Roy, whether he's fully aware of it or not, is making a point Charles Krauthammer has been making some time, a point echoed by Jazz Shaw today at Hot Air (which I'll link to and excerpt from momentarily). I say "whether he's fully aware of it or not" because I don't detect any tone of resignation in his summation of why he's big on the Senate bill:
Full repeal was never going to be possible in a Senate where Republicans did not control 60 votes. And furthermore, we have learned that moderate Republicans in both the House and the Senate have no appetite to fully deregulate Obamacare at the federal level.
Jazz Shaw at Hot Air puts it this way:
Now, there's some resignation for you. As I say, Krauthammer has been asserting this for some time. He, like Shaw, says that the "A"CA, even though it polls dismally, has been in place long enough that the mindset positing that health care and / or health insurance is some kind of right has permeated society and is not going to go away.
I hate resignation.
I will not stand for it when the truth is obscured thereby - and especially when that obscuration leads to bankruptcy. If I wanted to live in Venezuela-like conditions, that's where I'd move.
So I was glad to see David French at NRO take on the leftist smears on the Senate bill with this reasoning:
Here’s the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson with an odd attack on Republican health care plans:
The “health-care bill” that Republicans are trying to pass in the Senate, like the one approved by the GOP majority in the House, isn’t really about health care at all. It’s the first step in a massive redistribution of wealth from struggling wage-earners to the rich — a theft of historic proportions.
Not to be too pedantic about this, but the government isn’t “redistributing” wealth when it lets a citizen keep more of his money, and it isn’t “stealing” from the poor when it cuts benefits they didn’t actually own. Welfare programs like Medicaid represent a forcible transfer wealth. Welfare is the redistribution. And if there’s any actual argument for “theft,” it’s the theft of money from the private citizen by the government.
But that would be hyperbole. In civilized societies, people understand that a certain degree of taxation is necessary for a nation to function. Safety nets are compassionate and prudent. But it is dangerous and wrong to get confused about who owns what. I own the money I earn. America’s less fortunate citizens don’t own Medicaid. It’s a privilege, not a right — a privilege that is subject to the same budgetary and fiscal concerns inherent in any other government program, including national defense.
Entitlement culture plagues this nation, and it plagues America’s poorest communities. So let’s speak accurately about ownership and redistribution. Medicaid is a program, not property, and it’s not theft to attempt to moderate its enormous financial cost.
Or let me put it in my own words. There is no right to health care. It is impossible by definition. How did people in the year 1300 exercise their "right" to a triple bypass? My point being that caring for health is a human activity borne of human volition. The only reason it exists is because someone wants to do it. One cannot have a right to the activity of one's fellow human beings. Down that slippery slope lies the s-word.
At the very least, the likes of Roy and Krauthammer could preface their observation that, hey, the populace has bought into this and it's just where we're inevitably headed with the assertion that we'll be plunging headlong into policy based on utter falsehood.
Damn it, when does somebody besides four Senators say what is plain? We can't even begin to counteract the it's-a-right notion if everybody is worried about votes, viewership and readership.
And I really bristle when the notion is put forth that getting government the hell out of health care, and the insurance coverage thereof, is somehow a mere conservative wish list, something conservatives may get part of but will probably have to live with the compromise attendant to the art of the possible.
We are talking about an individual's freedom to keep what is his or hers.
It's the current battle line in the twilight struggle over the proper scope and function of government.
Government should not be in the business of providing services. James Madison made that quite clear.
Refuse to be resigned to a service-providing government as a done deal. Refuse to acquiesce to that notion prevailing. There is nothing radical about the pre-Progressive-era understanding of what government was for.
And someone, somewhere, invite Roy and Krauthammer to a picnic, a car race, a jam session - anything, anywhere outside the damn Beltway.