The Elephant in the Room

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no touché, you insufferable twits.

Obama is not responsible for the flaws of capitalism.

[sirs]

He IS responsible for this Socialism-light he's trying to paint the country with, and causing such an exacerbation of misery & poverty.  Way to go, Mr. Radical Community Organizer

[sirs]

The TRUE Elephant in the room

Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.

Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.

Cost:

Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard 10-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet 10-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion — $938 billion to be exact.

But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.

It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of $1 trillion every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.

Constitutionality:

Beginning Monday, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4 — i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.

Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?

If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.

Figure becomes ground; ground becomes figure. The stakes could not be higher.

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.

[sirs]

You can always tell that a person is losing an argument when he throws reason, logic and factual evidence aside and starts personally attacking his opponent. That's the modus operandi of Paul Krugman, liberal columnist for The New York Times.

Opponents of ObamaCare are telling "lies," wrote Krugman the other day. In fact he used the word "lie" three times to characterize the critics in the space of a single column. Those who disagree with him "make stuff up" and concoct "completely fraudulent" statements, he adds.

While he's ranting and raving about people he calls "the enemy," Krugman tells a few whoppers of his own, however. This is his defense of ObamaCare:

The fact is that individual health insurance, as currently constituted, just doesn't work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will — as they are in, say, California — they offer cheap policies to the young and healthy (and try to yank coverage if you get sick) but refuse to cover anyone likely to need expensive care.

Now anyone who knows anything about the health insurance business knows that it is illegal under federal law for an insurance company "to yank" (cancel) someone's insurance because he or she gets sick. That's not only illegal; it's been illegal for the past 16 years!

What about insurance companies refusing to sell insurance to people because they need expensive care? It happens. But this is a problem that is turning out to be relatively minor and not very expensive to fix. If Krugman is going to write about health care, he should have known that fact as well.

One of the most interesting parts of ObamaCare is the new federal risk pools that offer coverage to the very people Krugman is talking about. Anyone denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition can buy insurance in Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) risk pools for the same premium that would be paid by healthy people.

So how many people have signed up? Only 49,000.

Think about that. We are in the process of nationalizing the entire health care system.
- The federal government is going to tell 300 million Americans what kind of health insurance they must have.
- We are going to create 159 new regulatory agencies
- and spend close to $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years getting it done.
Yet the primary reason for doing all of this — according to Krugman — is to solve the problem of 49,000 people!

As for criticizing ObamaCare, the critics have no reason to lie. The reality is ugly enough. There are three big problems in health care: cost, quality and access. Health care is too expensive. The quality of care many patients receive is less than optimal. And too many Americans have difficulty getting care. So for its $1.8 trillion price tag, what will ObamaCare do about these three problems? It will most likely make all three of them worse.

• Almost every serious analysis predicts that spending will be higher, not lower, under ObamaCare.

• The results of pilot programs and demonstration projects leave us no reason to believe that the quality of care will improve ; and perverse incentives are likely to make the quality of care patients receive worse, not better.

• Access to care for our most vulnerable populations is likely to go down, not up — despite the fact that more people will have health insurance.

On this last point, ObamaCare makes the same mistake nationally as health reform in Massachusetts, which President Obama cites as the model for his reform. In both cases, more people get insurance, but there are no more doctors to deliver any additional care.

In Massachusetts, more people are going to hospital emergency rooms than ever before — presumably because they can't find a doctor who will see them. The wait to see a new doctor in Boston is about two months — longer than in any other U.S. city. In a sense, people in Boston have less access to care than people living anywhere else!

ObamaCare will greatly expand the demand for health care while doing nothing to increase its supply. That implies a huge rationing problem, and anyone who is in a health plan that pays doctors and hospitals less than what others are paying will be pushed to the rear of the waiting lines. Who are those people? They are the elderly and the disabled on Medicare, poor people on Medicaid, and (if Massachusetts is the model) low income families getting subsidized insurance in the newly created health insurance exchanges.

ObamaCare will impose its harshest impact on the most vulnerable populations.

[Plane]

"more people get insurance, but there are no more doctors to deliver any additional care.

   I like this point.
   Even though the Obamacare idea is huge and elaborate, it cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.

[sirs]

So true.  Again, a "well intentioned idea" (though personally I see it as a far more nefarious power grab by the left), is fatally flawed on both constitutionality, and as you recognize, reality

Scary to think that the direction of this country is likely to hinge on 1, perhaps 2 Supreme Court justices

[sirs]

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are very good reasons why the Germans, the Dutch, the Swedes and the Norwegians stay healthier than we do for far less, and supply and demand does not explain the difference.

Doctors, hospitals, drug companies are all overpaid by world standards.

[sirs]

Well intentioned, still doesn't trump the Constitution, I'm afraid.  Don't like it....amend the Constituion.  whalaa...you then get your Obamination care, and its legal

[sirs]

Speaking of stupid.......The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.

“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

No Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act on final passage.

He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.

“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.

Conservatives have blasted the administration for the individual mandate and only one Republican voted for Obamacare in both houses of the legislature.

Earnest deflected questions about the future of the law and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Many analysts have said that the court is likely to overturn Obama’s signature law after conservative members of the court, as well as Obama appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor, bombarded Verilli with blistering questions over the mandate.

“There have been lower court cases where conservative judges have posed difficult, tough questions to Department of Justice lawyers … and conservative judges, who posed tough questions ended up upholding the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

Some also questioned the Verrilli’s performance, as he stumbled and coughed at times in defending the bill on Tuesday. Earnest defended the attorney.

“He’s one of the brightest legal minds in Washington, D.C.,” he said. “He gave a very solid performance before the Supreme Court, that’s just a fact.”

The spokesman did not know if President Obama had listened to trial transcripts, as he was flying back from Seoul, South Korea. He repeatedly said that the administration is not preparing contingency plans if Obamacare is struck down.

“We are focused on implementing all of the provisions of the law because they are important benefits,” he said, adding “we’re not, no,” when reporters asked again if alternative strategies are being considered.

“If there’s a reason or a need to consider contingencies down the line, then we will.”

The Heritage Foundation has been credited with introducing the concept of the individual mandate during the debate over Hillary Clinton’s healthcare reform almost 20 years ago, but has since come to oppose it. It is not the only group that has changed sides on the issue: Obama slammed then-rival Hillary Clinton over the mandate on the campaign trail.

“We still don’t know how Sen. Clinton intends to enforce a mandate … you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can’t afford it, even with the subsidies,” Obama said. “They are then worse off: They then have no health care, and are paying a fine above and beyond that.”

The mandate helped Obama win favor among the healthcare industry, which donated $2.3 million to his 2008 campaign. His fundraising among the healthcare industry has not slowed in 2012, with Obama raking in more than $360,000 from drug makers.

The Supreme Court finished its final day of hearings concerning Obamacare today, with arguments focused on whether a rejection of the individual mandate would invalidate the entire law.

The court is expected to issue a ruling in June.

[sirs]

[BT]

That cartoon is RACISSSST

[sirs]

But of course.  It dares to criticize Obamination care, and higlight the real elephant/gorilla in the room       

[sirs]

Our Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments on the legality of Obamacare. Neither joint sessions of Congress nor oral arguments are as fun as they sound.

The arguments are nuanced ones, cloaked in unnecessarily technical language that no one really understands – much like the health care bill itself. Even a New York Times poll says that 72 percent of Americans do not want Obamacare.

The case hinges on the sly wording of what consequence is attached to not complying with the individual mandate, which is the core of this massive intrusion into our daily lives.
- At first Obama called it a "tax."
- Later, when he saw that was a legal problem, he called it a "penalty."
His administration has flipped on this issue more than a meth-house mattress.

Washington learned long ago that if you name a bill something that no one could argue with, like "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," you could put pretty much put anything you like in a 2,000-ish page bill and pass it before anyone reads it.

In a stunning act of hubris that defined the first two years of Democratic- controlled, filibuster-proof House, Senate and presidency, then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi famously said of the contentious Obamacare bill as it slithered through, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."

Much like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Democrats realized they had a narrow window of opportunity, just two years, to loot the U.S. Treasury, knowing full well the police would soon be there. In this case, the police arrived with the landslide "shellacking" Democrats took in the 2010 elections. Republicans regained control of the House and took the keys to the liquor cabinet away from the less financially responsible kids.

Since then, Obama appointed reliable liberal Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He said he was looking for someone with "empathy," preferably a bi-racial woman with some experience being a judge. At the time, I suggested Paula Abdul. She fits Obama's criteria and clearly, given her success in Hollywood with only one hit song, she has spent a lot of time around old men in robes.

Heath care in America remains a concern. We live in a country that celebrates overeating. We cheer the reigning Nathan's Hot Dogs eating champion, Joey Chestnut, as he chokes down 60 wieners. Why then is the current incentive (dying early from cardiac disease or obesity-induced diabetes) not motivation enough? Throwing everyone into the same insurance risk pool at the same price is not going to help matters.

Just to sum up the simple math on the best health care system the world has ever known, the average family has out-of-pocket expenses for health care (after employer-paid insurance and the like) of $2,853 per year. This is 33 percent of what we spend yearly on our transportation. The same U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report says we spend $118 on "reading," which goes a long way toward explaining why Obamacare slipped through.

Obama knows his health care law is a loser, so he does what he normally does: finds someone to blame. As a model, he points to Romney's state health care system in Massachusetts, which is a disaster. He really doesn't need to use such a recent data point when there are older models of socialized medicine he can chart the trajectory of his plan against, like North Korea's. Fellow "Glorious Leaders," from Hitler through most recently Cuba's Castro, have bought the favor of their electorate with generous, socialized medicine meth.

I have a vested interest in this battle and not only as an advocate for liberty, free markets and limited government. My oldest is in her third year of medical school. Medicine should remain a beacon for our best and brightest who set out upon their careers to help their patients. They should not become petty bureaucrats in the Obama cradle-to-grave socialist state, bound by political expediencies and not by the best outcomes for their patients.

If we can be forced to buy government-mandated health insurance under duress of a dubious interpretation of the commerce clause, with the validation of the Supreme Court and its due process clause, for a health care bill more characteristic of Santa Claus, what is next?

Relish your fleeting freedoms. Liberty was nice while it lasted

[BT]

But of course.  It dares to criticize Obamination care, and higlight the real elephant/gorilla in the room       

It's racist because the author chose to portray obama (and his signature piece of legislation) as a gorilla.