GOVERNMENT-ONLY HEALTHCARE

As bad as Obamacare appears to be, it is even worse than it seems.  Passage of the Affordable Care Act was not the completion of a plan, it was the first step, a Trojan horse.  Read what Rick Unger had to say in Forbes on Dec 2, 2011.  Mr. Unger is not a Tea Party activist lamenting the coming end of patient controlled health care and Obama’s false promise of Choice.  Unger is a firm supporter of Obamacare.  He is not lamenting the end of private health care insurance; he is confirming and applauding it.

This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time.  Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ratio will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.

Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid.

In other words, the new law caps insurance company gross profit from insurance operations at 20%.  What a company manages to net out of that is up to them.  Unger acknowledges that it may not be enough to survive and he cries halleluiah to that!  The end of private insurance.

Today, [Dec 2, 2011] the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.

Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.

Note that it is the Department of Health & Human Services that sets the rules.  That means HHS can change the rules if their objective is not being met.  An act of Congress is not required.  SOTUS says Obamacare is a tax.  Taxation without representation, anyone?

If you thought that the Obama Administration chickened out on pushing the nation in the direction of universal health care for everyone, today is the day you begin to understand that the reality is quite the contrary. ~ Unger

As you heard Barney Frank and Barack Obama say in the video, single payer (government only) coverage is the ultimate goal.  As you will learn if you follow our upcoming coverage of the book Radical-In-Chief, the progressive’s strategy is incremental stealth.  If single payer is the goal, debate over percentages is pointless.  No private enterprise that needs a profit to survive can compete with a government that doesn’t.

The only way to stop government-only health care is to stop Barack Obama.  Come November, don’t let you vote go to waste.

JUSTAPHOTO – BOWING TO JAPAN

Our President shows great respect for every nation except one.

HAPPY FOURTH – IS YOUR FLAG OUT?

RULES, RULES, RULES. WHERE THERE’S NOT A RULE THERE’S A REGULATION

When the inimitable William F. Buckley said “A Liberal is someone who is determined to reach into your shower and adjust the water temperature for you” little did we know those were the good old days.  Buckley’s comment was clever and amusing because it combined the absurd with a grain of truth.  Petty regulations are so common now that a similar comment wouldn’t evoke the slightest chuckle, instead one would simply ask – so?  What’s your point?

In New York the government regulates the amount of salt a chef can use when preparing a menu item.  It’s enough to drive the good cooks back to France.  Now new USDA regulations are reaching into your children’s food trays and taking away the white potatoes.  No more freedom fries for the kids.  Neither Maine nor Idaho have many electoral votes.

When your mouse dies you do know you can’t throw the little battery away, don’t you.  You have to drive to a battery disposal center and place it in a little bin.  The mileage isn’t tax deductible, but at least they don’t fine you for your carbon emissions inroute, not yet.

A friend of mine bought one of those curly bulbs and it burned out.  Harry’s trash collector doesn’t have a certified CFL or mercury disposal center so he called the town.  Environmental clearance for a collection center is pending review.  Due to budget constraints they are not going forward with it at this time.  So he sealed the bulb in an airtight plastic bag just to be safe (there are children in the house).

Harry went online and found a site that suggested he should call Wal-Mart executive headquarters and urge them to open a nationwide collection center.  I kid you not, here’s the link.  But the same site lists a service that will take your bulbs right now so you don’t have to wait for Wal-Mart.  A company called Lightbulbrecycling.com will send you a container for shipping dead curly bulb(s) back to them for proper processing.  The fee is $120 per shipment.  Yes, that’s $120, not $1.20. It’s no surprise the link doesn’t work.  By the way, Harry is not his real name.  I know what he did with the bulb so I had to change the name to protect his identity.

Perhaps we should mount a campaign to let liberals control our shower water temperature and leave everything else the @&#$%?*# alone.

ROBERTS VOTED AGAINST IT BEFORE HE VOTED FOR IT

Why?  That’s the question now, Why?

(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

It gets even more bizarre.  It was Justice Kennedy who fought the hardest to bring Roberts back to his original stance but it was to no avail.  Roberts couldn’t be persuaded to change his second opinion.

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent.  They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

We must keep in mind that the scenario CBS describes is hearsay and will likely remain as such.  Nevertheless, it’s plausible.  If Roberts did come down on one side then switch to the other it was because his first thought was, as a Supreme Court Judge, to protect the integrity of the Constitution.  Then later, as the Chief Justice he decided to protect the integrity of the Court by not miring it in the controversy.  As I speculated in an earlier post he passed the buck to the voters.  In so doing, he harmed the Court because now the controversy is the Court.

Read more…

WINNERS AND/OR LOSERS OF THE SOTUS DECISION, MAYBE

Justice Roberts’ decision is not controversial only because it let Obamacare stand, there is also controversy about the consequences of the decision going forward.  Some good arguments have been given claiming at least partial victory or defeat for both the left and the right in the near and in the long term.  There is also a logical opinion that the court has passed the buck by returning the decision to the voters.

One common line of thought is that the decision put a cap on the lefts widespread abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify all manner of expansion of federal powers.  Mark, an attorney commenting on our earlier post takes a contrary view.  In his opinion an even wider door was opened to Constitutional erosion by finding the Affordable Care Act can stand on the basis of the federal governments unquestioned right to tax.

Justice Ginsburg adds to the ‘we won but we lost’ confusion by taking the unusual, albeit not unprecedented step of writing a dissent against a decision she voted in favor of.

Charles Krauthammer declares Justice Roberts’ action was brilliant.  Rush Limbaugh swears it was stupid.  Mitt Romney vows to make the repeal of Obama care the immediate focus of his presidency and he may have the House and the Senate with him to do it.  Nancy Pelosi says now it’s cinched; the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.

If it turns out that Obamacare is repealed in the next Congress, it will mean the right was the ultimate winner of the Supreme Court’s decision.  If Obama is re-elected it will mean the left was the winner.  If Obamacare is repealed and replaced by health care reform that preserves choice and quality and broadens demographic coverage at an honestly affordable price, the people and the right will have won.  The left will have lost because health care users will have maintained control of their own destiny and not surrendered to the specter of socialized medicine.

We just have to wait.

JUSTAPHOTO – MARILYN MONROE

MARILYN MONROE STATUE IN CHICAGO

For those unaware of the statue here’s a couple extra photos for free.  Double click to enlarge.

OBAMACARE IS IN! WHAT’S NEXT?

The libs get excited, rightly so.  Obama’s ratings get a blip up, but will they hold?  The House will vote on a bill to repeal Obamacare, but it won’t pass the Senate.  Karl Rove takes his wife out for a beer —  no champagne and caviar tonight.

Now the ball is in Romney’s court.  On the Tuesday before Thursday’s announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision Romney said “If it is deemed to stand, then I’ll tell you one thing: We’re going to have to have a president, and I’m that one, that’s going to get rid of Obamacare.  We’re going to stop it on Day 1.”  To accomplish that Republicans will need to win control of the Senate as well as the presidency.  If they do, then expect some form of repeal and replacement.

The Supreme Court’s decision that the law is constitutional is not an endorsement of its advisability, only a decision that it is legal.  Chief Justice Robert’s opinion was explicit about that.  Obamacare will rival jobs and the economy as the number one issue between now and November.  That is not a plus for Republicans.

On a brighter note a greater threat was averted.  During the debate prior to the Bill becoming law, the President emphatically denied the mandate was a tax.  Coming before the court, however, the administration’s attorneys argued the opposite; that the mandate is a tax.  The court agreed, more or less, more more than less.  The opinion read that the mandate ‘could be’ seen as a tax, in which case it ‘would be’ constitutional.  If the court had ruled that Obamacare could stand under Commerce Clause, such a decision would have gutted the Constitution setting a precedent that almost anything would be allowed under the clause.

Rumors are abounding that a deal was made or that Roberts bent to intimidation.  I don’t think we have sunk that low.

WE DON’T WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF THIS

On Monday Victor David Hanson wrote a piece for a Pajamas Media blog.  Here is just a sample of what he wrote.

Has any major public figure (57 states, Austrian language, corpse-men, Maldives for Falklands, private sector “doing fine,” etc.) been a more underwhelming advertisement for the quality of a Harvard education or a Chicago Law School part-time billet? Has any presidential candidate or president set a partisan crowd to laughing by rubbing his chin with his middle finger as he derides an opponent, or made a joke about killing potential suitors of his daughters with deadly Predator drones, or recited a double entendre “go-down” joke [2] about a sex act? [Obama has].

Read the whole article.

On Wednesday he wrote a piece for National Review Online.  In it Mr. Hansen said:

No president ever entered office with more racial goodwill and no president has so racially polarized the country. Anyone who read the racially obsessed Dreams From My Father or reviewed the race-baiting sermons of the demented Rev. Wright [6] could have predicted the ongoing deterioration in racial relations. We live in an age in which criticism of the president is alleged racism, creating an impossible situation [7]: the country is redeemed only if it elects Obama, and stays redeemed only if he is reelected. How strange to read columnists one week alleging racism, and on the next warning us about the Mormon Church.

Read the whole article.

THE UNITED STATES vs. ARIZONA – THE SUPREME COURT’S IMMIGRATION DECISION IN A NUTSHELL

Four issues were argued and decisions rendered.  The most significant and most controversial provision in Arizona’s law was upheld by the unanimous vote of eight of the nine Justices.  Judge Kagan recused herself.

The other three provisions of Arizona’s law were struck down on a 5 to 3 divided vote.

Upheld
Arizona police may check the immigration status of an individual stopped on reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.

Struck down
1. Arizona state law that mirrored existing federal law making it a crime not to complete or carry immigration papers.

2. A provision of Arizona law that made it illegal for an illegal immigrant to apply for or hold a job.

3. A provision of Arizona law allowing police to arrest and detain an illegal alien not yet convicted of a deportable crime.  Police must release the individual after telling them to show up later for a hearing.

Justice Scalia wrote the dissent.
Here is the decision.
Here are excerpts from Scalia’s dissent.

Post Script – The case is actually identified as AZ vs. US but I think the United States against Arizona better reflects the reality.