Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Do you feel lucky? Obamacare and more

What’s new Today

Story #1 tells you where James Madison stands on Obamacare.  #2  tells you where SCOTUS stands on Obamacare.  #3 gives a few facts regarding the Trayvon killing in Florida.  #4 shows another democrat calling people who disagree with her names (that isn’t much of a shock).  #5 is an article a heartily encourage you to read.  It hits the nail on the head.  #6 is a side argument, really from yesterday and today on Obamacare.  When is a tax, not a tax?  #7 discusses Obama’s biggest gaffe.  #8 looks at Barack Obama, support of the oil industry!  #9 has Dennis Prager’s evaluation of the left and their view of the world. 



1.  Madison and Obamacare

The shade of James Madison hovers over the Obamacare argument at the Supreme Court.

It is the system of limited and carefully divided government powers that he had a large hand in crafting — and defended so ably in the Federalist Papers— that is at stake in the contest over the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

If the mandate stands, it will be the latest blow to Madison’s scheme, which is the best architecture for self-government yet devised by man, but has been steadily worn down over time. It is a damning indictment of contemporary Washington that, overall, it is so hostile to the Madisonian ethos. He is a most inconvenient Founding Father since he tells us: No, the federal government can’t do whatever it wants; no, we can’t just all get along; no, we can’t rush to pass whatever legislation is deemed a “can’t wait” priority by the president. Now, grow up…


To the left, the Constitution is the problem.  It keeps them from doing whatever they want when they are in power.  But this function of the Constitution keeps all of us safer and more free. 





2.  Day 2: Obamacare and SCOTUS

The Supreme Court's conservative justices Tuesday laid into the requirement in the Obama administration's healthcare law that Americans have health insurance, as the court began a much-anticipated second day of arguments on the controversial legislation.

Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.

"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked…


The headline called today a very bad day for the Obama Mandate.  The breakdown by the Justices seems to be the predictable ones with 4 Conservative vs 4 Liberals who appear will vote as expected.  In view of some of the question by Justice Kennedy it certainly appears to be a very bad day for Obamacare’s mandate.



3.  Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law enforcement authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw that initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him….



… Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.

But after the Sentinel story appeared on the newspaper's website Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal affairs investigation into the source of the leak and if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.

He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.

At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggy irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.

Trayvon's father Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "They killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation."

Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of injustice….






This is beginning to look a lot like the Duke Lacrosse case. There is an assumption which has been enough to get Al Sharpton involved (beware of the facts when he’s there).  Let’s get all the facts before we do anything.    







4.  Pennsylvania State Rep. Calls Pro-Life Women 'Men with Breasts'

Speaking at a rally today, Pennsylvania State Representative Babette Josephs suggested that pro-life women are not in fact women, but 'men with breasts'. Apparently women cannot be truly women unless they support unfettered abortion.

Josephs' remarks came at a political rally sponsored by the Lancaster County Democratic Committee, in which she accused Republicans in control of the state Senate and state House of turning Pennsylvania into a "laboratory for the right-wing. They're trying all these experiments on us."

Then, she took specific aim at women lawmakers who co-sponsored the ultrasound bill, asking rhetorically, "I do not understand how a woman in this Legislature can say to herself: 'I'm not capable of making my own health decisions... but I can get elected and make them for somebody else.'

"What is wrong with these women? What are they thinking about?" Josephs continued. "Are they women? Or are they men with breasts."




It’s funny of the left thinks that abortion is the only place where a person can make their own decisions.  They certainly believe in regulating just about everything else. And Ms Joseph appears to be a typical name calling leftist who doesn’t seem to be able to articulate a decent argument to support her political doctrine. 





5.  Five Truths about the Left they don’t want you to know

“When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they’re doing so for purely selfish reasons. It’s the human equivalent of a puppy dog’s face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, “please lower my taxes” — Greg Gutfeldt



1. Most liberals are hateful people. Who are the most hateful people you can think of off the top of your head? If you're not a liberal, the first people that probably come to mind are the God hates f@gs lunatics from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. What type of human beings would do sick protests at funerals? Well, liberals have their own version of this. Whenever a prominent conservative gets sick or dies, there's an orgy of celebratory hatred on the Left. It happened with Reagan, Tony Snow, Breitbart and every other big name conservative in between.

Bill Maher, Barney Frank, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Amanda Marcotte, Ed Schultz, Dan Savage, Ted Rall, Al Sharpton, etc., etc. are some of the most hate-filled people you'll ever run into outside of a maximum security prison, but liberals consider it to be okay because their hate is aimed at conservatives, who are acceptable targets. …



2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred. It's amazing how much we still hear about Nazis and the KKK, even though they're both marginalized, nearly powerless groups of misfits and losers. On the other hand, how marginalized are the hatemongers on the Left? MEChA is allowed in public schools, Al Sharpton is on TV every night, and Democratic congressmen are still willing to appear on stage with Louis Farrakhan….



3) Most liberals are less moral than other people. You won't see liberals being accused of being hypocritical if it turns out that they don't have "good family values," commit adultery, or don't live up to their Christian beliefs because they don't really buy into any of those things….



4) Most liberals don't care if the policies they advocate work or not. This may seem like an alien concept to a lot of people, but liberals don't push policies based on whether they improve people's lives or not. To the contrary, liberals support policies that make them feel good about themselves or alternately, help cement liberals in power….



5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant. Liberals talk incessantly about tolerance and yet they lash out whenever anyone dares to present a view that doesn't toe the liberal line. Conservative college speakers usually need extra security because budding liberal fascists often try to shout them down or assault them. Liberals desperately try to censor talk radio…

… To liberals, tolerance is, by definition, whatever their opinion happens to be. So, to be tolerant, you have to agree with them. People who don't even know what tolerance is shouldn't be lecturing everyone else on the subject…




If you want a current example of point number 1 look at the tweets regarding VP Cheney’s heart transplant.  Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, but apparently they don’t have the ability to feel shame. 



6.  When is a tax not a tax

…In defending the law, the Justice Department has taken a legal position — that the health care act constitutes a tax — that contradicts the political stance taken by President Obama. To do that, it has relied on legal semantics to argue that the insurance mandate will be enforced through the tax code even though Congress took pains to label it a penalty and not a tax.

After losing that argument in a lower court, the government’s lawyers switched positions to agree with the plaintiffs that the litigation was not blocked by the Anti-Injunction Act. But in its brief to the Supreme Court, the administration argued that while the penalty was not a tax that would fall under the Anti-Injunction Act, it should be viewed as a tax when the court considers on Tuesday whether the mandate is permitted under Congress’s broad authority to levy taxes.

In other words, the Justice Department is essentially arguing that the penalty is not a tax, except when the government says it is one.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quick to highlight the seeming contradiction during Monday’s session. “Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” he told Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the administration’s lead advocate. “Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?” …


This probably is the best illustration of the left’s logic.  They are very flexible in what they will say as long as it gets them what they want.  In other words, you can’t believe a thing they say. 



7.  Obama’s biggest Gaffe?

Barack Obama has, like most in public life, made his share of gaffes--the president of Canada, 57 states, the Austrian language, E Pluribus Unum, the pronunciation of corpsman, among others. To be sure, they are stunning signs of ignorance of things that are common wisdom for most, even Harvard alums.

Closet Obama supporters will seek to downplay the incident. But his Monday mis-step is huge politically and may well come to haunt and hurt him as Republican Mitt Romney rolls out the attack plan for this fall's campaign and before. Of all the GOP wannabes, Romney has been Obama's most outspoken critic, especially on the Democrat's "failed leadership" in foreign policy.

A main strain of Romney's assaults has been basically, given the spending, chronic ineptness and apologies for America, can you imagine what Barack Obama would do in a second term unrestrained by any need to face voters ever again?

That's an effective line because it leaves the worst things possible to voters' imagination. And there is no response. What can Obama say, "My secret plans aren't as bad as you think."

What makes Obama's Monday blunder so bad is that it doesn't come from any sort of dismissable ignorance by someone who spent formative childhood years in Indonesia. It was clearly backstage conniving on Obama's part and feeds directly into Romney's 'Can you imagine' line…


You are going to hear a lot of this in the coming election.  It’s an enormous gaffe which says Obama will be less responsive to rather than more responsive in his second term.  And his record for being responsive to the majority in the first term is pathetic. 







8.  Obama:  Oil supporter?

… But Obama wasn't in Cushing because he has approved so much new pipeline. He was there because he is facing bipartisan opposition, in Congress and across the country, for blocking the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring about 700,000 barrels of oil from Canada to refineries in Texas every day, creating thousands of new jobs in the process. The opposition appears to be growing, and there's good reason to believe Obama will be forced to reverse himself in the next few months.

A new Gallup poll shows that 57 percent of Americans say the government should approve building Keystone. That number includes 81 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of independents and 44 percent (a plurality) of Democrats. The only good news for the White House is that most Americans aren't following the issue very closely, at least not yet…

… Recently, Senate Republicans forced a vote on a proposal to approve Keystone. The final vote was 56 - 42, with 11 Democrats breaking with the president to vote in favor of the pipeline. The only reason it didn't pass was that the Democratic leadership filibustered the measure, requiring 60 votes for passage. (Liberal critics of the filibuster, so angry when Republicans used it to block Democratic measures, were uncharacteristically silent after the vote.)

If Obama has already lost 11 Democratic votes, with the election still several months away, it's likely he is going to lose more in the future. "Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said after the last vote that the issue would not be going away," says a Senate GOP source. "There is strong bipartisan support, and we'll have more shots at this."

In coming months, Republicans can likely count on the support of more and more Americans who are more and more angry about rising gas prices. As the general election campaign begins, Obama will face determined arguments from Republicans that in his desire to promote green energy -- Obama will hear the word "Solyndra" many, many times this fall -- he is standing in the way of making America more self-sufficient in oil and gas. It won't matter how many photo-ops he stages in front of piles of pipes. In the end, he'll have to say yes to Keystone.


Obama has so many issues going against him in the Fall, but the price of gasoline is the one that Americans face every day when they fill up their cars.



9.  To the left, it’s nothing but luck

Dennis Prager looks at how the left views affluence.  They seem to think the affluent are simply more “fortunate” or lucky. 


Somehow I am reminded of the old saying, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.” 


Monday, March 26, 2012

The Politics gets dialed up

What’s new Today

Story #1relates a rally over the weekend in Washington by the Tea Party to repeal Obamacare.  #2 talks about Obama’s etch-a-sketch moment.  #3 codifies the left’s process they use to try and get what they want.  #4 compares Obama’s new video with one done by the Gipper in 1984.  #5 give us a glimpse of Obama’s planned tactics against Governor Romney.  I hope you like my answer to his charges.  #6 is the first news on hearing about Obamacare in the Supreme Court and my prediction of how is will turn out.  #7 is a good example of how the left views free speech.  And #8 is the strangest political video I’ve seen. 



1.  Rally to Repeal Obamacare

…the Tea Party Patriots did a great job organizing today’s rally in Washington DC. Thousands of people turned out in the rain stayed for the over two hour rally. And after the last speaker Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) led the crowd over to the Supreme Court Building.

Tea Parties have gathered in Washington D.C. for the Rally to Repeal Obamacare. Herman Cain and Jim Hoft were some of the speakers at the rally….


After seeing what the Democrats were planning is great to see the Tea Party out again. 





2.  Obama’s Etch-a-Sketch moment

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.


The big difference is that Romney’s etch-a-sketch moment was said by an aide and it meant the Romney would tell people what he plans to do before the election.  Obama’s was said by himself and indicated that he wouldn’t tell the American people what he plans to do before the election. 



3.  Liberal technique to get what they want

…Most of us are rational human beings, able to look at both sides of an issue and make the right choice. So how is it that the libs get remarkably bad policy through congress? Well, if you think about it their MO has changed very little since Woodrow Wilson, and it goes something like this:

  1. Create a victim (blacks, illegal immigrants, college students w/o birth control, Gaia, etc.)

  2. Exaggerate the plight of the victim (Protests, get on friendly media, protests some more, etc.)
  3. Find a villain you can blame the plight of the victim on (Big Oil, big banks, big coal, rich, Koch Brothers, big insurance etc.)
  4. Demagogue the villain (Fat-cat bankers, fat-cat oil execs, fat-cat fill in the blank).
  5. Get your way!
  6. Rinse and repeat


Don't believe me? Let's take the Sandra Fluke nonsense as one example. Nancy Pelosi wants abortions. I truly believe she thinks that killing babies is good policy but let's leave that for another post. Pelosi wants free birth control right? But if she just asks for it rational folks would tell her to take a hike. So what did she do: Check out the bullet points above:

  1. Got a victim? (Poor broke college student who can't afford to have sex) Check!

  2. Exaggerate the issue? ($3,000/year for condoms) Check!
  3. Got a villain? (Big bad insurance companies/Republicans) Check!
  4. Demagogue the villain? (Republicans WAGE WAR ON WOMAN'S HEALTH!) Big time check!
  5. Get your way? Well we'll see...



I thought this was very insightful.  It is the way they do it. 





4.  It’s not “Morning in America” in Obama’s video

President Barack Obama's 17-minute video, "The Road We've Traveled," gives us an idea of how he wants to frame the issues in the fall election.

The first thing you notice about the video is that the atmosphere is dark, wintry, minor key. You see but don't hear the election night crowd in Grant Park, and then the video switches to graphics about the economic meltdown that followed the financial crisis of 2008.

There are gloomy scenes throughout. Obama's economic advisers arrive in a bleak Chicago after a snowstorm. The president is shown in the Oval Office through a window at night.

The visuals are oddly antique for a president who promised hope and change. When narrator Tom Hanks talks of the "middle class," we see downscale neighborhoods with houses built in the 1910s or 1920s. When he talks about economic recovery, we see an early 1950s Ford coming off the assembly line…

… For a contrast, look at the 1984 Reagan campaign's "Morning in America" ad. The narrator, ad man Hal Riney, has a soothing voice like Hanks', but his message is vastly more upbeat. America is "prouder and stronger and better," he proclaims, because of the policies of President Reagan.

You see more flags than you do in the Obama video, more smiles, couples at the altar. It looks like springtime and is filled with light.


The grey and dark tones of Obama’s video may be a Freudian slip.  Perhaps he is portraying that it is evening in Obama’s America. So much for Hope and Change, it’s now Excuses and Blame. 





5.  It’s Mitt’s Fault

… In an interview with Public Radio International that was released Thursday, Obama attacked his likely GOP opponent in the fall, Mitt Romney, on the subject of healthcare, an area that could be a weakness for the Republican front-runner.

Obama said the law Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts was a model for his federal law, and accused the Republican of “pretending" he came up with a different plan.

"We designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans — including the person who may end up being the Republican standard-bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different," Obama said...


This is very weak.  It is the equivalent of a kid explaining why he failed an exam by saying, “I copied from the wrong person.”





6.   SCOTUS starts to hear the arguments on Obamacare

The Supreme Court plunged into debate Monday on the fate of the Obama administration's overhaul of the nation's health care system, starting with pointed questions about a legal issue that could derail the case.

A decision is expected by late June, in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which all of President Obama's Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal if the high court hasn't struck it down in the meantime.

With demonstrators chanting outside, eight of the nine justices fired two dozen questions in less than a half hour Monday morning at Washington attorney Robert Long. He had been appointed by the justices to argue that the case has been brought prematurely because a law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid.

"Only Justice Clarence Thomas was silent," CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said. "He hasn't asked a question in six years, and no one expected him to start today."

The prematurity issue is significant because the key part of the law -- the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes -- doesn't take effect until 2014, CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford reports.

At issue is whether that penalty is a tax.

One federal appeals court ruled the lawsuits should wait until the law actually takes effect. But even if the Supreme Court agrees, the justices this week will go ahead and hear all the other arguments against the law.

Some of the justices reacted skeptically to the idea that the penalties encapsulated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were actually a tax.

"What is the parade of horribles?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, if the court decides that penalties are not a tax and the health care case goes forward? Long suggested it could encourage more challenges to the long-standing system in which the general rule is that taxpayers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court.

Outside the court building, about 100 supporters of the law walked in a circle holding signs that read, "Protect my healthcare," and chanting, "Care for you, care for me, care for every family." A half-dozen opponents shouted, "We love the Constitution!"…


FYI.  Nothing significant will be known until June.  My prediction is that this objection to the suit loses, the mandate loses, but the court won’t strike down the entire law allowing the election to settle that. 







7.  Leftwing student:  “Free speech to me, but not for thee”

Steven Landsburg, the professor who was denounced by his university for criticizing Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, stuck to his position in an exclusive interview with The College Fix.

“Everyone deserves respect, but some people are not interested in discussing their ideas, or possibly examining a different side,” said Landsburg, a bestselling author and professor of economics at the University of Rochester. “Fluke clearly has no desire to do this.”

Fluke, an advocate for mandatory insurance coverage of birth control, was called a “slut” by Rush Limbaugh. On his blog, The Big Questions, Landsburg wrote: “While Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position… deserves none whatsoever. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered… I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception, but Ms. Fluke has made no such argument.”

His opinion sparked controversy at the University of Rochester. Student protesters entered Landsburg’s mid-afternoon lecture and formed a line, shoulder-to-shoulder, between him and the class. Landsburg continued to lecture. The students distributed fliers that read: “We denounce professor Steven Landsburg’s attempt to smear a gender with derogatory terms.”


Can you image how universities would react if right winged students did this to a left wing professor?  I imagine there would be some suspensions and/or probation of those students for disrupting their fellow students’ rights to learn. 

If you would like to read Professor’s Landsburg’s blog, you can here.






8.  A very Strange Video


No wonder small businesses are not reproducing like rabbits right now. 


Sunday, March 25, 2012

Obamacare, the Mandate and Freedom

SCOTUS starts its three day hearing on Obamacare Monday at 10 AM ET.  The importance of this cannot be overstated.  To Liberals this is vital to who they think they are.  Fairness demands that we give healthcare to everyone.  To Conservative this is vital to what the country is.  If congress can pass a law forcing everyone to buy a product, individual freedom is gone. 





Obamacare, the White House, and SCOTUS

Few legal cases in the modern era are as consequential, or as defining, as the challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court hears beginning Monday. The powers that the Obama Administration is claiming change the structure of the American government as it has existed for 225 years. Thus has the health-care law provoked an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional showdown that endangers individual liberty.

It is a remarkable moment. The High Court has scheduled the longest oral arguments in nearly a half-century: five and a half hours, spread over three days. Yet Democrats, the liberal legal establishment and the press corps spent most of 2010 and 2011 deriding the government of limited and enumerated powers of Article I as a quaint artifact of the 18th century. Now even President Obama and his staff seem to grasp their constitutional gamble.

Consider a White House strategy memo that leaked this month, revealing that senior Administration officials are coordinating with liberal advocacy groups to pressure the Court. "Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned," the memo notes, rather than "the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precedence [sic]." Those nonpolitical details are merely what "lawyers will be talking about."

The White House is even organizing demonstrations during the proceedings, including a "'prayerful witness' encircling the Supreme Court." The executive branch is supposed to speak to the Court through the Solicitor General, not agitprop and crowds in the streets

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577291762007718228.html

The political tactics the White House is trying to use reminded me of this quote by Ann Coulter:  “liberals don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘fact’ or ‘truth.’  Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines.”  Apparently the rule of law isn’t too high on their list either. 







Obamacare: The reckoning



…Coerciveness.

….Serendipitously, the recently issued regulation on contraceptive coverage has allowed us to see exactly how this new power works. All institutions — excepting only churches, but not excepting church-run charities, hospitals, etc. — will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause abortion.

Consider the cascade of arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that resulted in this edict:

(1) Contraception, sterilization and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent IS A VALUE DECISION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.

(2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?

(3) “Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary.

Today, it’s the Catholic Church whose free-exercise powers are under assault from this cascade of diktats sanctioned by — indeed required by — Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be the turn of other institutions of civil society that dare stand between unfettered state and atomized citizen.

Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness. Little wonder the president barely mentioned it in his latest State of the Union address. He wants to be reelected. He’d rather talk about other things.

But there’s no escaping it now. Oral arguments begin Monday at 10 a.m…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-the-reckoning/2012/03/22/gIQALF1QUS_story.html

A powerful piece by Charles Krauthammer regarding the issues with Obamacare.  I highlighted this one but there is more to read and I recommend you do so. 







Obamacare:  Business Concerns

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will begin three days of hearings over the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,  better known as Obamacare. The court has a variety of choices it can make with this 2,000-page behemoth of a law: It can strike it down entirely, it can excise the individual mandate as an unconstitutional intrusion on individual rights, or it can leave it intact.

For employers, none of the above will offer complete relief from the law’s many intended and unintended effects. For a few of the biggest headaches employers need to think about I spoke with Chantel Speaks, principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox unit that advises employers on human resources and healthcare insurance issues.

Obamacare doesn’t really go into effect until 2014 but employers are already wrestling with its rules — such as the requirement they cover children up to age 26 on employer policies — and there myriad more effects that are either unknown or can only be guessed at. Here are some Sheaks says every employer should be concerned about:

  • Should I Continue To Offer Coverage? The law encourages states to set up “insurance exchanges” where anybody can buy health insurance as part of a large group, ostensibly at a lower cost. The premiums will even come with a subsidy for households earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or over $88,000 for a family of four.   So why not just drop coverage and let the government pick up the cost? “Everyone says, `I don’t want to be the first, but I don’t mind being the second,’ to drop coverage” Sheaks says….


It’s a lot more complicated that Washington would care to admit and in that complexity is the question, “did Obama lie when he said, ‘if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.’”





The Mother of all Death Panels



…Seven House Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for the GOP-majority rollback. Analysts on both sides of the political aisle have decried IPAB’s complete lack of accountability and insulation from judicial review. Critical decisions about public and private health-insurance payment rates would be freed from the normal administrative-rules process — public notice, public comment, public review — that governs every other federal commission in existence. Rep. Todd Akin (R., Mo.) summed up bipartisan opposition: “IPAB embodies the very thing Americans fear most about Obamacare — unaccountable Washington bureaucrats meeting behind closed doors to make unilateral decisions that should be made by patients and their doctors.”



The problem with piecemeal repeal is that for every old IPAB, there’s a new, multibillion-dollar bureaucracy waiting in the Obamacare wings. Senate Republicans and fellow medical doctors Tom Coburn and John Barrasso point to a $10 billion entity called the “Innovation Center” that “would test innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures under Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program” (S-CHIP).



According to a new Congressional Research Service analysis of this little-known office to be operated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there would be “no administrative or judicial review” of the director’s payment experiments. Coburn and Barrasso explain that “this means that the administrator of CMS is the sole individual in the entire federal government with the power to decide whether or not models tested negatively impact seniors’ quality of care and meet the financial requirements spelled out in law.”



This “innovation” super-czar would be allowed to tinker behind closed doors — and then impose whatever experiments the “Innovation Center” chose, without any checks or balances on the methods or results. Moreover, at least two other sub-offices within CMS (subject to normal open-meetings and open-records rules) have already been tasked with researching payment and delivery models. At National Review Online’s health-care blog, Critical Condition, Tevi Troy warns: “The ‘innovation’ center appears to be one more way in which the health-care law is going to interfere with the practice of medicine, and one that physicians should start paying more attention to.”…






Obamacare is anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and anti-accountability.  In short it is the perfect dream for progressive “experts.”







Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare


Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law. While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history. Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following…




This is an eye opening list of new taxes that go along with Obamacare.  Guess who will be paying for these?