Silence is sometimes more meaningful than words. This is true for a funeral. It is also true when irreparable damage has been inflicted on your country. At these moments, there really is nothing to say because saying nothing says it all. Do you understand my respite?

The day after the 2008 presidential election, I blogged that life goes on. I would keep reading, smoking cigars, listening to music, and drinking champagne. Politics doesn't define my happiness. And a presidential election doesn't foreordain the next four years. Hawk Nixon opened up China, ended conscription, and removed America from Vietnam. Liberal Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and pushed welfare reform. Peacemakers Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt waged war. Warmonger Ronald Reagan made peace. You don't always get what you expect.

For his first fourteen months in office, Barack Obama's ineptitude prevented him from inflicting serious, long term, irreversible damage to the United States. The health care-welfare bill signed into law Tuesday is different. It's the toothpaste that won't go back into the tube, no matter how many attorneys general file suit against the federal government or congressional candidates run on its repeal. We have crossed the Rubicon.

Conservatives of the 1910s, 1930s, and 1960s must have felt the same way, and perhaps crossed at a deeper and wider point, when the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare and Medicaid became law. Their progeny, unfortunately, became defenders, to one degree or another, of the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare and Medicaid that their forebears had stood athwart. And so it will be with this. You will understand when I become even more alienated from people who call themselves "conservative" twenty years hence. I can see it now. When some further encroachment of the state upon private transactions is proposed, they will oppose it on the grounds that it might imperil the gains made through the Great Health Care Reform of 2010. This is how it works, folks. If you don't believe me, rewind the tape and watch just about every Republican leader oppose ObamaCare on the grounds that it would weaken Medicare. I am not a conservative if it means preserving statist victories.

The justice of forcing some people to pay for other people's care, after all, was the prevailing logic behind President Bush's prescription-drug giveaway. The differences are in the degree and not the principle. Presumably, had Bush proposed what Obama just signed, some Republicans would have tripped over one another to announce their support in front of the nearest camera. This isn't just bare supposition. When Mitt Romney advanced a proto-ObamaCare in Massachusetts, not just Republicans, but conservative outfits partook in disgraceful mental gymnastics to proclaim the plan--which also fascistically compelled people to buy health insurance and subsidize coverage for people making under a certain amount of money--a free-market reform. To quote the great rhetorician John Boehner, "Hell, no!"

To the party's eternal credit, every Republican opposed this assault on the land of the free and promotion of the land of the freeloader. The Republican Party batted 1.000. Ted Williams only batted .406. You don't get better than perfect. That said, their below-the-Mendoza-line batting average during the Bush years--on Iraq, the prescription drug giveaway, the bailouts--led us to this point. No George W. Bush, no Barack Obama; no Barack Obama, no government takeover of health care.

Sorry if my pessimist's outlook does not offer hope for erasing the events of the last few days. Pessimism does provide the wisdom that however bad things seem now, they can always get worse. Believe liberals when they say this is only step one in reforming American health care. Today, forced health insurance and 32 million dependent on government for what they should be responsible for; tomorrow, the public option and single payer.

Like your typical college date rapist, liberals don't get "no." Whether the politician seeking to screw the American people was named Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Bill Clinton, he didn't take "no" for an answer on health-care-as-welfare. They will persist. And just like your typical college date rapist, they deem "no" the obscenity rather than they act they seek to force upon the unwilling party. People who can't say "no" are gluttonous, compulsive, out-of-control, other-directed. "No" is not a four-letter word. People who use it control themselves rather than get controlled by others.

With that in mind, it's time for previously uninvolved Americans to get involved. Not for catharsis, but become active to elect office seekers who respect limited, constitutional government. Volunteer for a campaign. Contribute money to a candidate. Join a tea-party group and make trouble for any congressman who voted to make your life more troublesome. Do this not under the illusion that Republicans will reverse this mess. Do this because liberals mean it when they say that this reform is means and not end. Most conservatives, understandably, prefer living their lives to political involvement--let alone running other people's lives. But with fanatics not allowing you to live your life, but forcing you to live and work for another's health care, mortgage payment, student loan, grocery bill, rent, etc., it's difficult not to hear the call. Do something, or somebody will do something to you.

Now why should the GOP fund this? If the GOP doesn't kill this monster than they are dead.

I fear the future Obamao steps:

CAP and Trade
More taxes
Elimination of our nuclear arsenal
Gays in the military
The destruction of state's rights (such as they are)

So beautiful, Dan. Thank you.

"It's the toothpaste that won't go back into the tube, no matter how many attorneys general file suit against the federal government..."

I still hold out hope here. Isn't there a more than even chance that Kennedy, and therefore, the Supreme Court will find the coerced purchasing of health insurance unconstitutional, even under the wide interpretation of the commerce clause? I think so. And if that part of the bill is struck down, the bill is essentially gutted.

At any rate, with this many States filing suit, it is certain to make its way to the Supreme Court. What a landmark case that will be.

What is the Mendoza line? And what does it mean to be below it?

Personally, I've always supported the war in Iraq. No apologies there. I've tried to understand Mr. Flynn's opposition on it, but I just can't. Like liberals, he just can't seem to form an argument without rewriting history, and claiming eternal victimhood for having the "courage" to oppose it while people called him nasty names.

I like Dan. I even met him once. But he seems to have a serious problem with logic when it comes to issues of national security.

By the way, Reagan made peace by winning, not surrendering.

Dan Flynn as...the fourth Dixie Chick? Think about it!

I know that one of the reasons (and only ONE of the reasons) that the Marxist who is sitting in the Oval Office now was elected is that the American people were unhappy with Bush. But contrary to the reasons why many Conservatives were unhappy with him, was the general derangement syndrome stoked by the Democrats, their whores in Hollywood and in an ever present main stream electronic and print media that were believed by a majority of the masses.

Even The One would not have faired well if given the exposure and constant hammering by the overwhelmingly liberal media that he most certainly deserved. But that was never going to happen and the opposite was in fact true, adding to his success.

Now, even with the masks off the high ranking Democrats showing them for the radical leftists that they most certainly are, the media is covering for them. Those really paying attention get it, but how many still think the faults of the world are due to those mean nasty old Republicans and Conservatives? It's unfortunate that 30 years of liberally based public and university education have many not knowing any other way.

What's scary is that, overall, the following is what the left really believes and has put into practice with this Tax and Control Healthcare monstrosity:

"Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." - Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)

Btw - the bill is back in the House after some wrangling over the provision to have the government take over all student loans and with all of the other crap jammed into it (which apparently nobody took the time to read), they neglected to add language that would allow for pre-condition coverage for kids.

Talk about the gang that couldn't shoot straight!! These people are not only out of control but as dumb as a bag of hammers.

As our "Vice President" Biden said at the signing, "This is a big f'king deal".

When are the adults coming back?

From Social Security to Health Care Reform. Is this a great country or what?

Guido

Yeah, I must admit Ben the evidence is overwhelming the war in Iraq has been a great success. Billions of dollars, thousands of American lives. Very clever Ben a page out of the liberal play book by infering if you are against the war in Iraq your a "gutless" Dixie chick. If your against affirmative action your a racist. If your against government health care you don't want people to have opportunities to get health care. If your pro-life your against women. If you believe in borders and are against illegal immigration. Well then you hate immigrants. Etc. I think when gets the picture when one goes down that path of thinking. And Ben are you enlisting in the military anytime soon. Let me assume your answer something you are very good at. No. Gutless?

Mr Flynn, I have to applaud you for a few things, such as not mentioning the oft misused word "socialism" once in this post (perhaps the exact opposite of a freeloader is a socialist who owns his own means of production, and it is truly refreshing to know that at least one other person is aware of this). I also whole-heartedly agree that the antics of both parties concerning this bill and similar bills have been painful to watch. Nevertheless, I do have to disagree with you.

For example, I'd like you to look at your insurance coverage for this past year, and compare it to the ones you had from the previous 3 years. The increases in premiums and monthly costs you see is the result of loose restriction capitalism run amok, and have nothing to do with market trends or other economic indicators; it has to do only with greed. By proposing that the US not regulate the practice of these companies, you have allowed that "four letter word" to happen to you, merely with a different actor. However, you seem to be advocating that no one say "no", not even the victim (or perhaps that if the victim is not able to afford it, they somehow deserve it?)

As I'm sure you know, lack of regulation in markets are why millions of Americans are currently out of work. A cornerstone of unrestricted capitalism is to never say "no" if it can bring in more money, and to an unrestricted market it does not matter where that money comes from (cost cuts, lay-offs, price hikes, etc.). I'm truly surprised that you didn't mention in your post the anti-trust laws passed in the early years of the century; but I'm positive even someone with the position you have can see the use for at least some of those reforms. Such laws are in place to prevent the companies from pursuing profits at the expense of the rest of the country, particularly its customers. Why, then, do you seem to believe that we should fully unchain corporations before they attack our wallets?

Like you, I disagree with the mandate on health care for all. That is blatantly wrong; it is NEVER a government's place to protect the individual from themselves. But to attack the government for attempting to fix a system that has no desire to fix itself (out of fear of decreased profits) for the protection of all, not just the uninsured, is to attack your defender. Hobbes wrote that we give up rights to the government (though he wrote about a monarch) so that the government can protect those rights and our property. Rather than the government not being able to say "no" to those who cannot help themselves, would it not be better to allow the government to attack the companies who can't say "no" to driving profits at the expense of those they should be serving? They see regulation as the "four letter word" not because of the national budget, concern for constitutional freedoms, or an ideological view of government's purpose, but because it will limit the way that they "four letter word" their customers, possibly shrinking their swollen wallets. The word "No" does not exist in their vocabulary, and you wish to defend them?

As I'm sure you are aware, the only people who will be unduly taxed to pay for the regulations are those individuals who have plans that are approaching the rate one would have to pay for uninsured health care (including certain prescriptions). While unfortunate for them, there is nevertheless nothing preventing those people from also taking advantage of the changes in regulation; after all, I would be very surprised that someone with such a "Cadillac" plan would require more coverage than, say, someone with a pre-existing condition. And a large chunk of the bill will be paid by the companies that represent the real heart of the issue, those companies that drive the cost of medical care so high to begin with: big pharma, big insurance, and big Med supply. While it is a stupid expense during the time in which the country can afford it least, it is nevertheless a necessary intervention to bring to an end the excesses of the companies that millions of Americans rely on (indeed, what you refer to as a responsibility) to do something as basic as help us maintain our health.

While I liked your book "Morons", I'm sad to see that you don't see the government as I thought you did: that the sole role of the government is to protect the citizens from those who would unduly limit our freedoms; for me, those include the organizations who have made themselves essential but who don't know how to say "No" when it comes to yours and my freedoms.

My apologize about the beginning of my previous comment, for I made a mistake. To clarify: while socialists do own their own means of production, what I intended to construe (and, admittedly, failed utterly) was that a "textbook" socialist society is one owns all its own production/services. By comparison, this current plan maintains the private insurance structure which is based on an open market capitalist system, though it does place regulations on it and open it to more people.

Ben,

Mario Mendoza was a baseball player in the 70's who hit around a .200 average. Thus, below the Mendoza line wasn't a good thing.

Daniel,
Las Vegas

Actually I think it is very likely this will be repealed. There is precedent for something being repealed. This is prohibition. It won't be "Conservatives" or "Liberals" who repeal this. It will be done for the same reasons that prohibition was likely repealed. The costs of the program will simply outweigh the benefits.

Unfortunately the people who forced this through were guided by ideology rather than common sense. The program will be enormously costly for the Government to administer. Employers will have to spend large sums of money simply to comply with this monstrosity. The quality and availabilty of health care will decrease dramitcally for all. For example, most people have access to emergency care if they need it already. Under this program the people this was supposed to cover will likely have to wait longer to get health care of a lower quality than what they currently have. Not only that but the costs of such health care in the form of taxes will likley rise dramatically.

Due to increased costs and decreased quality of care for all the people will eventually demand that this program be repealed. In spite of one of the slickest propaganda spiels of all time in favor of Obamacare, it still seems to be massively unpopular.

Finally, it may not even be the American people who repeal this. Our foreign creditors may demand it. I don't see any of them being willing to foot the bill on this. Of course the Government could start by cutting costs in the easiest manner possible. This is by cutting military spending. After all the military contractors do not have the powerful lobbies that many other groups have.

Reading AP's comment made me feel a bit of hope. Even this dungeon of mediocrity, where divisiveness equals profit, and where profit equals moral virtue, there are still thinking beings who sift Dan's distortions through the filter of reason and philosophy.

Having said that, I actually thought Dan's post was beautiful. It had a tragic sincerity to it. It bears the signature of a man who believes what he says. And here I thought Dan was trading integrity for conservative coins when he actually feels liberty is at stake.

What Dan may not know -- for we are all blind to our own righteous errors -- is that his very indignation is a call to arms to those forces he opposes.

I don't speak empty rhetoric. When I would watch a repugnant conservative on television hurl invectives at minorities, or proudly boast Confederate values against the "Yankee War of aggression," I got off my couch and I acted. I called my congressmen, and those in other districts; I pleaded that they resist these antiquated, vicious souls. Please pass health reform! When I would stumble on this blog only to find a community of ignorance being fostered, I felt only the need to counter with light and truth.

It wasn't always this way. Conservatives weren't always the poster children for racists, crackers, and boobs -- some of them articulated a path through the wilderness.

In my opinion, the unforgivable error that Dan Flynn makes is that in his ardent study of history, in his passionate love for the constitution, in his cherished love of country for which he served proudly in uniform -- in all of these noble pursuits, he has yet to acknowledge the one true enemy for which the conservative impulse has no ready answer.

An ever-changing, evolving, malleable universe that has already stubbornly refused to obey his model of reality. We live in an age where technology and globalization have altered everything about modern life. Just the internet, population changes, and energy crisis should give Dan pause as he daydreams of the America that was once protected, isolated, high off the fumes of mom's Apple pie.

Oh would it were possible that we could return to the agrarian utopia that would ease Flynn's anxiety. When we could be proud self-made men of the frontier, never beholden to another man.
Oh that we were all born to take initiative with the same opportunities, that we were born with equal ambition, talent, and luck.

Perhaps my best friend was a freeloader when he wanted chemotherapy right before he died. How dare he? Shouldn't he earn his way to fight terminal illness, or must be get his medicine at the expense of my labor. Were my heart and mind atrophied to cold black stones, I suppose this would be an adequate philosophy. But it is not. And I dare conjecture that the heart of America -- from the moment we envisioned our Republic -- was beating to a very difference cadence than can be found in this lifeless blog. America -- as Dan should know -- never leaves a man behind.

But in Dan's world, the government is not "we the people," but they, the conspiratorial forces that interfere with our lives.
And yet in such a world I imagine I don't hear the loud blaring of the garbage man outside, or have to take the 405 to work, or seek protection of my assets through various trappings of government. These are superficial things perhaps, but in this ever-increasing population, we are truly kindred spirits. I see my government not as the harbinger of darkness that Glenn Beck sees, but rather my friend who is indeed an extension of myself. So to see the government and its intentions as Dan does, one must exercise the most precise and dogmatic selective memory. He must not recognize all those goods and services the government renders, but instead focus only on those instances of governmental overstepping that should make his case.

I see a benevolent body elected by the people where Dan see foreboding shadows ready to rob him of book royalties. If I see fault in society, I often find them the shadows where government has not shown its beacon of light. The crimes of Wall street, the abuses of the insurance industry, and the unforgivable hijacking of congress by special interests -- these are all moral crimes perpetrated by the private sector that Dan esteems as the God of our country, the savior of every and any problem.

My government is not as evil as Dan's, for in most instances I find myself in agreement with its intention, for it was created for my benefit, with my welfare in mind. Those things for which I can not do for myself, my government proudly does. And it does so because I have ordered it so; it does so because I govern it.

When you understand that, your curious strain of libertarianism might lose some of the conspiratorial negativism. I really don't want to have to personally inspect all my medicine for poison; nor do I want brutes to rob me, whether foreign or domestic. And so I gladly give of my own profits so that my partner -- the government -- can assist me as I pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

And I must tell you, folks. I submit to you that nothing assures me of this happiness than my very own health. As I am not a physician, and as I am subjected to the anxieties and untested dangers of the modern era, I should value very much that the government help me with this most important of values.

And so on the day that Dan weeps, I rejoice. On the day he calls you to action to reverse your own liberty -- under the guise that it is oppression -- I take him up on his offer, yet muster all his enthusiasm to fight his own vitriol.

And so folks, I remind you only that you reap what you sow. In the recent escalation of partisan war, conservatives took off their masks and revealed grotesque, selfish, ignorant, hateful faces. In so doing, the country rose against them as a proud nation will whenever confronted with a true enemy.

We are better than you think, Dan Flynn. We are more noble and passionate than you give us credit for. This is our government you ridicule, and yes, it is your government.

It is not so much that I have a bleeding heart, but just that I have one. If that means that I hate America, as your book suggests, I will grant only that I hate "your America," the Orwellian nightmare that you conjure every day with a consistent theme that reduces to a simple, barbaric, crude word:

HATE.

It's right over on the margin on your blog, the largest word on your website. That is not an accident, for that is the product you sell here everyday.

And so Dan, it is because of you that I rise again with the strength of a thousand men to resist your lies and distortions. I take you up on your call to duty, but not to serve you -- for you haven't earned that distinction, but to serve my President and my Country.

I invite you to do the same.

Exactly. HATE. As in, WHY THE LEFT HATES AMERICA.

And why does the LEFT hate America? Everything they've done and will do demonstrates a contempt for America, its people and their way of life.

Here we go again. It could easily be argued that government intervention and lack of regulation in certain areas is the reason that healthcare costs are as high as they. So be it. Private healthcare is expensive not because of some kind of corrupt profit motive but because good healthcare is not cheap. You get what you get what you pay for.

The solution IS NOT to have government take over the whole industry. That point has been rendered moot by the corrupted backroom jam down process that the socialist Democrats in the Executive and Legislative branches foisted on us Sunday night.

In terms of the economy that will be directly effected by political policies, we are in for Jimmy Carter like inflation and a Carter like economy here folks. It will be worse because at least Carter was just a liberal fool. Our current lord is a Marxist and will continue to absorb as much of the private sector and replace it with more government takeovers.

The reasons things are so bad is not because of the private sector and those evil industrialists, as much as the O and his band of big spenders would have an obtuse public believe. This administration is scaring the stuffing out of the private sector, slowing it and in many cases causing it evaporate.

A good current example of the melding of how big G programs can ruin an economy is with the medical device industry in Massachusetts. We happen to have some pretty good medical R&D companies here that employ many of our citizens. After O-care was signed and it was discovered that another 3% tax would be levied on them (not coincidentally, the same amount as their very slim profit margin), a few have said that they can not remain viable and will likely move operations over seas.

And this is just the beginning.

And if you think that Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP and the V.A. hospital systems have been a smashing success, you'll love it when Uncle Barack and his minions are running the whole show.

Wow, James.

Explain to your children or grandchildren someday, when most facets of their life are government controlled, how lucky they are. If they choose to work at all, remind them that their labor is for the greater good, not theirs.

I guess you believe in the old saying "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you".

Not me.

This too is the price of a faux "more compassionate" government. The joke is that the liberals who support this President, this Congress and the all-encompassing social programs they wrought will wake up one day and be eating dog food along with the rest of us. You like European socialism? You got it!

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/03/26/the_vat_cometh

Why is it whenever someone disagrees with James or has an alternate view of the world, he labels them "haters".

It truly amazes me that he can write well thought out posts, simply with a different world view, and then presuppose that those of a different mindset are simply narrow minded and prejudiced. Narrow minded is to label those who disagree with you in such terms. "Oh, ignore their arguments...they're just a bunch of haters who have no heart."

Weak.

Anytime somebody characterizes his opponents as simply ignorant and outmoded with no supporting argument, he doesn't fully believe in his message or its persuasiveness.

Lest anyone think I jested with my remark about the House Minority Leader, I really did think it was a great speech. It got me fired up. The soft-to-loud contrast was like a great song. I didn't think he had it in him.

Methinks that the Republicans are tired of being pushed around by socialists.

Batting 1.000 by voting against this partisan Tax and Control Healthcare obscenity is a start. But maybe Boehner and some of the others have finally realized that there is no playing nice with the opposition as they are ruthless in their aim to push their agenda at all costs.

Even if that agenda means the destruction of the country they purport to represent.

Dude, first I come here and find out about Alex Chilton's death and now this.

You sure know how to harsh a guy's mellow.

Dude, the problem with this country over the last 20 years or so is that too many people are 'mellow' and not paying attention.

That's how it was allowed to happen that the most radically left, incompetent community organizer to get elected to the highest office in the most powerful and consequential country on the planet.

asdf,

I was mostly being facetious.

I understand that our mellow needs harshing sometimes and I really do appreciate that Dan is willing to take on this unpleasant task.

Understood. Just venting. Again!

The reason health insurance is so expensive is because it doesn't operate like actual insurance. Insurance is meant to protect people from risk, but health insurance as it is currently used in the US is really just a health care pre-payment plan. Using your health insurance to pay for a routine doctor's visit? That's like using auto insurance to pay for an oil change. Of course the premiums are going to be high. Furthermore, people are more likely to over-utilize their insurance when they're not paying the cost directly (currently something like 70 or 80% of people with health insurance get it through an employer).

The way to make health care costs come down would be to amend the tax code so health care benefits are no longer tax deductible to employers. Then instead of providing health insurance to employees, employers could just give them more money with which they could purchase their own insurance. If people are paying the premiums directly, they're more likely to use it sparingly to keep premiums down. Or they'll buy something like catastrophic coverage; something with a very high deductible and low premiums.