A Club in the Hand is Worth...

I have always been intrigued by the phrase, "compassionate conservatism."

We're not seeing much of it in the run-up to the November elections. All the headlines seem to be garnered by angry Tea Party candidates and semi-hopeful Republicans looking for a little coattail action. The theme this year is much more about "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore" than about any real substantive proposals for effecting helpful solutions. But, hey, it has always been easier to shout down what you're against than it is to define what you're for.

Nowhere is this vitriolic approach more evident than in the call to repeal 2009's health care reform law. Noam Levey, writing for the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau, notes that "many Republican leaders have enthusiastically embraced the call to revise the healthcare legislation, vowing to 'repeal and replace' the law in the next congressional session....The Republican Party thinks it has a winning position in denouncing the unpopular mandate that will require Americans to get health insurance starting in 2014." (See the full story here.)

Of course, this has resulted in a campaign contribution boon for GOP candidates from the nation's largest health insurers. Levey notes that campaign contributions from the industry to the major party candidates and their political action committees are flowing 3-1 in favor of the Republicans. This is a major shift from 2009, when the insurers were actually in favor of the pending Democratic legislation, and the money flowed the other way.

(Why, you ask? They actually like it that the new law requires Americans to purchase health insurance. More premiums, better bonuses, get it?)

But then a terrible thing happened...the nasty Dems decided that not only should people be required to purchase health insurance, but that it should be affordable and it should cover everybody...even those who might actually GET SICK while they are on the plan!

And children-- well, they're the worst. If they get sick, they statistically have much longer to live, and could theoretically be in for many, many more payments from their health insurer over the course of their little lifetimes. And, since the new legislation prohibits insurers from dropping sick children AND no longer allows them to set lifetime limits on coverage, BI (Big Insurance) is suddenly all about that "repeal and replace" strategy.

Interestingly, the part they don't want to repeal is the mandate that everybody has to buy coverage. They just want to have the option to get rid of the nasty, silly sick people. And especially those damn kids!

Again, from Levey's article: "The health reform law did not deliver the uninsured in the way that insurers wanted," said veteran healthcare analyst Sheryl Skolnick, senior vice president at CRT Capital Group. Some insurers have said recently they will stop selling some policies rather than comply with the mandate to insure sick children. (emphasis mine)

Yeah...just club 'em in the head while they're young, before they can take up the precious resources of the tribe!

I sometimes get the feeling that I have fallen asleep and am experiencing a nasty, twisted dream in which the America I grew up in has totally slipped away and has been replaced by a nation of unwitting sheep being herded by profiteering shepherds and their spineless, witless wonders-- the politicians.

Only then I realize it's not a dream, after all.