Obamacare On Life Support*

*Image courtesy of AP Photo/Jae C. Hong.

The insidious healthcare reform being crammed down American throats by the Obama administration has become a dramatically divisive issue in recent days. But this should not be surprising given the scramble by the White House to quell reasonable debate on the issue by maligning protesters. But the resulting sense of uneasiness in Americans only undergirds the argument that the lengthy legislation itself heaps bureaucratic disdain on the individual and his inalienable liberties--after all, if just selling the reform requires that the individual be treated like a disposable statistic, the reform itself will likely do that and much more.

And while few politicians or citizens have actually slogged through this behemoth of dense prose steeped in soft socialistic principles--at the very least, the idea being that an engorged government can decide better than any individual how life ought to be lived, or that distant bureaucrats can care better for patients than immediate medical professionals and family members--the affixed political endorsements or lack thereof by many prominent national organizations is very telling.

For example, the National Association of Pharmaceutical Representatives has admitted the tremendous windfall they stand to reap should the reform pass. The thinking here--and it is likely correct--is that treatment under the new healthcare program will simply mean more medication and less surgery, therapy, and rehabilitation, whether or not this is the best course for patients. Moreover, much of the bill comes down to saved money and quite possibly whatever minimal care the government can get away with using a single-payer system--after all, successful business management is often about cutting unnecessary expenditures, and under the esteemed weight of healthcare reform, many current supporters will undoubtedly be shocked at just what is deemed extraneous to good care when the government is allotting the coinage.

On the other hand, sensing the negative impact this reform will have on Medicare and ailing seniors across the nation, the American Association of Retired Persons has refused to endorse the pending legislation--a course completely opposite the one claimed by President Obama in his recent town hall speech--while the considerable power wielded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been skillfully employed in crafting a noteworthy ad campaign strongly protesting this bait and switch foisted upon Americans by the White House.

More importantly, public outcry has been considerable and frustrated. And no wonder, as grassroots efforts have been mocked as ignorant mob actions while an immediately pressing healthcare crisis is itself manufactured by President Obama as a raison d'etre for such unprecedented reforms. Add to this the shrill complaint of liberal hag Nancy Pelosi and Obama henchman Steny Hoyer that voices of dissent are "simply un-American" and one begins to understand that reasonably concerned Americans are being viciously set up for a catastrophic fall.

And that is the real issue here. Americans rightly expect the majority to be given appropriate and timely legislative action according to their desires and the rule of law, while it is also understood that the minority is to receive just consideration of their viewpoint and protection for the same. Significantly, President Obama and his apologists have grossly perverted this fundamental model of democratic governance by trampling on the majority and demanding the triumph of minority ideals and notions of equality--a socialist action in spirit, if not the letter.

Yet very clearly, Americans overwhelmingly oppose healthcare reform in its current state as proposed by President Obama. But the White House isn't listening, and this is why dissent has been so adamantly vociferous. By crushing honest debate with baseless accusations of ignorance on the part of town hall protesters and by applying such an unsparing blitzkrieg of political pressure on individual dissent, the current administration has shown that it will always place its own power and that of a swelling government above the rights of the people, person by person if necessary.

But Americans will not forgive or forget such low behavior easily--a sobering thought considering that voter backlash could very well promote conservative ideals well beyond the ambitious liberal agenda of President Obama in the months and years to come, no matter how the healthcare debate is ultimately concluded.

IN OTHER NEWS: Despite a glowing report on Pakistan's status as a viable nation since Taliban butcher Baitullah Mehsud was unceremoniously sent to his eternal damnation--granted, a development that is worthy of genuine plaudits for the Obama administration, or at least for those piloting the UAVs--this struggling country remains a nearly lawless region in the control of terrorists hell-bent upon the destruction of civilization and the undeniable blessings it bestows.

Case in point, a clever report by Professor Shaun Gregory of Bradford University in the United Kingdom documents three attempts by terrorist groups to knock out Pakistani nuclear sites, the most serious being in 2008 by Taliban suicide bombers that destroyed entry points to an armament complex at a major nuclear facility. This chain of nearly unknown disasters demonstrates a terrifying lack of information sharing by media outlets when it comes to such serious security breaches. And it also means that Pakistan is far from being a stable nation honest about its feebleness in the face of bloody extremists.

Unfortunately, this indicates a very prolonged struggle for Pakistan indeed, as no nation can adequately push back or even destroy the ubiquitous threat of terrorism until it has admitted just how destructive it really is to those critical elements basic to advanced societies across the sweep of history--life, prosperity, and freedom.