Bottom Line: REPEAL Obamacare! It’s A MORAL Imperative
Look, Obamacare is very much akin to slavery. Rhetorical question: Should slavery have been “repealed?” Or “phased-out?” (Note: We touched on these points (here) in another essay all the way back in October of 2014.) Lincoln had a good answer to that one: The Emancipation Proclamation announced the “repeal” of slavery.
How is Obamacare like slavery, you say? Simple: Anytime you take the lawfully earned income of one person, against his will, and give it to another, you’re stealing his labor — the thing that earned the income in the first place. We did that to people we called slaves a century and a half ago, and we called it slavery.
Okay, another rhetorical question: how much slavery is it okay to have in a country? The answer to that one is pretty simple too: None whatsoever. Nada, Zip. Zilch.
Let’s look a bit at the Slavery/Obamacare comparison again. In slavery, there were producers — the slaves. These people contributed, against their will, work and the product of that work, into the system. There were takers too — the slaveholders. These people took from the producers and gave them nothing back for their work(1).
We all look at that “transaction” today, and recoil at the thought. We understand, deep in our core, just how wrong it was. If you were to ask any American: “How much slavery is okay?” The immediate answer would be: “None at all, of course! What a stupid question!”
In Obamacare, there are producers — gainfully employed Americans — and takers … those who depend on subsidies to buy Obamacare “health insurance.”(2)
Nowadays, voices are raised, supposedly in compassion, saying, “How can you end Obamacare? There are people dependent on its subsidies for their health insurance, you heartless oafs!”
Yet, after the Civil War, there were voices, also supposedly raised in “compassion,” saying things like, “You can’t get rid of slavery! What’ll happen to all the slaves? They have no education, no skills, no prospects for finding meaningful work anywhere! They’ll starve!” These were voices from the Democrat Party. The Republicans, Lincoln’s party, responded simply: “Slavery is evil; it needs to go away.” And it did.
Under slavery the producers were the victims of the swindle. Under Obamacare, it’s the same thing. And our response should be exactly the same: “It’s evil; it needs to go away.”
It’s important to note that, after the abolition of slavery, the dislocation of which the Democrats warned did happen. Many one-time slaveholders, who were part of an entire economy structured to incorporate the free labor(3) of their slaves, couldn’t pay the now-freed slaves for their work and had to let them go.
Yes, a large population of slaves, who before had a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs, were on their own. But, do we say today that “slavery should have been ‘phased-out'” in order to avoid that? Of course we don’t. Today, we understand slavery to be evil, and that the correct amount of evil to have around is: none.
Get rid of Obamacare, and, yes, you will find people who are in need of something. However, it’s important to say that, as our footnote (#2) indicates below, Obamacare subsidy recipients don’t now have meaningful health insurance, due to ridiculous deductibles. We covered this at length in these pages. Here, for example. Or here. And here. Or: Search “Obamacare deductible” in the blog’s search box.
However, the Democrats learned their lesson well from their slavery-supporting days. As we mentioned in a previous post: “Their modus operandi is to impose an unworkable steaming mess of a program onto the American people — one that makes takers dependent for a large part of their well-being on producers — (eg. systems like: slavery, serfdom, or Obamacare) then challenge anyone to dismantle the failed program and make the now-dependent takers fend for themselves.”
That the Democrats’ program is itself responsible for all the dislocation and suffering is a fact of which they’re always, publicly at least, unaware. It’s hard to argue that they don’t know it though. Are they really that stupid? I can’t rule it out.
(1) Yes, the slaves received food and housing for their work, but that’s the same as the food and housing that we give to prison inmates in exchange for their labor. Since their work isn’t completely uncompensated — they earn a tiny bit of money exchangeable for goods at the prison — then they aren’t actually slaves, but pretty close to it. Needless to say, the parallels between the prison inmate population and slaves are many. It’s the one form of “slavery” we largely approve of today, because we’re aware that the inmates largely chose their fate through their own freely-chosen actions.
(2) The reason for the scare quotes around “health insurance?” Well, in the era of high-deductible insurance policies, we’ve arrived at a situation in which people have “insurance,” but due to the sky-high deductibles, they can’t obtain actual healthcare. The only reason to have health insurance at all is so that it can facilitate your ability to obtain health care if needed. I have some personal experience that might be instructive: I’ve had a high-deductible health care insurance plan for more than a decade now. I’ve paid a lot of money for those plans, through three different employers over that time. In that time, I’ve spent a lot of money on actual healthcare, not one dime of which has been covered by my insurance. Those healthcare costs included expensive dental work, as well as one incident in which my son took a spill from a friend’s front porch and broke both arms! Yep. I paid all expenses out of my pocket.
(3) Slavery was a much more complex economic thing than is widely understood today. Slaves did not represent free labor by any stretch of the imagination. First of all, the slave had to be purchased, and they did not come cheap. The slave traders were trying to make a living too, and it was costly and dangerous to acquire and transport slaves from Africa to America. Then, you had to house and feed the slaves. Needless to say, this was not free.
Then, you had to maintain some level of security. Security personnel and equipment weren’t cheap then, as they’re not cheap now. The slaves weren’t a population of workers who were “happy to have the job.” These were people working against their will. Since their labor was coerced, often their work was understandably of substandard quality. They were often, but not always, unmotivated to work for their owners. As it turns out, an economy dependent for a large part on slavery is not a viable economic system. If there had not been a Civil War in America, slavery wouldn’t have lasted beyond 1890.