human, a potential is not an actual.

    Shall we elect as one of our leaders a man whose reasoning is so flawed that he would elevate faith (emotionalism) over reason?

    We’ve already done that in the person of Barrack “Yes! We can!” Obama.

  • axiom537

    At the moment of conception, DNA from a human woman and a Human Male combine to form a NEW, DIFFERENT and UNIQUE Human DNA Strand in the form of a HUMAN ZYGOTE, this is the earliest developmental stage of a human being. Just because this human at this state in its development only consists of a few cells, it does not make it less human.

    I agree a human is defined in part as an individual and even in that very earliest stage of its development it has a unique DNA structure from both of its parents and every other human being, which could be used to identify from every other individual on the planet.

    It is not a matter of potentially existing, It exists now, since it can be observed.

    The life cycle of a human does not begin when a baby is born. The life cycle of a human begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg, resulting in a HUMAN zygote, that is a unique individual from its parents, with its own DNA, Nervous System, Reproductive system, circulatory system etc etc.

    This is not a matter of spirituality or Philosophy, this is a matter biology based on facts and reason.

  • writeby

    Your confusing a potential with an actual. A zygote is not a human being just because it possesses human DNA, which, if the biology follows, will eventually yield an actual human being. Skin cells possess all that you mention; but I would not call them human.

    For a more expanded explanation: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html

    “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living
    take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

  • axiom537

    I am not confusing anything, you are attempting to support your argument not with facts, but with the philosophical beliefs of Ayn Rand. Those are not facts, but merely a Philosophy not much different from a religious belief and while they support your argument, they do not make your argument correct. Do not get me wrong I love Ayn Rand, but in this regard she is wrong.

    A Human Zygote is a Human, it is not a sea cucumber zygote, monkey zygote or a worm zygote. It is the very first developmental stage of an individual human in its LIFE cycle, which can be identified as such using its unique DNA. The Human Zygote then develops into a human embryo, human fetus, human baby, human adolescent then coming to its full development as a human adult and completing its LIFE cycle upon its hopeful natural death.

    You are correct, the skin cell is not a human even though it has the same DNA, but it is part of the whole as identified by the matching DNA to that particular individual human and will not survive apart from the whole, thus making it a part and not the whole.

    You can continue to attempt to redefine what life is, when it begins and what qualifies based on your own definition, but I refuse to acknowledge that definition because it is not based on facts.

    In the well established, FACT based scientific sense an individual humans LIFE as well as every other living organisms life cycle begins at the moment of conception and continues until that human or organism dies.

    A human life does not begin when it exits the uterus, It does not begin when its convenient and doesn’t disrupt the lives of the parents, it doesn’t begin when the parents are not financially struggling or young in their own life cycles.

    Human life begins at the moment of conception, the very earliest point in which it can be identified as a separate and unique human from its parents, It has EVERY characteristic and fits every definition we have for Identifying LIFE.

    How it impacts & interacts with other humans is not what defines it as an individual Human Life, nor which stage in its development. Making it open for discussion when and where other humans can decide to terminate its life.

  • writeby

    -sigh- “A Human Zygote is a Human.”
    And an acorn is an oak tree.