ObamaCare, Then Amnesty, Then…

David C. Stolinsky, MD
April 5, 2010

There are two ways to look at an event. One is to see it in isolation and analyze it. The other way is to see it in context. Is it unique, or one in a series? Is it an outlier, or part of a trend? Does it represent an isolated effort, or is it one more tooth on a ratchet? That is, does it exemplify yet another step in an inexorable process − a process of tightening, like the ratchet on handcuffs?

ObamaCare will be hugely expensive, just how expensive no one knows. Like Medicare, early estimates of its cost are too low by far. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, proponents estimated that by 1990 it would cost $12 billion. In fact, in 1990 it cost $107 billion. That is, the real cost was nine times higher than the estimate, and costs are still increasing.

ObamaCare will be severely restrictive of the freedom of patients and their doctors. Doctors will sooner or later no longer be the patients’ doctors, but the government’s doctors. He who pays the piper calls the tune. President Obama as been quite frank about his plans to restrict care, especially for the elderly: “If we’ve got experts that are advising doctors that the pacemaker will save money...” And he has been equally frank about hip replacements for the elderly: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” Only the willfully deaf did not hear him.

ObamaCare will lead to rationing of care. It provides not one penny for training more doctors, nurses or medical technicians. It does not require a Ph.D. in economics to see that more demand plus no more providers equals long lines and denied care. In fact, ObamaCare includes about a half trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare.

And speaking of more demand, this brings us to the subject of amnesty. There are an estimated 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, though no one knows the true number. With the possible exception of cap-and-tax, the next item on the Democratic Party agenda is amnesty. When asked whether his health-care plan would include illegal immigrants, President Obama answered simply, “No.” But what, if anything, does his “no” mean? Obama has repeatedly stated his intention to place illegal immigrants on the path to citizenship.

Then we have the courts. It is easy to predict what will happen when ObamaCare begins to provide care. Immigrant-rights groups will bring an illegal family − man, wife, cute kids, elderly grandparents − to seek care. As soon as they are turned down, a case will be filed before a carefully chosen, liberal federal judge. He will promptly issue an order requiring illegal immigrants to be covered by ObamaCare.

Naturally, the administration will not appeal the order. Through this back-door approach, the president can say, “We must obey the courts − we’re a nation of laws.”

Democrats would like nothing better than to ram amnesty through Congress, the way they rammed through ObamaCare. This is likely to happen, perhaps before the November elections. Democrats fear losing their overwhelming majorities, so they may rush to enact as much of their agenda as possible. But even if amnesty is not enacted by Congress, judges can make illegals eligible for ObamaCare.

Proponents of amnesty repeat incessantly that illegal immigrants are a boon to the economy. California has the most illegals − why is it not enjoying prosperity instead of being effectively bankrupt? Talk to teachers in overcrowded, failing schools. Talk to clerks in overcrowded unemployment offices. Talk to social workers in overcrowded welfare offices. Talk to doctors and nurses in overcrowded public hospitals. Talk to officials in charge of California jails and prisons, which are so overcrowded that thousands of prisoners must be released before their sentences have been served. Then tell me about the beneficial effects of illegal immigration.

Liberals talk endlessly about making income distribution more “fair.” But this means taking from the productive and giving to the less productive or unproductive. Liberals −which today means leftists − are uninterested in producing more wealth; they are interested only in redistributing existing wealth to their voting bloc. They are uninterested in baking a larger pie; they are interested only in buying votes with a larger slice.

The same principle applies in other areas. Slavery was ended in 1865, and segregation was ended in the 1960s. After all these years, African Americans have finally moved to the front of the line. But what do their “friends” the Democrats do? They bring in tens of millions of immigrants, many of them illegal, and push them to the front of the line. And why shouldn’t they? Over 90% of black Americans vote Democratic. The Democrats can take them for granted, and allow immigrants to jump the line.

I live in an area with a great deal of home construction. Here in California, the crews are almost all Hispanic, with an occasional “Anglo.” I can’t recall the last time I saw a black construction worker. Most of the workers speak little or no English.

Los Angeles County−U.S.C. Medical Center is the major public hospital in this area. The clinic waiting room used to be filled with a mixture of African Americans and whites, with some Latinos and a few Asians. Now the waiting room is overflowing with Latinos, with more Asians and only a few whites and African Americans.

But where did the black patients go? Are they all now middle class, and immune to the recession? Or have they been pushed out of their neighborhoods, their schools and their hospitals? Consider a black man who served his country in the armed forces, but now has been laid off when he reached age 50? Why should he have to wait in line for medical care, behind people who only recently arrived in the country and have contributed little?

This is equivalent to stealing the Sunday collection from the African Methodist Episcopal Church, then handing out the money to Latinos − while posing as the most charitable person since Mother Teresa. It reminds me of an old saying:

He who gives away what isn’t his’n
Must give it back or go to prison.

Tell me this isn’t an accurate description of Democratic Party policy in recent years. And now 10 to 20 million illegals will be pushed to the front of the line, with the expectation that the large majority will become grateful Democratic voters. How’s that for “fair”?

We had an amnesty in 1986. The amnesty was enacted; the promised border controls never materialized. Now we are told we will have another amnesty, and that border controls will be tightened. Of course, the result will be the same as in 1986 − we will get the amnesty without the controls.

And with ObamaCare in effect, and drug-related violence afflicting Mexico, one need not be clairvoyant to foresee that the United States will become an even stronger magnet for immigration, both legal and illegal.

The first amnesty might have been a good idea, if the promised border controls had been put in place. But a second amnesty will surely lead people everywhere to conclude that we have lost control of our borders − and have no intention of getting it back. A nation without secure borders is not a real nation, but merely an area where disparate people mill about, pursuing their conflicting goals.

President Obama admitted that he views America as exceptional only in the sense that people everywhere view their own nations as exceptional. But if all nations are exceptional, none is. And Obama is doing his best to bring that about. ObamaCare and amnesty are two milestones along the road to mediocrity − mediocrity marked by moral, economic and military weakness.

Liberals admire Europe and are well on their way to making us resemble Europe:

● Crushing debt.

● Bloated public-employees unions.

● Centralized control of virtually every aspect of life.

● Nanny-like intrusiveness.

● Regulations that kill jobs and stifle initiative.

● Rationed health care doled out by a parentified government to infantilized recipients.

● Unassimilated immigrants who have little loyalty to the nation.

● Dependent subjects instead of self-reliant citizens.

● Armed forces too weak to do anything but stage occasional parades.

● Absence of a Bill of Rights, or any other limit on governmental power.

● Absence of an uplifting national or individual purpose. Unlike advancing the cause of freedom and human dignity, a longer vacation is not an inspiring goal.

It’s easy to be unexceptional. All you need to do is be like everyone else. Being exceptional is more difficult. The first requirement is to want to be exceptional.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com