Repeal and Return, by David Walden

Here’s a radical idea. Repeal Obamacare and replace it with what works best in the provision of almost all goods and services: the free market! From David Walden, a Straight Line Logic reader, via email:

Representing the Trump administrations’s first priority, the cry of “repeal and replace” fills the musky swamp gas of Washington. ”R&R” is supposed to represent the solution to the fact that “Obamacare,” the slang accreditation to the person who shamelessly takes responsibility for the Affordable Care Act, is failing to do almost EVERYTHING that was touted on its behalf during passage in 2009.

Yes, “R&R” is definitely needed. However, what is actually needed is “Repeal & Return” – NOT “Replace.”

Upon Japan’s surrender in 1945, my father left the Army and was hired by a small “mom & pop” machine shop as an apprentice tool & die maker. During that time we lived in a cold-water tenement on the first floor. As we could afford little, there was no medical insurance, and the small company dad worked for certainly couldn’t provide any.

When we got sick we either called the Doctor, who came to our home, or in the case of a serious illness/accident, we went to the hospital. In the case of the former, a small charge for the visit and any “medicine” he might provide during the visit, was our cost. Depending on the relationship between us and our Doctor, we would either pay in cash, or subsequently be billed. Should any of us have needed to go to the hospital, the terms of payment would be negotiated with the hospital – with monthly (or whatever) payments for the costs of more serious conditions.

The time frame was the late forties/fifties. I can remember going to a hospital only once in my entire childhood. Twice I recall seeing a Doctor at our apartment/home. At that time the “market” for health care was largely unencumbered by those who would improve it through political means, being dominated only by those who would do so through economic means – with each segment of the market trying to make a buck by providing an ever-improving service. They would continually do so in the traditionally American manner of making it better, cheaper, increasingly available to the expanding market, etc., much as does ALL enterprise and entrepreneurs when simply left alone to do so.

The reader should take note; I stated health care was dominated by those who would improve it through economic means, NOT that it was a “free market” for same. That is because although in the case of my family, insurance did not enter the picture, it had begun to significantly do so during the forties. The insurance industry at the time, was largely – and heavily, regulated by the States. The result of this combination of facts was that the beginnings of the market for health insurance was a “bastard child.” It was the result of Federal and State bureaucratic regulation, LARGELY DIRECTED AT INSURANCE CARRIERS ONLY, from its very inception.

Enter those who would “improve” this overall market via FURTHER political prescription (no pun intended) on “consumers.” This began in earnest in 1965, with the passage of the first mandated “improvements” in healthcare under the banner of “entitlements.” It was termed Medicare.

The political “improvers” have subsequently continued their “improvements” for the ensuing 50+ years via Medicaid, MCO’s, HMO’s, The Prescription Drug Program, etc, – together with all manner of ancillary mandated programs, culminating with “Obamacare,” the current unprecedented “improvement.”

I have intentionally not waded into the swamp of touted needs, benefits, costs, and associated jargon, surrounding the claimed value of these politically-mandated monstrosities. I have chosen not to do so for one clear and concise reason. When you are criticizing someone’s means of seemingly being able to obtain “something for nothing,” then it is not something that those who have come to believe they are “entitled” to same, wish to hear. It is NOT an accident that such programs are referred to as “entitlements.” Such a term connoting a “right,” makes it go down a lot easier rather than it does under the banner of “something for nothing.” (This latter term is actually false! It is not actually something for nothing because we who receive the benefits of such a program are the other side of the coin of someone else getting “nothing for something.” We are the recipients of their “something” instead of their having properly received it!)

This leads to the title of this article, “Repeal & Return.” The proper (moral) response to the obscenity that is Obamacare is to replace it with freedom, responsibility, and choice. It is the proper political response if one wishes to return to the ideals of our founding, wherein we each own our lives and are responsible for their feeding, maintenance, and “care” – however defined.

Yes it cannot be done easily – nor at once. It must be responsibly dismantled over time, offering as much “protection” to those most impacted as can be responsibly attained. HOWEVER, IT MUST BEGIN WITH THE INTELLECTUAL/MORAL RECOGNITION OF THE CORRECT “DIRECTION” IN WHICH TO EMBARK!

Failure to do so will inevitably result in our internment. We shall become captives to the ultimate monstrosity, single-payer government health “care” for all. If you want to get a glimpse of what that potentially entails, just ask a sufficient sample of Veterans how they appreciate the only “single-payer” system of health care that currently exists.

The one to which one particular throng of “improvers” have forcibly consigned them though yet another “compulsory” government monstrosity, the VA……..

3 responses to “Repeal and Return, by David Walden

  1. Well thought out and written article. He provides the direction the healthcare industry’s compass needle needs to be pointed. But possible? What time frame?


    • If medical care and insurance are returned to a free market, the only real variable would be the length of the transition process he mentions. I would think that could be two to four years. If you make it much long there’s the ever present danger of backsliding.


  2. Bob & Neilmdunn:

    The article that follows served as the “trigger” for mine that Bob chose to post on SLL. It was my initial response to one that appeared on Anders Ingemarson’s site, “SEPARATE,” which is the lead-in for “separation of economy and state much as is church and state.

    My initial response to his article carried a different “thrust” than in “Repeal & Return,” though its message remains the same.



    Prior to the Civil War, there were, collectively, individual citizens in the young America called “abolitionists.” They were, at least with respect to the issue of slavery, “moral crusaders.”

    Though the Civil War was begun and fought for a number of “less philosophical” reasons, its moral justification was rooted in “abolition” – which, following Gettysburg, Lincoln, despite whatever else might have been occupying his mind, acknowledged and proclaimed.

    Your article has, as each of them does, triggered a thought or two.

    You mention in passing that the proper actions to be taken with respect to the ACA is not “repeal and replace” but to essentially “abolish and return.” Your literary metaphors of Paul & Paula will immediately recognize that “repeal and replace” is a political prescription, while those of us who might be characterized as Peter & Petra grasp that “abolish and return” is a moral one!

    The trick is to teach Peter, Paul, & Petra – while dragging along the kicking and screaming “soccer mom” Paula, that we all must become “abolitionists! We must morally champion the abolition of the moral tyranny of collectivism.

    NEVER has it become more essential that such abolitionists rise to political prominence,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.