Obamacare: The Greatest Show On Earth

remaincalm
Artist’s rendering of Wednesday’s meeting

Roll Call posted a fascinating article on Wednesday detailing the growing sense of concern (or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it PANIC!) that many Congressional Democrats—especially those in marginally safe to contested seats—are experiencing over the rolling catastrophe of Obamacare’s implementation. For those who opposed the passage of the law in the first place, it’s a somewhat satisfying scene, which Jonah Goldberg is correct to refer to as a sort of “Schadenfreudarama.” Now, granted: it’s not a completely satisfying sort of schadenfreude; it would be much more satisfying if the consequences of the massive failure only affected those who insisted on pushing the thing through in the first place, and didn’t involve millions of people losing health insurance plans that they liked, with millions more likely on the way—along with the hardships that fact will entail for so many people. But in these days of chaos and confusion, I suppose I’ll take comfort in what little scraps of enjoyment come from watching those who supported this massive act of legislative malpractice scramble to save themselves from the consequences of their actions (which, of course, they had repeatedly been warned about).

But back to that article, which provides details on a meeting that occurred Wednesday between House Democrats and White House officials in which members of Congress basically demanded that the Obama Administration FIX THIS MESS. Some of the quotes in the article seem to me quite revealing of the mentality that prevails on the left side of the aisle in Congress*. For instance:

“Why can’t we call people who know how to do these things, who do it for corporate America, and say, ‘We have a website, fix it?’” asked Rep. José E. Serrano, D-N.Y. “Maybe I’m being simplistic, but can’t we call Bill Gates up and say, ‘Take care of this?’ Or go to a college dorm and say, ‘You guys, you invented Yahoo, can you take care of this?’”

Continue reading “Obamacare: The Greatest Show On Earth”

It’s Simple: Obama and His Allies are Filthy Liars

This was obvious to many during the 2008 campaign, but unfortunately not the majority.  And now we have a massive health-care “reform” disaster, all based on misinformation, obfuscation, and (mostly) outright, bald-faced lying.  For instance, all throughout the process of shoving Obamacare through Congress, Obama and his cronies insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate did not represent a tax increase.  Obama repeatedly and emphatically stated as much when he was confronted by George Stephanopoulos in an interview on ABC last year.  But, as everyone now seems to be realizing, Obama is a filthy liar.  This is evidenced by the fact that

…under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

DOJ argues that the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And according to the Times, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.” Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

That’s from Peter Wehner, who goes on to note the following:

This is just one example of a systematic pattern of misinformation and disinformation related to the health-care campaign. We have seen similarly dishonest claims related to funding abortion (ObamaCare is doing exactly that), bending the cost curve down (it will bend it up), lowering premiums (they will rise), and to allowing Americans to keep the coverage they currently have (many won’t).

In many respects, the Obama administration has shown itself to be thoroughly postmodern; words have no objective meaning. Reality can be molded to the whims of the most powerful. We can each construct our own narrative.

In the case of the president, the narrative is fairly simply: whatever advances his own aims and objectives is defensible. The ends justify the means. If false claims have to be used to advance a larger truth, so be it.

The scum in Congress that passed this travesty should be thrown out of office.  And we can only hope the the leader of this contingent of lying filth – Obama himself – will pay dearly for all of his “accomplishments” at the polls in 2012.

In Shocking Turn Of Events, CBO Announces That Congress Is Filled With Deceitful Scum

Alternate headline: THEY LIED.  But we knew that before they passed this rancid loaf, didn’t we?  And frankly, they’ve been confirming that ever since.

Regardless, here’s the news that anyone with any intelligence and honesty knew was coming:

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.

Republicans pounced on the news, which they called another sign that the Obama administration makes promises it cannot deliver…

…But a Democratic leadership aide on Capitol Hill said the Congress will have to stay within the budget.

“Just like other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits,” the aide said. “Republicans fighting to repeal reform can say what they want, but the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs — period.”

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes that the miserable politicians who voted for this monstrosity can now only claim to be disappointed in this news if they also acknowledge that they “…willingly ignored warnings that they were selling public policy based on phony numbers.”  Which, of course, they won’t, because by and large they are the largest collection of unprincipled filth to ever collect on Capitol Hill.

Henry Waxman
His mom thinks he's cute.

Let me take a moment to address the pathetic argument of the idiotic Democratic leadership aide, who claims that “the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs – period.”  Hey, idiot: CBO estimates are only as good as the numbers your dirtbag lying bosses in the Democrat caucus feed into CBO.  In other words, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.   Basing your claim of cost savings on the CBO estimates that came from the goofy numbers that Pelosi and Reid cooked up is something akin to basing your claim to being the sexiest man alive on your mother’s opinion that you’re a very handsome lad.  In all likelihood, the evidence has been shaded in your favor and your claim is going to be demolished upon first contact with reality.

And of course, reality hasn’t been kind to Obamacare supporters since they cast their votes.  Recall that Henry Waxman and his stormtroopers already found this out when they had to cancel their assault on companies which reported – as required by law – that Obamacare was going to cause them to take massive financial losses.  Again, no surprise to anyone who has,well, basic intelligence and observation skills.

Of course, none of this is really a surprise to the Dems.  Waxman screwed up in that he didn’t forsee how one element of his massive regulatory state would interact with the new element.  This was all expected; they rammed it through presuming that once Obamacare was in place, inertia would make it impossible to roll back and we’d all just accept that higher taxes and everything else were inevitable.  They scheme, they lie, they crave power.  We need to slap them down in November.

The Interstate Commerce Clause And You

Considering that under Obamacare, Congress has asserted that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution should be interpreted so broadly as to allow Congress the power to require you to engage in commerce, the question arises:  What isn’t “interstate commerce”?  Is there any area of your life that Congress can’t regulate?

So under present Court precedent and legal doctrine, the Constitution consists of five words: Congress shall have the power. That’s it. That’s all there is. It is difficult to imagine anything further from the intent of the Framers.

It amazes me that we have reached such a low point in American history.  How could we have ceded so much of our liberty to our supposedly “limited” government?  Never before have I been so anxious about the state of the nation and the future of liberty.  I hope and pray that the people still have it within them to rise up and rekindle the spirit of the founding of this country.

“You can’t pass this bill the right way, so now we are going to pass it the Washington way.”

“We are not governing here today, we are greasing the skids for an abuse of a budget procedure intended to control the size of government, not expand it.”

Is Slaughtering The Bill Constitutional?

Since the reprehensible Nancy Pelosi has decided to pursue the route proposed by the disgusting-yet-aptly-named Louise Slaughter and “deem” the Senate health care bill “passed” if the House votes to approve the “fix” bill that goes along with it (I’m still confused as to how this solution would shield the Dems from responsibility for passing Obamacare, which they are trying to dodge but would be the result of the vote on the “fix”), it might be worth taking a look at how badly this legislative chicanery would rape the Constitution upon which our republic is supposed to be based.  Would it be just a minor assault, or a full on rape-and-murder?  The Volokh Conspiracy ponders:

Can the House vote to adopt a rule which “deems” that a particular bill has been passed, even if that particular bill has not been passed? If so, are there any limits to the adoption of House rules which eliminate voting on bills? For example, could the House at the start of a session adopt a rule which states that there will be no voting by individual members, and that the House during the next two years will “deem” to have been passed whatever the Speaker of the House deems to have been passed? Is the question justiciable?

Presumably, the Dems will just respond that the Constitution was hanging out on the Mall late at night wearing a pretty provocative outfit and was just “asking for it.”  Then, while walking out of the room, they’ll suggest that the battered document just “put some ice on that.”