I do have some issues with the article, though. While doing an excellent job of defining the Ruling Class and laying out just how pernicious they are, it also warns that if the country class isn’t careful, they can and will be just as oppressive and overbearing as the current ruling class. Such is the danger of revolution, I suppose. The author writes,

Suppose that the Country Party (whatever its name might be) were to capture Congress, the presidency, and most statehouses. What then would it do? Especially if its majority were slim, it would be tempted to follow the Democrats’ plan of 2009-2010, namely to write its wish list of reforms into law regardless of the Constitution and enact them by partisan majorities supported by interest groups that gain from them, while continuing to vilify the other side. Whatever effect this might have, it surely would not be to make America safe for self-governance because by carrying out its own “revolution from above” to reverse the ruling class’s previous “revolution from above,” it would have made that ruinous practice standard in America. Moreover, a revolution designed at party headquarters would be antithetical to the country class’s diversity as well as to the American Founders’ legacy.

Of course, this is why the Founders strove so vehemently for a strong Constitution in the first place. We think of American government primarily as a system of checks and balances, and right we are to do so, but the most important checks are not between judcial, legislative, and executive. They are, in fact, the checks between a strong Federal government and the rights of individual states (and citizens) to govern themselves. The Constitution had a number of these checks built right in. Unfortunately, they have been eroded ever so carefully to give the Ruling Class more and more power.

Achieving the country class’s inherently revolutionary objectives in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with its own diversity would require the Country Party to use legislation primarily as a tool to remove obstacles, to instruct, to reintroduce into American life ways and habits that had been cast aside. Passing national legislation is easier than getting people to take up the responsibilities of citizens, fathers, and entrepreneurs.

If nothing else, the most important thing to do to thwart the Ruling Class will be to somehow strengthen the Constitution against encroachments of governmental power and then return to the states the powers they once enjoyed before the elastic clause, commerce clause, and general welfare clause were bent and warped to allow the tyranny which we, as Americans, now willingly bear.

“Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother.” Bunk: H.R. 3200 would pay for end-of-life consultations that Medicare doesn’t cover now. No one has to get such consultations, but 75% of seniors say such consultations are important. Plus, they would help save money as seniors would be able to give clear instructions on what care they want in case they are unable to communicate those desires in the hospital. Gee, sounds like increasing patient rights to me.

What gets people upset about this and why they feel like Obamacare is inherently uncaring towards seniors is what we see in the bill starting on page 425:

Such [advanced care planning] consultation shall include the following:

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

Meaning, a government yayhoo is gonna visit your grandparent and explain what benefits are covered by their magnanimous government health care plan. Okay… doesn’t sound THAT bad… as long as the care you want is on the pre-approved list, and assuming there is availability for care you want. What else will this “consultation” include?

(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders

The crux of the issue is that YOU lose the ability to choose what care you want. Instead, it will be distributed by government fiat. (More on that later.) That means, that when the care YOU WANT is not available, you will have someone there to explain what IS available. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to express disagreement with such a program.

That said, it is certainly wrong to descend into demogoguery to make one’s point… but the Democrats don’t ever do that.

Moving on…

“Myth 2: The government — i.e., you — will have to pay for abortions.“ I hear Senator John Thune is perpetuating this lie in his written responses to constituent questions (anyone with a such a letter, please scan and forward!). There is no abortion language in the pending legislation—or if there is by the time you read this, it’s likely keester-covering amendments from legislators pandering to the anti-abortion crowd. And you know what? If you have employer-based insurance, there’s an 87% chance you’re already paying for abortions.

Even you, CAH, have to be smart enough to know that there doesn’t HAVE to be any abortion language in the bill in order for abortions to be covered under public or NIE-approved plans. Abortion is still legal in the U.S.

Now, as far as paying for abortions, one solution put forward by opponents of Obamacare is to make it easier for individuals to select their own insurance plans directly from the insurance provider instead of having to be part of a group insurance plan through their employer. Why does that matter? Well, there are mutual funds available that promise not to invest in companies that disagree with a certain set of religious values. So, leave it up to the consumer. Let them do the research, and if they want to purchase insurance from a provider that promises not to pay for an abortion, then let them.

But it is a fact that the government will have to pay for abortions if there is no language in the bill concerning them. You’ve done nothing to “debunk” that “myth.”

“Myth 3: Obama will ban all private health insurance.” I had this lie nailed the moment it came out. Mullen backs me up; PolitiFact shouts “Liar liar pants on fire!”… and John Walker still hasn’t apologized or retracted his lies. Such are the tactics of professed “patriots” who can’t win with the truth.

Okay, let’s see if we can leave the name-calling aside for a second and talk about page 16. You are right that page 16 does not ipso facto ban private insurance… the bill would never ever be passed if it did that. So, instead, what it says is that a private insurer can’t enroll anyone on policies that don’t mesh with standards of the National Insurance Exchange.

What does that mean? It means that your “options”, if you lose your job, are to enroll in the public plan or a government-run, NIE-approved “private” plan. Here is where it should be noted that Obama has already promised to control the premiums that private insurers can charge for insurance. The NIE is how that will be done. Calling that a “private” option is like calling Fannie Mae a “private” corporation. It simply isn’t true.

As much as we’d like to think so, we aren’t the first country to try this. Obamacare isn’t actually all that new. I know you went to Harvard, Cory, but I guess they didn’t teach you about the history of the British Welfare State. You know, the period of British history that they have a picture of when you look up “Welfare State” in the dictionary.

So, here’s what happened. Early in the 20th century, The British instituted a “public” health care option. Amazingly, that didn’t seem to fix anything. In fact, the National Insurance Act of 1911 was supposed to create a budget surplus. Of course, it didn’t… medical costs went up and eventually the government created the National Health Service. Ask your nearest Brit how well that’s worked out. (HINT: Not well.)

“Myth 4: The government can’t possibly run a healthcare program.“ Enemies of health care reform like to make vague accusations of how the government can’t run anything right. They ignore facts like the Veterans Administration’s recognized position as the best health care in America. They ignore the fact that the VA outscores private-sector health care on independent studies of customer satisfaction. They ignore the fact that lots of the folks yelling at the town halls are on Medicare and don’t want to give up their government-run health coverage. They ignore reality.

Firstly, the debate is still out about whether or not veterans’ care is all that great. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that Bush APOLOGIZED for the sub-par standards at Walter Reed Medical Center (i.e. the place Iraqi war vets go after being wounded by islamofascists.) But hey, don’t take my word for it. Listen to the vets that had to stay there:

ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMY DUNCAN: It wasn’t fit for anyone to live in room like that. weaker immune system. The black mold can do damage to people, the holes in the walls.

TARA MERGENER, CNN REPORTER: Eye opening testimony from a soldier as he describes conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

DUNCAN: I wouldn’t live there even if I had to.

MERGENER: Weeks after a news report exposed problems at Walter Reed, from run down rooms to rats, Congress held its first hearing on the scandal Monday — allowing patients and family members to air their grievances.

ANNETTE MCLEOD, WIFE OF SOLDIER: My life was ripped apart when my husband was injured, but then having to live through the mess that we lived through at Walter Reed has been worse than anything I’ve ever sacrificed in my life.

MERGENER: According to a memo that recently surfaced, the Army knew about substandard conditions for months. The fallout has triggered the resignation of the secretary of the army and the firing of the hospitals top commander.

MAJ. GEN. GEORGE WEIGHTMAN, FMR. COMMANDER, WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER: It is clear mistakes were made and I was in charge. You can not fail one of these soldiers and their families, not one, and we did.

MERGENER: But for many, an admission of failure is not enough.

STAFF SGT. JOHN DANIEL SHANNON: I don’t know how things work, but in combat we don’t get to resign when bullets are flying.

REP JOHN TIERNEY (D) MASSACHUSETTS: There appears to be a pattern here. First deny, then try to cover up this case. There appears to be a pattern here.

MERGENER: The White House is vowing to look into the allegations and find out if similar conditions exist at other facilities.

Where do we get to sign up for that? Oh man, this VA stuff sounds really awesome!

Rep. Tim Bishop got an earfull when he tried to make this argument that the VA is great!

MAN #1:  Are you a veteran?

BISHOP:  No, I’m not.

MAN #1:  Have you ever been there?  Have you ever been there as a vet?  Okay, well, I have.  And if I want to see a doctor, I don’t want to have to wait months.  Do you know that?

AUDIENCE: Yeah! (applause)

BISHOP: Sir…

MAN #2: I’ve been there for years and you want to tell me how they run?

BISHOP:  Sir, I understand the anger.

MAN #2:  I’ll probably die in their hospital, so don’t lecture us that you know that the VA is an efficient medical system.  It’s a very difficult system.  It’s nothing to be proud of.

BISHOP: Shh! Sir? Sir! I am sorry, but I am proud of the VA.

MAN:  Well, I’m not because I have (garbled).

Sounds like the VA hospitals are gonna be so great! Can’t wait until all the hospitals are as efficient and well-maintained as the VA hospitals!

“Myth 5: Unlike private insurance, government bureaucrats will ration care.”

Listen. I’m not sure if they taught you basic economics at Harvard, but here’s a quick lesson.

Quality medical care is a scarce resource. There is not enough supply of quality medical care to meet the needs and wants of every person who wants quality medical care. This means that if you want a routine medical procedure for something that isn’t life-threatening, you have to weigh the inherent monetary cost of the procedure. Sometimes this is offset by an insurance provider, sometimes it’s not. But regardless, quality medical care is not an unlimited resource. That is a fact. And somehow, decisions must be made about whether quality medical resources are used to treat someone’s cancer or removing that boyle on your foot. Prices are what should help do this.

With a given population and a given amount of quality medical care rationing without prices would HAVE to take place by bureaucratic fiat, political favoritism, or random chance. Such is the case of a Canadian town that has a lottery (!) to determine who gets to be the new patient of the local GP. Don’t forget about Oregon where they recently had a lottery to determine who would benefit from state-subsidized insurance.

The FACT is that if patients, insurers, and doctors don’t determine how medical care is rationed (through the instantaneous communication medium of prices), then the bureaucrats will. Unless you’re willing to accede that Obamacare will really be Lotterycare.

Now, given the above arguments, are you still stuck on this silly notion of calling people “liars” who disagree with you? We’ll see…