[This article was syndicated via RSS from Illinois Review. The views represented do not necessarily represent those of the Chicago Daily Observer.]

by John F. Di Leo

Do you like your job?

Yes, I'm talking to you, Senators Durbin and Burris, Kohl and Feingold, Lugar and Bayh... all one hundred of you members of the world's smallest club. You didn't join that club just for the cocktail parties.  Oh, sure, they're fun -- the reporters and sycophants fawning over you, the free food and drink, rubbing elbows with people more intelligent than you are, more likable, more successful in business or the arts. It must be exciting to be part of that scene. But that's not why you're there.

Being in the Senate is more than that.  You do take your job seriously.  You do care about the votes you cast.  Oh, not every one of them -- you can just let the party whip guide you on the unimportant stuff.  But you care about the big issues; that's why the people sent you there.  You're in Washington, the most important city on earth, for the big stuff -- peace, prosperity, justice.  And you're a true believer -- in conservatism, in liberalism, in moderation, whatever -- so you want to do the right thing for that cause, for your supporters and voters, when it really counts, anyway.

Healthcare is one of those votes.  One of the big ones.  When this Senate bill comes up, your Yea or Nay vote will be remembered -- not just when you're up for reelection in 2010 or 2012 or 2014, but forever.  People still remember -- with condemnation or pride -- how certain senators voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the Clinton impeachment in 1998, on the war resolutions on Afghanistan and Iraq. 
 
You don't want to be on the wrong side of history on those big votes.  They don't just impact your electability; they impact your biographies. 
 
You don't want your biographical entry to be forever hobbled by an asterisk, like the Roger Maris asterisk on the bottom of a baseball record:  "A three-term Senator, he was among the infamous 51 who voted in 2009 to inflict socialized medicine upon the United States.  Losing his seat in the Senate the following year, he died in poverty when his ruined reputation couldn't even get him a book deal or decent rates on the rubber chicken circuit."
 
Oh yes, this vote will be remembered.  When Europe went down the path of socialized medicine, it was in keeping with a generally socializing pattern across all government there, it didn't stand out.  They could argue that they didn't know with certainty how it would turn out in the end.  Conservatives opposed it, of course, but there were so few in twentieth century Europe, we can hardly blame politicians for not heeding their warnings.  The long lines, the postponed or denied care, the crippling tax burden to pay for it, the mindlessness of rationing and allocation of beds, doctors, medicines, and surgeries, weren't foreseen; they didn't know in the 1940s and 50s what their options were.  The people who inflicted socialized medicine on Europe and Canada can perhaps be forgiven.
 
Not so in the USA.  We were the control side of that experiment.  We showed what could happen in a country with free medicine.  Over the past fifty years, this nation has enjoyed splendid healthcare in our mostly-private system.  Operations are performed when you need them, not when they get around to you.  Pharmaceuticals are prescribed when they're ready and when they're right, not when twenty forms are signed in triplicate, notarized, and counter-authorized.  Everybody gets treated.  The system is expensive, but it works. 
 
Yes, we all know it works.  Say what you will in your stump speeches and your fundraising letters, we all know that Canadians drive south for medical care; we don't drive up there.  Europeans fly here for the surgeries that their governments won't allow them until seventeen days after they're dead.  The rest of the world buys the medical equipment that's invented here.  Other countries manufacture, more cheaply, the wonder drugs developed under the American system.
 
So, unlike the parliamentarians who inflicted nationalized healthcare upon those other countries, we all know what will result from the Democratic healthcare "reform" bills of 2009. 
 
We know it doesn't matter whether it directly "provides" abortion funding or not -- money is fungible; it'll get funded. 
 
We know it doesn't matter whether it has a "public option" in it or not -- there's only one underlying purpose behind this onslaught on the American system, to drive the insurance companies out of the healthcare business so that the government can move in and take it over. 
 
We know the future, if these bills pass:  we've seen it -- in Canada, in England, in Europe, in Cuba.  Rationed care, delayed care, political interference.  Skyrocketing costs, like Medicare on steroids.  The popular disease of the moment will get resources; the disease without a champion will languish, even if more easily curable.
 
And what of double-digit unemployment?  Get used to it; it's here to stay, if we nationalize healthcare. 
 
By moving a fifth of the economy into government control, we remove the profit margin that keeps that fifth employed with the potential of moving up.  As long as it's a private sector industry, it's providing jobs, security, investment, commerce; it's part of the stock market, the corporate deposits in banks nationwide, the economy in general.  But just move it -- or more of it -- from the private sector into the public sector, and in one fell swoop we've eliminated what little economic growth we currently enjoy.  We've nationalized auto manufacturing; we've crippled banking and hobbled the newspaper industry... healthcare is still above water, for now, employing people and feeding the economy... while it remains private.  That's not just luck; it's because the private healthcare system works.  Can this economy afford another amputation?
 
On his deathbed, Dwight Eisenhower is reported to have said "I made two mistakes as President, and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court."   And sure enough, despite his successes in World War II and the development of the interstate highway system during his presidency, many Americans today indict his memory and deride his presidency because of the damage done to our country by Earl Warren and William Brennan.  The little decisions may escape notice, but the big ones can't.
 
Remember that, Senators.  Whether you're interested in running for reelection, Senator Feingold... or in retiring at the end of a distinguished public career, Senator Burris... or in running for higher office someday, Senator Bayh... this particular Yea vote you're considering cannot be explained away.  It will be remembered, and you will be indicted for it -- both by the voters and by the historians.
 
This is your chance to be statesmen, if you choose... to stand up to your party's leadership and tell the truth... that in this case, the Republican reform bills are so much better than the Democrat bills that it's no contest.  We should jettison the Democrat bills entirely and debate the Republican Paul Ryan bill instead. 
 
Or you can duck the explanation, if you choose.  You can just say "It's close, and I'm mostly for it, but this particular bill is still too flawed and too expensive to enact today in the midst of this recession, so let's take a little more time and start over next session."  A bit cowardly, but hey, if you don't think you can afford to bolt completely, this'll do the job.  The important thing is killing the bill and saving America; the reason you give, out loud, is of minor importance, by comparison.
 
What is not an option, however, is to go along with the party again, and vote for the destruction of the greatest healthcare system in the history of the world.  That's what it would be, and you know it.  Everyone knows it.  A vote for that bill, or even a vote to call the vote (enabling a 51 vote passage), would be unforgivable.  If it passes, a hundred years from now people will still be burning in effigy the killers who voted for the bill.
 
What do you want on your tombstone, Senator Burris?  "He stood up to the establishment when the pressure was on, and did the right thing" or "Like a lemming, he joined his party in leading America over the cliff of nationalized healthcare"?
 
What will you be, Senators?  Pawns of a corrupt and deceitful party leadership with only their own special interests in mind?  Or honest representatives, fulfilling your oaths of office, serving your constituents, your country, and your country's future?
 
copyright 2009 A.D John F. Di Leo
 
John F. Di Leo is a Customs broker and corporate international trade compliance trainer.  A former county chairman of the Milwaukee GOP, he has been a recovering politician for twelve years and six months.