TANSTAAFL

ACA premiums to jump up to 25% as private insurers pull out of the federal marketplace leaving less competition and fewer options.
MSN

In Pennsylvania the number of insurers has dropped from 15 to 8, in Philadelphia there are only 2 insurers left and premiums are expected to rise 53%.
CBS  

Some Coloradans could see increases of up to 40%, while those in Denver can expect a 15-25% rise.  92,000 people will need new plans in 2017.
CBS 

Covered California announced that rates will increase across the state by an average of 13.2% but that number can be misleading. In one case the cost of a silver-level PPO from Blue Shield the premium will rise from $162 to $254 after tax credits are applied, an increase of 57%.
LA Daily News

The government likes to point out that after tax credits many individuals will not see their rates rise at all, but make no mistake, the costs are going up and someone is paying for it... and that someone is us. 

The "Affordable" Care Act?

This post began as a response to Ronald but I found it so illuminating I though I'd share it with the rest of you. Ron questioned my claim of suffering a roughly 50% increase in my health insurance premiums so I thought I would dig out my records and provide accurate information. Turns out that the 50% hike was only in one year. Viewed over the last four years it amounts to far more, and the farther back you look, the worse it gets.

My response to Ron Ward:

 Being a responsible adult, I've always carried the best health insurance plan offered by my company. What is now called a Platinum plan, with no deductible. You know. The kind that they are going to start taxing in a couple of years.

 In 2011 the annual cost for myself and my then wife was $3497

 In 2012 that rose to $3775.20

 In 2013 it rose to $6084

 In 2014, my company's decision to comply early to the provisions of the ACA increased the premium to $9048

 Late in 2014 I got divorced. So since I was only insuring myself in 2015 the annual nut fell to $5383.04

 This year my annual premium will be $5929.04, but I now have a $250 dollar deductible for the same  coverage. Adding that to the premium it becomes $6179.04

So now that I am paying more to insure one person in 2016 than I was paying to insure 2 people in 2013, please, pray tell how the ACA is going to save me money?


I'd be interested to know how many of you have had similar experiences?  Who's zooming who about the ACA?

As a footnote, a Federal judge has just ruled the healthcare subsidies being paid by the current administration "unconstitutional" as Congress has not appropriated the money.



 

Obamacare Update

Well the Congressional Budget Office January 2015 outlook on Obamacare is in... $1.993 Trillion offset by $643 Billion in new revenue for an offset cost of $1.35 Trillion dollars for 2016-2025.

Insuring 24-27 million Americans at a "government" price tag of $50,000 a head, and that doesn't include the increase in your insurance premiums to help offset the cost.  I don't know about all of you but the health care premium rate increase this year was  20%, on top of the 10% increase from last year.

So that's the government footing a portion of the bill at $5000 a head per year. Compare that to the British National Health Service that foots the whole bill for everyone at a cost of $3405 a head (The Economist).

That said... $1.35 Trillion dollars later there will still be between 29 and 31 million uninsured.

As P.T Barnum said "There's a Sucker born every minute".

Obamacare, The Preview

Equal Treatment for Everyone: Bad!

Gross Mismanagement & Criminal Misconduct...

... creating systemic patient safety issues and possible wrongful deaths.

Since 2005 the Office of the IG has issued 18 reports that identified at both the national and local levels, deficiencies in scheduling that resulting in lengthy wait times and the negative impact on patient care.

Data reported by HCS showed 226 patients waited on average 24 days for their first primary care appointment, however the IG review showed these 226 patients waited an average of 115 days.

multiple scheduling practices not in compliance with policy


Delaying medical care and manipulating records to hide those delays is "systemic"

inappropriate scheduling practices are a problem nationwide

It appears that a significant number of schedulers are manipulating the waiting times of established patients,


(Hospital) leadership significantly understated the time new patients waited for their primary care appointment in their FY 2013 performance appraisal accomplishments, which is one of the factors considered for awards and salary increases,

VA IG Report

Government healthcare...

... it's what liberals deserve. 

The Other Six Days

DangApricot

“You can’t have a belief system on Sunday and not live it the other six days.” ~ David Green

David Green has one of America’s great, little-known fortunes, having turned a makeshift manufacturing operation in his living room for arts and crafts into a retail monster, with 520 superstores in 42 states with 23,000 employees. Green and his family own 100% of the company and he ranks No. 79 on Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, with an estimated net worth of $4.5 billion. 

“Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver”.  

Green keeps the total amount of his charitable contributions private, but based on information received from him and discussion with various recipients, FORBES estimates his lifetime giving at upwards of $500 million.  Forbes

The Issue at Hand ~ Religious Freedom

“If you have anything or if I have anything, it’s because it’s been given to us by our Creator,”

There is no litmus test for religious freedom.  The issue isn't whether or not David Green is right or wrong, reasonable or not, but whether or not he has the freedom to run his private corporation in accordance with his own beliefs.

David Green hasn't suddenly found religion at the feet of Obamacare, he has been running his business this way since its founding in 1972.  Hobby Lobby is not a Public Corporation, it is a family owned business.  That it is a corporation is irrelevant, it is not a public corporation and no one in their right mind holds this size of business in their own name.

“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values, As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.” 10th Circuit Court

The Other Six Days

Hobby Lobby starts its full time employees $14.00 an hour, well above the federal mandated minimum wage and their part-time employees at $9.50.  Their 13,000 full-time employees had insurance long before Obamacare. The company is closed on Sunday, Christmas, and Easter and takes out ads proclaiming Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior.  Hobby Lobby takes half of its pre-tax earnings and donates them to a portfolio of evangelical ministries.  The company is set up such that in the event of a sale or liquidation 90% of the profits will go to charity while only 10% will go into a generational trust for the health and education of family members.

“My grandkids can’t say, ‘I own 5% and I own 10,’ and then all of a sudden they’re sitting on a yacht,” says Green.

In short, Hobby Lobby doesn't behave like other corporations... it is run in accordance with David Green's religious beliefs, do we really want it to start acting like Wal-Mart or McDonald's?

Another important thing to remember is this, unlike a publicly traded company it only takes 1 vote to close Hobby Lobby for good, David Green's.  David Green doesn't have to provide anything in violation of his beliefs, he can simply fire 23,000 people.  Which is what I would do if the government tried to make me do something in violation of my beliefs, I don't think David Green would go there, I think he would believe that to be wrong, but I'm a libertarian not an evangelical.

Forbes
American Prospect

Obama's Mouthpieces

By Hugh Farnham

Any strongman worthy of the name needs an army - of mouthpieces.  This demagogue is no different.

Call them Plumbers, Mr. Fix-its, or Mouthpieces; their mission is always the same.  Stanch the flow of blood, divert attention, outright lie, or dole out information late Friday night in drips and drabs.

Fast and Furious

The Administration was funneling illegal arms into Mexico over the past few years to create shocking firearm smuggling statistics, in time to justify signing the UN Small Arms Treaty.  This incendiary truth had to be squelched, and right quick.  Bring in Soros and Media Matters, loyal troops in the War Against Truth.

The Daily Caller unveiled  the DOJ's Public Affairs was working closely with Mark Gertz of Media Matters.  This collusion was for a coordinated barrage of attacks against House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, along with others demanding a full accounting of the whole "F and F" operation.

Consider Obama's amazing hypocrisy in light of the Connecticut  murders, for which the Gunrunner-In-Chief squirted tears on TV.  But no wet eyes for hundreds of Mexicans killed by guns purchased by the ATF using Stimulus Dollars.

Benghazi

The Administration didn't send out some State Department bureaucrat to lie to us, but the UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  She regaled us with stories about the casus belli video and supposed protests going on near the consulate.  Both turned out to be lies.

Now You Try Saying It!

ObamaCare

Spin Doctor Sanjay Gupta - you know of him, the didactic MD on CNN telling you to eat your veggies - made the rounds prior to the Supreme Court ruling with a sky-will-fall horror story if ObamaCare was declared unconstitutional. So it was declared "constitutional" and yes, the sky will still fall.  

This list could go on and on, with an endless line of politicians, actors, and socialites the length of a fat plumber's crack.

So what really is that oral appliance?  It's an Asian Face Slimmer!

Supreme Agony, Statist Ecstasy

I do not agree with Chief Justice John Roberts' decision.  It explodes government's taxation powers.  I side with the dissenting minority, so this is an explanation, not a justification.

Democrats are right. The Supreme Court is political. It's complex interrelationship with the other branches always has been, going all the way back to President Andrew Jackson’s famous quote defying a Supreme Court decision: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!”

The Supreme Court tore up FDR in the early days of his creating alphabet soup agencies. But the public began to perceive them as obstructionist in a time where the federal government needed latitude, so they softened their stance to guard their power. Later, President Roosevelt would overreach, threatening to pack the court. The public rejected that as well, and thus continued the political balancing act.

The result was a continued expansion of federal power that was begun at the start of the progressive era.

Chief Justice Roberts Saved the Day

In a feat of cowardly political and legal jujitsu, Chief Justice John Roberts made a political calculation, joining with the liberal justices to avoid a five alarm political firestorm in an election year. This kicks the issue back into the political arena where it belongs. Being on the winning side, he got to write the majority opinion and shape it, carving the precedent as narrowly as possible.

He allowed Obamacare to stand while simultaneously checking an expansion of federal power under the commerce clause.

Roberts apparently found the two other likely outcomes too earth-shattering

Striking it down completely could have set a precedent that government does not have the power to tax us in this way, setting the stage for the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, which are funded by mandatory taxation.

Small government conservatives like me thrill at the prospect, but suddenly shattering a model that tens of millions depend on is not the smart way to do something, and such radical remedies are not conservative.

Commerce Clause expansion was the argument upon which opponents hung their opposition.  The other outcome he avoided was allowing government to claim it had this authority under the commerce clause. That would have been catastrophic, essentially declaring that there is nothing the federal government may not do if it posits an appropriate pretext.

He ingeniously rejected the notion that this was permissible under the commerce clause, thereby saving us from another expansion of this already gargantuan federal government permission slip. It was also a stroke of genius to declare this as falling under the federal government’s already-established taxation power.

This decision sets no precedent

Government already and still does have too much power, but this did not grant it any new ones. There is no precedent here, no new rights created.  What the ruling does do is egregiously expand government's taxation powers. The government can tax what it wants when it wants to, and that is the bucket the Chief Justice has dumped Obamacare into.

They won’t force you to eat your arugula or put solar panels on your roof, they will just tax you punitively if you don’t. Could we end up being taxed by the pound? Why not? This opens the way for Bloombergian taxation of all kind of stuff that’s bad for you: Fatty meats, cheesecake, ice cream…

But the power was already there. Has been for a hundred years, it is just metastasizing now.

Elections have consequences. The final vote on Obamacare will be this November.

Bonus Material:
Market-based Alternatives to Obamacare
Why Obamacare will fail: A Reading List
Why Obamacare is Doomed

Are You Serious? The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything!

Liberals are just now waking up to the reality that Obamacare is hard to defend, because they haven't deigned to defend it until now.  The liberal argument for Obamacare has been based in "bandwagon/argumentum ad populum" and "appeal to authority," both logical fallacies.

Here's a common illogical example addressing government's power to regulate non-activity and make us eat broccoli:

Until this week, most scholars seemed to think this would be treated by the justices as a distinction without any special significance. “It’s a silly distinction,” Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor, told me this week. Opponents of the law “have gotten an enormous amount of mileage out of ‘inactivity,’ but that really has nothing to do with the regulation of commerce,” he said.

One hundred professors from many of the country’s major law schools signed a statement arguing that those seeking to overturn the law “seek to jettison nearly two centuries of settled constitutional law” and “there can be no serious doubt about the constitutionality” of the insurance mandate. 

One hundred professors! No serious doubt!  Imagine that! This is the kind of argumentation the left's advocacy is shot through with. No reasoning, just intellectually-flaccid statements that include such phrases as "everybody knows" and "experts agree." They won't even rebut serious challenges, imperiously discounting them out of hand.

Yes We Can!  ...Make them eat their broccoli...

When Justice Scalia asked the broccoli question, White House Solicitor Verrilli stumbled and fumbled, disappointing tearful progressives everywhere. Here's what a New York Times writer thought he should have said, and it sums up progressive thought in a nutshell:

But it seems to me that a succinct answer to Justice Scalia’s question is that the commerce clause would not limit Congress’s ability to regulate broccoli — if members of the House and Senate were crazy enough to pass legislation requiring all of us to eat green vegetables and if that were deemed a rational way to regulate commerce. The same could be said of health clubs.  (NY Times)

Progressivism is Fundamentally Un-American

There you go, folks. This is why progressives should never be trusted with power, and their century-old strongman ideology is fundamentally un-American.  In their world, unlike the founding fathers', a crazy congress could force us to eat our arugula, or march the fatties off to government boot camps, and that is the fatal flaw of progressivism: Trusting our overlords to not be crazy, stupid or greedy as they wield absolute power.  Yeah, that's a great plan!  Sarcasm aside, it is antithetical to the bedrock foundation of this republic, it ignores the entire arc of human history, and flies in the face of our understanding of human nature.

Note how the progressive author blithely dismisses individual liberty:

"To Depression-era farmers, it was no doubt an affront to individual freedom that the federal government had the power to tell them what crops not to plant." (NY Times)

Not buying insurance, or Filburn growing wheat for his own consumption in defiance of government quotas, is fair game for progressives because it affects overall commerce. But everything is connected, so what on earth does not affect overall commerce? That is how markets work. Under the progressives' capacious understanding of the commerce clause, there is no human activity under the sun that the federal government could not regulate.

An old or severely disabled person deciding to not die and instead electing an expensive medical procedure would fit into the same category. A progressive government, using its own twisted logic, would regulate that too, regulating the person right out of existence.  I'll spare you the historical precedents...

"the federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country." -- Democrat Congressman Pete Stark

Please go read Ilya Shapiro's excellent article slicing and dicing the hapless left, We were Serious the whole Time

Progressives Corrupt History, Impugn Founding Fathers

Contrary to what progressives are saying, the individual mandate is unprecedented

Obama's goose-stepping minions are in a panic, grasping for anything to steady their reality-induced vertigo.  Liberal blogger Green Eagle linked to an article claiming a 1798 act passed by congress and signed by President John Adams set a legal and constitutional precedent for the individual mandate.  Yes, they are so desperate that they are trying to prove that the founding fathers invented socialized medicine.  

I did a little googling and found a veritable infestation of such articles.  All of them are laced with snide little jibes about how devastated we " conservative constitution worshipers" will be upon discovering the constitutional treason committed by the founding fathers, who we worship as gods.

I have a little piece of advice for the Left Blogistanis. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Do some research before running off with the first piece of propaganda that suits your pinched worldview.  An unflinching examination of the facts reveal that, as usual, these progressive apologists are mostly full of it.

There is no Individual Mandate in the 1798 Law

The articles citing a precedent for an individual mandate are flat-out wrong, claiming the law mandated "privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance." It clearly does not, so the authors premise is destroyed and thus his argument is invalid. 

What the act did was require ship owners to pay a tax to the US Government in order to dock here.  The funds were used to set up a network of merchant marine hospitals to care for sailors who worked in a very dangerous profession.

Rick Ungar wrote an excellent article in Forbes Magazine making a similar claim, stating the law sets a precedent for single-payer, government run health care. Unlike the first author, he makes a very good case, but still not convincing.

A commenter made a salient counter-argument that is echoed in other rebuttals:

The opposition is that the Federal government cannot constitutionally force American citizens to purchase services from “PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS”.

The monies collected in regards to the Act in question were not required to be paid to a Private institution; they were required to be paid to agents of the Federal government.

The short legal rejection of this argument can be found at the excellent legal site, The Volokh Conspiracy.

So the Act is totally dissimilar to the Obamacare mandate. In the 1798 Act, the government imposes a tax, collects all the tax revenue, and spends the revenue as it chooses.

The Act certainly did not order seamen to purchase any form of private insurance, nor did it order them to purchase any other type of private good. The Act is a solid precedent for federal involvement in health care, and no precedent at all for a federal mandate to purchase private products.  (David Kopel)

As Kopel points out, this act could be cited as a precedent for taxation to fund a single-payer medical system run by the US government (socialized medicine), but not for the individual mandate.  And that is why, to the hand-wringing liberals' chagrin, the White House did not invoke this argument.

Obamista Liberalism:  Intellectually bankrupt and fundamentally dishonest

Lest we believe the founders were proto-socialists, let's dig a little deeper...

Dig a little deeper and what you will see is that the founders taxed merchant shipping companies that docked here and used the tax to fund hospitals for seamen, who performed a very dangerous job at the time.  They were following an older British precedent that pre-dated the founding of our nation.

It is noteworthy that this was not forcing the sailors to purchase something, but a tax on the shipping companies.

It is also notable that the founders did not impose such a scheme on the whole country. No such program existed for farmers, militias or any other group, which makes this a unique circumstance that is being taken out of context.

A better line of argument from liberals would be to use this as a precedent for government socialized medicine, where citizens pay taxes in and get government-provided health care in return.  But even that would be a stretch given the limited nature and historical circumstances of 1798 act.

So no, the founding fathers did not engage in socialized medicine, and what Obama and the Pelosicrats are doing is historically unprecedented.  

Abortion and Contraception: A Humanist Approach

Contra Abortion and Birth Control: Making the case for making the case

I don't expect to convert anyone here on the subject of birth control or abortion, but I do hope to convince you that those who stand in opposition are not just making stuff up and being hateful about it, but that they approach the debate firmly rooted in history, charity and a coherent moral philosophy.

The case against abortion is simple:

It takes a human life. Even the humble one-cell zygote (a human cell, human life! Hello!) has a complete unique human genome.  We didn't know that back in 1973, but the Roe ruling did stipulate that if personhood could be established, the case would be closed. A fetus would be legally considered a human being entitled to constitutional protections:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX A)

The majority also admitted in it's Roe v. Wade ruling that it did not know when human life begins, so it erred on the side of "who cares?"

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX B)

So the pro-abortion argument rests upon the tenuous hope that a fetus is not human life, and it takes a narrow legalistic view instead of a broader prima facie and ontological one. It ignores legal precedents set in various state supreme court decisions as well as historical English jurisprudence, as cited in William Blackstone's Commentaries.  This is the foundation of our law:

I. THE right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.

1. LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.

An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate, made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. (Commentaries - Book 1, Chapter 1)

So the anti-abortion position is not a recent invention; the pro-abortion one is. For those who spread the lie that abortion used to be ok; that Christians just recently started "making it up as they went along," I suggest you go read The Didache, a first century Christian document that specifically prohibits abortion.

Defending contraception is much dicier...

...so I won't even try to make the argument.  I will point out that everything the contraception foes predicted would happen if it became ubiquitous has indeed come to pass:  Family breakup, out-of-wedlock births, venereal disease, dehumanization and sexual objectification of women and all the moral rot and societal decay that goes with it.

The simple fact that unwanted pregnancies have exploded in this era of the miraculous birth control pill should give everyone pause.  It that doesn't do it for you, contemplate Europe's below-replacement fertility rate.  A people that refuses to biologically propagate itself commits slow societal suicide.

I leave it to The Catholic Church to argue that artificial birth control is evil.  I am merely pointing out that the moralists are not full of it.  Their morality is grounded in reason, religious self-discipline, and a profound respect for the intrinsic value of each human being, which as Kant explained should always be treated as ends unto themselves and never merely as a means.

Then there's the more sinister side of abortion and contraception...

Jonathan Freedland explores the left's Eugenics Skeletons in the Closet. The original progressive aim was to abort and contracept the "inferiors" into extinction. Thankfully, the left has given up their sinister plans that included "lethal chambers" and have now progressed to merely enslaving and imprisoning the poor in fetid inner cities to more easily harvest their votes.

So although you may not agree with them, can you at least acknowledge that people who argue against artificial contraception and abortion do so from a firm historical and philosophical foundation?

Blackstone's Commentaries on The Laws of England (Avalon)

Blackstone's Commentaries on The Laws of England (LONANG)
Legal Issues of Roe v Wade

Collectivization Leads to Mob Rule

Pope Obama of the Secular Church of State (click to embiggen)

"But I'm not anti-religion...  Some of my biggest admirers are Catholic!"

Despite the toady nun marched out by Obama to declare that all was now good, the US Catholic Bishops rejected Obama's economically ignorant and transparently tendentious sham offer. I will admit that trotting out Sister Carol Keehan was a nice touch by the president, but why did it remind me of the racist who when cornered defends himself by saying that he has black friends?

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. – Benjamin Franklin

The standard liberal/left argument in favor of Obama dictating to church-run organizations can be boiled down to tyranny of the majority:  Over 50% of citizens think businesses should give away birth control pills and abortafacients, therefore all women have a right to it.  Period.

This is an insidious line of argumentation:

The pivot point is how you see this. Is it a battle over birth control -- used by 98% of U.S. women at some time in their lives -- or over government intrusion into the right of religious organizations to live by their teachings?

58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics. (USA Today)

This contradicts more authoritative, less agenda-driven polling, but we’ll ignore that for now.

Stated another way, “If half the Catholics don’t care, then why is this an issue?”

The logical outcome of this would be that the government can overturn any lawful religious belief or practice that a majority of adherents don’t agree with. It’s an ad populum argument crafted to skirt the more fundamental constitutional issue.

This is an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion, but that is drawing the issue too narrowly. Remove “Birth Control” and replace it with “Iced Tea” and the larger problem would be the same: The government usurping the freedom of individuals by telling them what to do in their personal lives.

"A resolution to this issue cannot only cover 'religious' employers," Pavone said. "Religious freedom, which includes freedom of conscience, does not belong only to religious entities but to every American. There are many non-religious reasons to object to the administration's policy." (USA Today)

Yes! And that cuts to the issue. Government is binding your conscience, in an age and place where religion no longer can.  How the worm has turned.  It is one thing to take your tax money and spend it on wars, or abortions or wasteful green schemes. Elections revolve around such issues. It is quite another for the government to put a gun to your head and demand you buy something and give it to someone else, regardless of whether it violates your moral beliefs.

Here’s another line of liberal argumentation along the same line…

More generally, as Kevin Drum points out, one price for engaging with secular society is living by the rules of secular society. (Cohen)

Sounds good, but it is fraught with error. Who sets “the rules?” Where do they come from? What is the arbitrating authority when there is a dispute over “the rules?” What rule is the Catholic Church violating?  Is the rule valid when measured against the US Constitution?

Collectivizing our Rights 

This is really about the relentless march of collectivism. Throw all our money and liberties into the public pot so that state panjandrums and public policy poobahs can dole them back out.  As a state-sponsored bonus, it all belongs to the federal government now, not you, so the wolves have a right to vote to eat the sheep.

When health care is thus “collectivized,” when we’re “all in this together,” we’re forced to fight for every “carve-out” of liberty. (CATO)

USA Today reports that Obama’s Retreat is not enough. The article details the tangled nest of thorny problems this has opened up. What about a small-business owner who objects to providing insurance covering the morning after pill?

It’s a snarled up mess because government doesn’t belong in this arena. It has chained businesses and organizations to itself, insisting they provide services to individuals. This sets up a situation where a person is beholden to their employer for not just medical, but dental and other services that used to be the purview of the individual.

The easy solution is for the government butt out

The federal government need to get its fat, intrusive ass out of this private issue and turn its attentions to creating a clean, well-policed space for a free marketplace of health insurance to bloom, independent of employer participation. Americans will be able to shop for what they want, and if a majority want birth control pills, sterilization and morning after drugs, the free market will set up a competition to see who can provide them at the lowest cost.

Women who work for Catholic organizations can be free to choose their health insurance without the church snooping on them.  That respects the liberty and consciences of all, and that is what America is all about.

Catholic Bishops: Don’t Revise; Rescind
Cartoons
WaPo - “Compromise”

Progressivism's Pernicious Holy War

A Church - State battle is now engaged...

Obama declared jihad on the Catholic Church by decreeing it must pay for birth control and abortions of its employees, and the Holy Roman Empire is striking back.

This is not just a Catholic issue, it is a religious freedom issue. Make churches pay for stuff that violates their doctrines and bedrock beliefs, and you can next force them to perform gay marriages or declare their doctrine hate speech under pain of losing their tax exempt status.

But wait, there’s more! Once the federal government establishes the precedent that it can violate this First Amendment right, it is then free to violate the free speech rights of individual citizens. First Amendment gone.  All for the greater good, dontcha know...

Libertarian Steve Chapman recalling the church's losing battle against birth control pills back in 1960's, comes to liberty's defense:

But many of those who think it's wrong to forbid Americans to buy contraceptives think it's just fine to require them to buy contraceptives. In this group, unfortunately, are President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who are hell-bent on enforcing that mandate on nearly everyone. (Chapman)

Statist Toady Joan Venocci argues for the constitution shredders:

But not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholics. Why should their employers impose their religious beliefs on them and deny coverage for birth control and other medical care? As long as those Catholic institutions are getting taxpayer money, they should follow secular rules. That’s the Obama administration’s argument, and it makes sense.  (Boston Glob)

The obvious answer is, of course the Catholic Church is not denying them these things.  Employees of the Holy Roman Empire are free to go out and purchase them.  No inquisitions, no fear of being burned at the stake, just a free decision... Paid for with their own damned money!

All Your Cookies are Belonging to Me!

Venocci's argument encapsulates the progressive long march. As government increases, we decrease. They lure us in with favors and suborn private institutions with government money until the individual becomes indistinguishable from the state. Take government money and not only must you dance to their tune, you become government property, bought and paid for.

That is what the progressive argument hinges upon: If you take from the government pot (which consists of money confiscated from you), you surrender your rights to the state. The linchpin of this nefarious government plot is getting every little doggy's paw to reach into the pot. Progressive mission accomplished.  Checkmate. You are bought and paid for. With your own money.

* - For a deeper explanation of the legal justification progressives use to defend Obamacare and other similar incursions on our liberties, see this:  WH - Of Course Government Can Put a Gun to your Head...

Attack on Catholic Church is an Attack on the Constitution

President Obama has decreed that the Catholic Church must provide birth control and abortifacients in the health care plans it offers to its employees

Here’s a statement from government suckerfish Planned Parenthood:

“This is good health policy and good economic policy,” said Dawn Laguens, vice president at Planned Parenthood. “It increases access to affordable birth control, but it is up to an individual employee to choose it or not. That’s very much the American way.” (El Lay Times – Contraceptive Mandate)

No.  It's not the American Way, as if a statist trained monkey raised and sustained on free taxpayer money would even begin to understand the concept. This is a terrible idea because it is a federal government telling private citizens what to do when it has no authority to do so.  A true free choice is one you make on your own and then pay for on your own without picking someone else’s pocket. That’s the American Way. The constitution was written to prevent such abuse.

Kevin Drum wrote that if you take government money you march to the government’s tune. It's a valid argument.  However, the violator here is not the Catholic Church; it is the US Government that is charged by We The People to be the guardian of our God-given rights. By ensnarling every last person in its tangled web, it has created a hopeless situation for anyone wanting to order their own lives and business free from the unblinking government gaze.

What gives the federal government the right to issue such dicta to churches? What gives it the right to command any organization or business in this way? What part of the constitution sanctions this?

The federal government is in bald-faced violation of the first amendment

You see, our rights are innumerable and bounded only by those outer limits where they interfere with the rights of others. Government’s rights are enumerated and limited; restricted by what that mandate from the people to their elected government, the US Constitution, says. This is what we need to be telling our politicians, our kids, and our family, friends, neighbors and coworkers who may have forgotten it. We also need to say it loud and proud when the smartass statist gargoyles in the press shove microphones in our faces at tea party rallies.

The US Constitution protects our God-given rights to life, liberty and property and it limits the actions the federal government may take against them. The very idea of mandating such everyday minutiae of our personal lives makes a mockery of our constitutional form of government.

Even Liberty's Defenders get it Wrong...

Oxymoronic ObamaCatholic Doug Kmiec proposes a speech Obama should give that admits the government was wrong. This phrase stuck out at me:

While the constitution doesn't mandate religious exemptions from general laws, I believe we should accommodate as many beliefs as possible and to the greatest extent possible without jeopardizing the purpose of the law. (Tim Reidy)

Firstly, we have no more general laws, as great jurists of England and the United states from centuries past would understand them. Our government no longer operates under the constitutional Rule of Law.  Rather, it now barrages us with stern commands and dictatorial edicts.

Religious Exemptions are a Warning Sign

Were our government’s lawmaking still in conformance with the constitution, there would be no requirement for “religious exemptions,” since the First Amendment bars government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The fact that our discussions of law and regulations are now so shot through with talk of exemptions is an indictment against our government and the craven batwinged legislators and bureaucrats who haunt its once-hallowed halls.

Federalist 84 eloquently expresses this concern, as Publius argues against a Bill of Rights. He saw the danger to all our rights that would be caused by enumerating certain of them. Hamilton proved to be quite prescient:

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. (Federalist 84)

Back when the constitution still mattered, honorable lawmakers would observe that this or that proposed legislation protrudes into the private lives of citizens, and thereby abandon the project.   Our post-constitutional government suffers no such scruples.  And the ignorant subjects stand up on their hind legs and applaud.

Obama Declares Jihad on the Catholic Church

Obama Cult "O Loko Haram"

Obama’s Holy War

Two years ago when Obamacare ordered the Catholic Church to include birth control and abortions in its health care plans, the nation’s Catholic Bishops threatened to shut down or sell off all hospitals, and it appeared that the threat had staved off our imperial government.

Catholic hospitals are an important component of our nation’s health care system, providing the only source of medical care in some areas, and only a fool would want to see them shut down.  That was the prevailing wisdom at the time.

Now, I believe that thinking was wrong, and it appears that the Obamistas do want them shut down, provoking a crisis and providing a pretext for more government intervention.  This is about the state breaking one more private institution to its will.  Progressivism is an inexorable march to absolute state control, and this is just the next step.

What’s Obama’s end game?

Employers that furnish health insurance have to cover it. But employers don't have to furnish health insurance -- and some of those with a religious mission may decide not to. When the District of Columbia passed a law that forced Catholic Charities to provide medical insurance to the same-sex partners of its employees, the agency elected to simply drop coverage for spouses.

Anyone left without health insurance under the administration's rule can go to new state-run health insurance exchanges to buy individual policies. But here again, the administration rejects freedom of conscience. The only policies available will include coverage for contraceptives -- including those the church regards as "abortion drugs" -- and sterilization. (Steve Chapman)

The end game is to herd more human cattle and sheeple into the Obamacare box canyon, while trampling our old fashioned morals and ushering in a new era of progressive utilitarianism, freed from fusty shibboleths like human dignity and sanctity of life.

And the Catholic Church, which snuggles up to big government at every opportunity instead of preaching the Catholic doctrine of Subsidiarity, should learn a lesson from all of this:

Get in bed with Uncle Sam and don't be surprised if you get more than a good night's sleep  -- Ronald Reagan

Contraception Mandate Outrages Religious Groups

Why Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Progressives and their Democrat Party handmaidens have it upside down

We The People are sovereign over our own lives; government is the servant, not the master. 


The US Constitution does not give us rights; it protects those unalienable rights given to us by God.  The Federal Government is not the "boss" of the states or the people.  The US Constitution is the instruction manual that the Federal Government must follow, and it was dictated by We The People and the several states.

Ron DeSantis and Adam Laxalt have written an excellent article on why Obamacare is unconstitutional.  It is chock full of quotes from the founders talking about how the federal powers are few and defined, not indefinite.  They succinctly lay out their case using the words of the founders... 

As Madison famously explained in The Federalist No. 45, the "powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." 

As a congressman, Madison warned against constructions of the Constitution that rendered the government "no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." 

If inactivity can be characterized as commercial activity, then virtually anything is ripe for federal supervision, converting the Constitution into an "unlimited government," which is precisely what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent.  (American Spectator)

Such ideas embodied in our constitution are anathema to progressives and subversive to their cause.

Of Course Government Can Put a Gun to Your Head and Force You to Buy Stuff!

Liberal Arguments for the individual mandate are the greatest argument against it.

Big Government statists in the press are firing back at the charge that the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional.  They take aim specifically at the charge that making everyone buy insurance is an abuse of the commerce clause.  Here's a typical line of attack:

Of course this distinction proves essentially meaningless once you realize that not buying health insurance now means paying out of pocket later. Combined with the fact that states generally require hospitals to treat the uninsured in the case of emergency, to say that the uninsured are making a "free choice" is highly misleading. It's government regulation that makes these choices possible in the first place. (Prospect)

See how this works? Government causes a problem by “requiring hospitals to treat the uninsured,” creating an opening for further regulation, leading us finally to the individual mandate.

To correctly restate the author’s last sentence...

It’s government regulation that makes these problems possible in the first place.

Back in the old days, people without money or insurance were treated, but they signed a contract with the hospital and paid the bill off in monthly installments.

As Thomas Sowell points out, the cries of “Do something!” have started more government-sponsored calamities…

The verbal gymnastics that statists employ to support the federal government forcing you to purchase insurance is amazing:

Widespread problems with access to health care and skyrocketing costs are certainly big enough to plausibly require a federal solution. . (Prospect)

No, the health care “problem” does not “require” a federal solution. That is an unfounded assertion.

Generally, the problem being addressed plausibly requires a federal solution, and the proposed regulation -- even if it does not itself regulate interstate commerce -- is part of a larger regulatory scheme. (Prospect)

This is absurd pedantry. The author is saying that the individual mandate, standing on its own, would be unconstitutional. But because it is “part of a larger regulatory scheme,” it’s OK. The dangling tendentia is reminiscent of Homer Simpson’s thinking:

Homer: "No! Homer Simpson never lies twice on the same form. He never has and he never will."
Marge: "You lied dozens of times on our mortgage application."
Homer: "Yes, but they were all part of a single ball of lies."

Mr. Lemieux’s argument hinges on whether a specific government action is part of a larger “regulatory scheme.” He helpfully cites cases where such an action that was not part of a larger scheme was struck down by the supreme court as not authorized under the commerce clause, thereby drawing his ominous distinction between constitutional and unconstitutional.

“The fact that the mandate is an essential part of a federal regulatory scheme just underscores why the federal government has not exceeded its authority under existing law.”

The Road to Statism

Obamacare’s progressive defenders concede that stand-alone laws that claw freedom from the individual are unconstitutional. However, this is a false concession. They proclaim that government does have such a right if done under the umbrella of a larger regulatory scheme.

The logical result? Create a tentacular, hydra-headed bureaucratic monster, call it a regulatory scheme, and now the federal government can do whatever it wants.

I recommend you go read the entire article. It is a frightening peek into the mind of a progressive statist.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_individual_mandate_not_a_slippery_slope#

Democrats Lied About Obamacare

Congressman Paul Ryan Throws the BS Flag On Obamacare!

It didn't take an accounting degree to know that the Pelosi-rammed, Demo-scam known as Obamacare was a money wasting fraud.  Common sense Americans never bought the fairy tales about how everybody's going to get more and better care while saving money.

While they were at it, why didn't Harry and the Pelosicrats also promise they'd rid the world of unicorn poop and capture that leprechaun and take his pot o' gold hidden at the end of the rainbow? 

Only the willfully ignorant hopium smokers on the left believed this colossal Obamacare lie.  "But it was scored by the CBO!" Cry the Obama-langa-ding-dongs.  The CBO is a non-partisan organization that scores what is presented to them,  regardless of how pie-in-the-sky its assumptions are and regardless of the transparency of the tricks.  CBO scores it as presented.

Ryan resubmitted this travesty of lawmaking to the CBO, minus the tricks and hidden costs, and we now see it will cost almost a trillion dollars.  Here are the highlights...

Claims of deficit reduction exclude the $115 billion needed to implement the law. 

The score double-counts $521 billion from Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare cuts.

It strips a costly doc-fix provision that was included in initial score. ($208 billion)

It measures 10 years of revenues to offset 6 years of new spending. 

There is no question that the creation of a trillion dollar open-ended entitlement is a fiscal train wreck.

Not only should this stinking pile of statist lies be repealed in its entirety, the perpetrators should be brought up on charges of fraud.

Go Congressman Ryan!  Keep up the excellent work!

http://budget.house.gov/healthcare/