The Hidden Face Of "Fairness"

Well, as Nancy Pelosi promised us, now that the ObamaCare health care finance “reform” bill is passed, we can all see what ‘s in it. (Understanding what a bill says before it becomes law is so passe’.) And we’re seeing just how “fairness” will be played out.

Remember, back during the campaign, when Obama promised that if you like your plan, you can keep it? Well, there was a little footnote to that — if you wanna keep your really, really good plan, you can expect to pay a hell of a lot more for that. High-end insurance plans have been given the name “Cadillac plans,” and those who have them can expect to end up paying a “Cadillac tax” on that plan.

The first thought I had was that the Obama administration didn’t think things things through as usual. They now own General Motors, which includes Cadillac, and it’s really not very bright to immediately start linking their flagship marque with such negative associations. But then again, hardly any of the Obama administration has ever run a business bigger than a lemonade stand, so their ignorance is understandable.

The second thought is that this is a classic example of applied socialism and the quest for “equality” and “fairness” — even in results. As a way of flattening the curve and moving everyone closer to the median, they simultaneously lift up the bottom and drag down the top.

This is the secret of socialism: equality is enforced, all across the board. None are allowed to fail, and none are allowed to succeed too much. Everything is a zero-sum game. If you do well, it must be done at the expense of someone else. And the primary role of government is to make certain that no one goes too far out of the government-defined norm — at either end.

That’s the future of health care financing under Obama. A certain minimum standard, coupled with constraints on the maximum. The more you want, the more you’re willing to pay, the greater the surcharge the government will put on you for the privilege. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The more you can contribute, the more you will be required to contribute. The more you need, the more you will be given.

Lost in the turmoil will be any incentive to demonstrate exceptional ability or resources or knowledge or skills. Because they will not do you a damned bit of good. No, the best place to be in such a structure is right around the middle, not working harder for no personal gain, not taking too much as to be seen as a burden when the inevitable collapse comes.

Socialism is a Procrustean economic structure, where misery is seen as a resource and is distributed to make everyone equally miserable.

And gosh, won’t that be fun when applied to health care.

Matthews has conniption over Rush's use of the word regime
Next he'll edit out references to Mohammed from Ramadan