The Fenwick-Sugden Plan

President Obama today made a speech in which he mocked those of us who are not illiterate of economics for not having any alternatives to Obamacare.

Well, it took me about one second of searching around for a conservative alternative to his pseudo-socialist compulsory medical insurance Ponzi Scheme that is so broken and so sad even before it starts that he has to break the law to prop it up.

I will let the virtual president explain the plan:

I call Obamacare pseudo-socialized because it is actually a Mussolini-style syndicate where the AMA or AARP or Union Bosses or Good Ol’ Boys or other Party Loyalists get fat contracts or political pay-off in return for playing along, a crony-capitalist-statist system that is otherwise known as fascism.

The Congress exempted itself from Obamacare. And how many waivers were handed out?

No alternatives? No, I do not think the President is lying here. Not what we call lying. The Left has done away with the categories of truth and lying. There categories are statements that help the Party, also called goodthink, and statements that harm the party, also called crimethink. He is not deliberately saying something he thinks a falsehood because those categories no longer govern his thinking.

I imagine Stalin saying the same thing about the Supreme Soviet control of all industries: that there can be no industry unless the government runs it. If the government does not run it, it does not really exist. Leaving men free to find their own way, spend their own money, hire their own doctors, act like adults — this is not something Leftists argue against.

They merely cannot imagine it. Goodthink prevents them from imagining it.

When they see it with their own eyes, they suffer something like hysterical blindness. They pretend and pretend they did not see what they saw, and something snaps in their brains, and soon they come to believe they never saw it. Party trumps truth. The only correct thought is a politically correct thought.

The Left never wakes up. Their Pravda news services simply do not report the number of people losing their health insurance, or, if they do, they report it as a non-issue, merely the griping of the unenlightened, whiners whose do not understand that the Glorious Leader will give them even better insurance plans in times to come. They are unaware of the magnitude of the harm being done, and they cannot be made aware.

To become aware is crimethink.



  1. Comment by Nate Winchester:

    Leaving men free to find their own way, spend their own money, hire their own doctors, act like adults — this is not something Leftists argue against.

    I must technically disagree with you, thanks to the cartoon quoted (with approval apparently) by Mark Shea in this post: (of course I’m not allowed to comment on Mark’s blog but I wish I could quote Jonah Goldberg there: “The government cannot love you, and any politics that works on a different assumption is destined for no good.”)

    Let’s see… I’d have to say the Left is arguing against acting like adults in panels… 3, 4, 6, 10, 14 and 16. (I’m including 16 since it almost seems to imply that if we had universal health care, nobody would ever die. Which is even funnier juxtaposed against the previous, “magical realm” panel.) Of course, #10 is also funny because several conservatives HAVE argued against insurance being tied to employment yet why are we in this situation? Because of past leftist policies. (Though in the general the panel’s also funny because you want to ask, “So you’re saying people shouldn’t work? They shouldn’t be productive members of society?”)

    That’s all. You’re spot on with everything, of course. I just thought you’d get a laugh out of watching the left actually try and argue against freedom and responsibility.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      You misunderstand me. I do not say the Left does not oppose freedom. I mean that they do not construct an argument against it. They do not give reasons. They just assume it is the case that this is not an alternative. It is invisible to them. The cartoon is expressing innocent disbelief that anyone seriously thinks men should be free.

      • Comment by Nate Winchester:

        Ah gotcha, yes we were talking past each other. My bad, John, I hope a hearty ‘amen’ will suffice as apology. ;)

        In more important news, have you seen the sequel to Hunger Games yet? I don’t think you have to watch it on the big screen (you can wait until DVD) but when I was rereading your review of the first one, I was reminded that some objections seem to have been brought up and dealt with in the sequel. I look forward to you analysis of it someday.

        • Comment by ChevalierdeJohnstone:

          Is it still “strong, independent female character succeeds by doing nothing other than getting multiple men to risk their lives to help and save her”? Pace Mr. Wright’s thesis on the problems of “strong” female characters, there is something worse than Xena Warrior Princess, and that is Katniss, the pretend warrior-princess who feels very emotional about the various men who save her life, and then somehow gets the credit without actually doing anything except looking apparently fertile.

          • Comment by John C Wright:

            And yet the book sold well enough to be made into a movie. It is the favorite book of all time of any number of people out there. Whether Katniss is considered strong or weak means nothing. She is interesting, fascinating, memorable, dramatic, at least as far as those readers are concerned. That is what matters.

            The PC types are hyperventilating over something that means nothing. They want to replace fascinating and memorable characters with bland cardboard stereotypes of PC goodthink.

      • Comment by ChevalierdeJohnstone:

        No argument can be constructed because they believe truth is fungible. Their sloppy thinking leads them to value judgments such as, “freedom means different things to different people,” or “everyone has their own version of the truth and they are all true.” Then in practice, because they have never examined what it actually is to be free or what is actually true, they are far less accepting of people who disagree with their particular emotion-laden interpretation than are conservative thinkers who will vehemently argue against someone who is wrong while also vehemently defending that person’s right to be wrong and make their own mistakes.

  2. Comment by sdqpds:

    Based on this article (with included study), we now have one party control of the healthcare industry.

    As described in the article, if President Obama can seat a single IPAB member, we are assured control of the healthcare industry by un-elected progressive democrats for a very long time, not subject to oversight by elected officials. Exercising the nuclear option enables them to do this, and so at this very convenient time, many Senate democrats and the president flip their positions on the nuclear option.

    Senateknow the nuclear option is not in their interest if they lose majority. They would only make use of it if they see significant long term advantage in doing so, which the IPAB provides.

    You describe President Obama as blinded by his ideology to even the truth/lie distinction. I think your description better fits his followers. I see in President Obama a masterful politician capable of distracting the masses with irrelevant issues while making behind the scenes power grabs in conjunction with his allies in the Senate (see his 2012 campaign).

    Could the President be as you say and also be a full participant in this scheme to take over the healthcare industry?

    • Comment by Nate Winchester:

      I don’t know… it’s really hard to take him as a serious political thinker when the republicans HANDED him the absolute most perfect out for the upcoming ACA disaster and he didn’t take it.

      Or to quote Jonah Goldberg:

      During the government shutdown, Barack Obama held fast, heroically refusing to give an inch to the hostage-taking, barbaric orcs of the Tea Party who insisted on delaying Obamacare. It was a triumph for the master strategist in the White House, who finally maneuvered the Republicans into revealing their extremism. But we didn’t know something back then: Obama desperately needed a delay of In his arrogance, though, he couldn’t bring himself to admit it. The other possibility is that he is such an incompetent manager, who has cultivated such a culture of yes-men, that he was completely in the dark about the problems. That’s the reigning storyline right now from the White House. Obama was betrayed. “If I had known,” he told his staff, “we could have delayed the website.”

      This is how you know we’re in the political sweet spot: when the only plausible excuses for the administration are equally disastrous indictments.

      Some might have long term plans (like Harry Reid or maybe someone else) but I don’t think the president is one of them.

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        I believe, unfortunately, that Mr Obama is too small for the job. He is a community organizer who was elected first to state senate, and then, with the help of the Chicago Machine, to the national senate, where he served for three years. He has never run a business, ever. He has never held an administrative post. So, by and large, he lets the machinery of government operate on autopilot, and finds himself shocked and surprised when the news reports something his administration is doing. This may be a lie, of course, but if it is a lie it is more damning than the truth.

        I have read that Mr Obama’s uncle Omar, in the country illegally, Mr Obama now admits he stayed with while in law school, whereas previously he denied ever having met the man. The lies begin to seem pathological. A liar lies to gain some perceived advantage, because the truth will not serve. A pathological liar lies to gain a feeling of superiority when the truth would actually serve him better.

        Even as skeptical as I am, and as suspicious of the news media as my background requires me to be, nonetheless I was fooled by the many voices all saying how intelligent a man and how cunning a politician he is. But the recent debacles show that this is not the case at all. He is a nonentity who has been puffed up by the media because of his skin color, and because the media has no sense of judgment and no sense of shame, their praise grew more extravagant and more and more, culminating in one Chris Matthews, who adores and worships Mr Obama as a god on earth.

        I believe he make promises in his speeches because his speechwriters told him it would be a good idea, and likewise he was told it was a good idea to make recess appointments when congress is not in recess, to see if he could get away with it, to enforce some laws and change others and make up laws for himself, and on and on. And then when people told him Obamacare would not work as promised, he found himself in a situation where he did not know what to do, so he did nothing, and let the date come due, and the disaster rolled out, and he just sort of has a vague idea that people loyal to him in the press will convince the recalcitrant and bovine public to accept it, and everything will be fine.

        It has always worked before, his whole life. Why should it not work now? He has never actually DONE anything before. EVER. He has never even so much as managed a business selling mistletoe in Oregon. Never in his life have results been real, a real thing done in the real world, as opposed to a result that exists in theory, or in speech.

        He has never had to deal with the present. A man who make promises lives in the future. An idealist forgets the past. Neither future nor past will bite you. Only the present has teeth.

        I assume Mr Obama is shocked and surprised that young people are not signing up for healthcare in droves.

        Now, keep in mind when discussing any public figure, that no one knows him. I know only what comes out of two illusions or caricatures, one created by his friends, and the other by his rivals, both of whom place low value on truth and a high value on selling papers.

    Leave a Reply