The Ides of March

This year the Ides of March bring the new "final" push by the Democrats to impose Obamacare on a very reluctant nation.

Rasmussen says that the current bill (to the extent anyone knows what is in it) is supported by 43% of the country, while 53% are opposed.

They do not appear to have the votes to pass the bill by ordinary means, so we are seeing all kinds of manipulations in the House to try to force it through.

We will see how many House Democrats are willing to walk the plank for Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan, a Republican Congressman, has an excellent article up in the Washington Post today. Read the whole thing. Its good.

His analysis, in part, includes the following:

"...Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers' options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities........"

"This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans -- to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don't play by Washington's new rules........"

The bill is a bad one that really does not address the real concerns that the public has about health care. Rising costs are not solved.

So what are the real purposes of the bill? Ryan explains:

"....If this debate had actually been about health care, we could have worked together to get a grip on costs, make quality care more accessible, address exclusions for preexisting conditions and realign the incentives of insurance companies with those of patients and doctors. Yet this process -- including its embarrassing conclusion -- demonstrates that the debate has never been about health-care policy but, instead, paternalistic ideology....."(emphasis mine)

His conclusion:

"...Should the Democrats' health-care train wreck make it to the president's desk, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and its devastating consequences will take their toll on our health-care system, our budget and our economy."

I emphatically agree. But a bright side of all of this is that the legislation, the way it has been forced on Congress by the Democratic leadership, and all of the shenanigans involved in its passage, will likely doom the Democratic Party to minority status for some time to come.

Now what we need to see is a Republican Party that will step up. So far, when given the chance, they have failed to do so.

Maybe some of the young leaders like Paul Ryan will be the Republican Party of the future.

The leaders of the past have largely failed.