Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.

Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.

Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.

The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?

And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.

So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.

This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”

Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.

Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.

Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.

The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?

And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.

So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.

This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

View Detail

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

I just got my weekly e-mail from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (former Queen of the House of Representatives). I look forward to her missals each week because she is a genius at clarifying and elucidating the important issues of the day while explaining why Republicans are evil and Democrats are the Good Samaritans. This week she explained the difference between the parties in simple terms, comprehensible to even the most ignorant of voters.

You see, Republicans are only concerned with subsidies for big oil, while Democrats only wish to prevent breast cancer. It’s as clear as earlier Democratic slogans such as “food, not bombs” and “make love, not war.” Says Nancy: “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil (capital letters are hers), while our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize children, so that they are healthy. It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury Speaker Boehner thinks it is to have good health care for women.”

Pelosi is of course doing a head fake to keep the public from noticing that the House Republicans had just passed a paid-for student debt relief bill which the Senate won’t even take up and which the president has vowed to veto if it ever reaches him. Bring the topic back to the “war on women” and the public will miss another Democratic stall tactic to prevent any worthwhile legislation from being passed.

She also muddied the facts by giving credit to Obama for the proposed legislation while blaming the Republicans for ruining it by proposing spending cuts to pay for the cost of buoying up the student loans—all in the name of the war on women. “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying ‘okay we won’t have it (the loan interest rate) go from 3.4% to 6.8%, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health—make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health.’” (Just in case you didn’t get it—it’s an assault on women’s health.)

And then came one of those brilliant Pelosi stream of consciousness clarifications of her beliefs: “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it. I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s [sic.]health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Ah, now I understand. Don’t you?

What the genius from Sodom by the Bay was talking about (at least I think it’s what she was talking about) is the Republican plan to pay for the lower student government-insured loan rates with $17 billion saved in cuts to the prevention and public health fund portions of the Obamacare monstrosity. That would save $5.9 billion on the loans rates with the rest of the savings going to other needed government functions..

When asked about her “war on women” rhetoric and side-stepping of the issue of Obama multi-trillion dollar deficits, Pelosi insisted that it was not political posturing to go ballistic over $6 billion. “I don’t see it as any posturing. $6 billion is $6 billion.” In fact, it was so important that she already has the answer to the problem: “We say, okay, we want to pay for it (that would be a refreshing departure for Democrats), and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas. And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington DC?”

She continues the stream-of-consciousness with: “We say big oil (small letters this time) and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion over the next ten years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan—reducing the student loan interest. But the Republicans say No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health. And that’s just wrong.”

I haven’t heard that kind of clarity of thought since a college sophomore friend of mine got roaring-drunk and tried to explain quantum physics to me in five minutes. It’s easy to dismiss the ramblings of this botoxed beauty as insignificant. But we must remember that she is still the majority leader of the House Democrats, and speaks for the powers-that-be in that party.

I just got my weekly e-mail from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (former Queen of the House of Representatives). I look forward to her missals each week because she is a genius at clarifying and elucidating the important issues of the day while explaining why Republicans are evil and Democrats are the Good Samaritans. This week she explained the difference between the parties in simple terms, comprehensible to even the most ignorant of voters.

You see, Republicans are only concerned with subsidies for big oil, while Democrats only wish to prevent breast cancer. It’s as clear as earlier Democratic slogans such as “food, not bombs” and “make love, not war.” Says Nancy: “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil (capital letters are hers), while our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize children, so that they are healthy. It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury Speaker Boehner thinks it is to have good health care for women.”

Pelosi is of course doing a head fake to keep the public from noticing that the House Republicans had just passed a paid-for student debt relief bill which the Senate won’t even take up and which the president has vowed to veto if it ever reaches him. Bring the topic back to the “war on women” and the public will miss another Democratic stall tactic to prevent any worthwhile legislation from being passed.

She also muddied the facts by giving credit to Obama for the proposed legislation while blaming the Republicans for ruining it by proposing spending cuts to pay for the cost of buoying up the student loans—all in the name of the war on women. “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying ‘okay we won’t have it (the loan interest rate) go from 3.4% to 6.8%, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health—make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health.’” (Just in case you didn’t get it—it’s an assault on women’s health.)

And then came one of those brilliant Pelosi stream of consciousness clarifications of her beliefs: “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it. I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s [sic.]health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Ah, now I understand. Don’t you?

What the genius from Sodom by the Bay was talking about (at least I think it’s what she was talking about) is the Republican plan to pay for the lower student government-insured loan rates with $17 billion saved in cuts to the prevention and public health fund portions of the Obamacare monstrosity. That would save $5.9 billion on the loans rates with the rest of the savings going to other needed government functions..

When asked about her “war on women” rhetoric and side-stepping of the issue of Obama multi-trillion dollar deficits, Pelosi insisted that it was not political posturing to go ballistic over $6 billion. “I don’t see it as any posturing. $6 billion is $6 billion.” In fact, it was so important that she already has the answer to the problem: “We say, okay, we want to pay for it (that would be a refreshing departure for Democrats), and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas. And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington DC?”

She continues the stream-of-consciousness with: “We say big oil (small letters this time) and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion over the next ten years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan—reducing the student loan interest. But the Republicans say No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health. And that’s just wrong.”

I haven’t heard that kind of clarity of thought since a college sophomore friend of mine got roaring-drunk and tried to explain quantum physics to me in five minutes. It’s easy to dismiss the ramblings of this botoxed beauty as insignificant. But we must remember that she is still the majority leader of the House Democrats, and speaks for the powers-that-be in that party.

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

View Detail

And The Hits Just Keep On Coming. . .

And The Hits Just Keep On Coming. . .

It’s been a bad month for Obama and the Donks. Nothing seems to be going their way. The economy just won’t take off. ObamaCare is going down in judicial flames. Their race riot fizzled amid cold hard facts and demands to know why Obama doesn’t care about whites. Obama gaffed himself to the world before Putin. And the hits just keep on coming.

● Tom Hanks: As you may recall, right after Team Obama released a campaign video narrated by Tom Hanks, Hanks got caught on stage playing along with a hedgefund manager in blackface. He tried to lie his way out of this by claiming that he was shocked and offended by the appearance of the man. But the tape shows otherwise. Indeed, it shows Hanks blasting Bill O’Reilly. Tom has now been forced to apologize to O’Reilly. People are also beginning to ask why this liberal school has no minority kids. Whoops.

● Solyndra Part 15: Meanwhile, yet another Obama-sponsored company is going broke. This time it’s a solar energy company called Solar Trust for America. They received $2.1 billion in loan guarantees from Obama’s Department of Energy. This is “the largest amount ever offered to a solar project,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu back when he was handing out the cash. He called this an “historic moment in America’s new energy frontier.” And both he and Slow Joe Biden were there for the groundbreaking in Blyth, California. But less than a year later, the company is in bankruptcy. And apparently there are more solar companies planning bankruptcies as well.

Nice job Mr. President: $2.1 billion spent, no worthwhile product produced, no jobs created.

● Joe Biden: Somebody let Slow Joe out of his box the other day and he’s been gaffing as fast as he can ever since. First, after saying that Romney is consistently wrong, Slow Joe referred to Scott Community College President Dr. Theresa Paper as “Dr. Pepper.” And also he decided that Governor Romney was really Senator Romney. But that was just a warm up. Biden next said that Republicans “have a legitimate argument that the government should not be engaged health care.” Only he “strongly disagrees” with that legitimate argument. A “legitimate” argument is a correct or valid argument. Thus, what Biden has said translates to him agreeing that the Republicans are correct that the government should not be engaged in the health care market, but he doesn't care that they are correct and he will stick with what he knows to be wrong.

He then strangely added that he doesn’t want to “dictate” your health coverage. . . ignore the man behind the mandate.

Biden later said, “I don’t want to make fun of-- I’m not saying our Republican friends don’t care about people. They care about people just as much as we do.” That’s nice of Joe to say, since he routinely says the opposite. Indeed, while talking about Medicare this week, he said Republicans don’t care about people: “Look us over, look into your heart and ask . . . who do you believe is genuinely committed to preserving the dignity of people in terms of their healthcare and their basic, basic ability to live?” This, by the way, comes from a man whose healthcare reform plan stripped Medicare of $500 billion.

Biden also invited police and fire officials to an official government dinner, i.e. the kind where it is ILLEGAL to engage in politics, and he said that the Republicans favor low taxes over policies that would save the lives of police officers and firemen. In other words, Republicans want to let police and firemen die so taxes can stay low. He then attacked the rich for supposedly not being willing to pay for fire and police:

“The first guy who’s going to have a problem is the guy whose $3 million home is on fire and you can’t get a truck out there. The first guy that’s going to have a problem is the person who has real assets and finds their house burglarized or robbed, or their Porsche is stolen.”

What an ass.

● Robert Reich On The Truth: Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich just made a fascinating claim about the ObamaRecovery -- 93% of the gains in 2010 went to the top 1% of earners in the country. The bottom 10% of the public saw no gain at all. In fact, most of the bottom 90% lost ground, with average income falling $127 between 2009 and 2010 and $4,843 compared to 2000. So much for Obama helping the poor and middle class. Maybe we can’t tax our way to prosperity after all?


Obama never has had teflon coating like Reagan, but he has had an MSM provided bulletproof vest to protect him from bad news. But it sounds like his vest is failing him and the bad stories are beginning to pile up. Personally, I credit the new-conservative media with forcing the MSM to take note. So it’s no wonder they want bills like SOPA to regain their monopoly on information. In any event, these are not good times at Rancho Obama.

It’s been a bad month for Obama and the Donks. Nothing seems to be going their way. The economy just won’t take off. ObamaCare is going down in judicial flames. Their race riot fizzled amid cold hard facts and demands to know why Obama doesn’t care about whites. Obama gaffed himself to the world before Putin. And the hits just keep on coming.

● Tom Hanks: As you may recall, right after Team Obama released a campaign video narrated by Tom Hanks, Hanks got caught on stage playing along with a hedgefund manager in blackface. He tried to lie his way out of this by claiming that he was shocked and offended by the appearance of the man. But the tape shows otherwise. Indeed, it shows Hanks blasting Bill O’Reilly. Tom has now been forced to apologize to O’Reilly. People are also beginning to ask why this liberal school has no minority kids. Whoops.

● Solyndra Part 15: Meanwhile, yet another Obama-sponsored company is going broke. This time it’s a solar energy company called Solar Trust for America. They received $2.1 billion in loan guarantees from Obama’s Department of Energy. This is “the largest amount ever offered to a solar project,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu back when he was handing out the cash. He called this an “historic moment in America’s new energy frontier.” And both he and Slow Joe Biden were there for the groundbreaking in Blyth, California. But less than a year later, the company is in bankruptcy. And apparently there are more solar companies planning bankruptcies as well.

Nice job Mr. President: $2.1 billion spent, no worthwhile product produced, no jobs created.

● Joe Biden: Somebody let Slow Joe out of his box the other day and he’s been gaffing as fast as he can ever since. First, after saying that Romney is consistently wrong, Slow Joe referred to Scott Community College President Dr. Theresa Paper as “Dr. Pepper.” And also he decided that Governor Romney was really Senator Romney. But that was just a warm up. Biden next said that Republicans “have a legitimate argument that the government should not be engaged health care.” Only he “strongly disagrees” with that legitimate argument. A “legitimate” argument is a correct or valid argument. Thus, what Biden has said translates to him agreeing that the Republicans are correct that the government should not be engaged in the health care market, but he doesn't care that they are correct and he will stick with what he knows to be wrong.

He then strangely added that he doesn’t want to “dictate” your health coverage. . . ignore the man behind the mandate.

Biden later said, “I don’t want to make fun of-- I’m not saying our Republican friends don’t care about people. They care about people just as much as we do.” That’s nice of Joe to say, since he routinely says the opposite. Indeed, while talking about Medicare this week, he said Republicans don’t care about people: “Look us over, look into your heart and ask . . . who do you believe is genuinely committed to preserving the dignity of people in terms of their healthcare and their basic, basic ability to live?” This, by the way, comes from a man whose healthcare reform plan stripped Medicare of $500 billion.

Biden also invited police and fire officials to an official government dinner, i.e. the kind where it is ILLEGAL to engage in politics, and he said that the Republicans favor low taxes over policies that would save the lives of police officers and firemen. In other words, Republicans want to let police and firemen die so taxes can stay low. He then attacked the rich for supposedly not being willing to pay for fire and police:

“The first guy who’s going to have a problem is the guy whose $3 million home is on fire and you can’t get a truck out there. The first guy that’s going to have a problem is the person who has real assets and finds their house burglarized or robbed, or their Porsche is stolen.”

What an ass.

● Robert Reich On The Truth: Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich just made a fascinating claim about the ObamaRecovery -- 93% of the gains in 2010 went to the top 1% of earners in the country. The bottom 10% of the public saw no gain at all. In fact, most of the bottom 90% lost ground, with average income falling $127 between 2009 and 2010 and $4,843 compared to 2000. So much for Obama helping the poor and middle class. Maybe we can’t tax our way to prosperity after all?


Obama never has had teflon coating like Reagan, but he has had an MSM provided bulletproof vest to protect him from bad news. But it sounds like his vest is failing him and the bad stories are beginning to pile up. Personally, I credit the new-conservative media with forcing the MSM to take note. So it’s no wonder they want bills like SOPA to regain their monopoly on information. In any event, these are not good times at Rancho Obama.

And The Hits Just Keep On Coming. . .

View Detail

Supreme Court ObamaCare Wrap-up!

Supreme Court ObamaCare Wrap-up!

It seems the individual mandate in ObamaCare is doomed. The question now is whether or not all of ObamaCare will be struck down. I originally doubted that it would be, but now I’m thinking it might be. One thing is for sure though, losing will not help the Democrats as many of them are trying to suggest.

● Thought One: Down she goes! The Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate. Kennedy was considered the weak link for the conservative side but even he observed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the Federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” That’s lawyer speak for “unprecedented power grab.” This court will not sanction an unprecedented power grab. The mandate is toast.

● Thought Two: Incompetence. The MSM’s legal analysts should be fired for incompetence. When this lawsuit was first filed, they claimed it was “frivolous.” In legal parlance that means the arguments are so ludicrously wrong that no rational attorney could possibly make those arguments in good faith. Even as late as two days ago, these same “experts” predicted ObamaCare would win on a 7-2 vote. Now they’re despondent that ObamaCare will be beaten. To give you a sense of how wrong this is, it’s like an “expert” in aviation claiming that airplanes are too heavy to fly. . . after having flown to the interview on a Boeing. Everyone who claimed this was frivolous should be fired for incompetence.

● Thought Three: Incompetence (redux). Everyone now wants to blame the solicitor general for blowing this case. That’s wrong, and the “experts” know that. The Supreme Court does not base decisions of national significance on which side brought the better lawyer. All Verrilli’s incompetence means is that the court will do its own research into these issues. And don’t forget, “it’s own” in this case also means hundreds of legal briefs filed by friends of both sides (amicus curiae briefs). This case never hinged on the performance of either attorney. So don’t let liberals get away with pretending that the law should have been found valid if only Donald Verrilli weren’t such a moron. That is false and it’s meant to distract from the fact this law was an abuse of power.

● Thought Four: Severability. The hardest part of guessing Supreme Court decisions is guessing how far they will go. Right now, we have no way to know if the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law or just the individual mandate. They essentially have three choices: (1) strike the whole thing, (2) strike the mandate but leave the rest, or (3) strike the mandate and send the case back to the lower court to gather more evidence on what other parts also should be struck. Logic tells me, they will pick number three, but this court has proven to be bold.

Politically and legally speaking, it makes sense for the Supremes to strike the mandate and send the rest back to the lower court to gather evidence on which parts of the law rely on the mandate. Why? Because the court doesn’t like to decide things it doesn’t need to, and with the Republicans likely to control the House, Senate and Presidency after the election, the Supremes have the luxury of waiting to see how things go, i.e. Congress may do their dirty work. BUT. . . should Romney NOT win, then the 5-4 Court could end up a 4-5 Court. That fear may give this court an incentive to firmly decide as many things as possible right now -- hence, they are unexpectedly taking an affirmative action case next year.

Right now, the comments of the justices indicate they are leaning toward striking the entire thing. Scalia took the lead here and said that when you “take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone.” His reasoning is simple: it distorts the congressional process for the court to pick and choose what survives. He also said it would be unrealistic to comb through the 2,700-page law to decide which parts were independent of the individual mandate. Liberal Justice Breyer actually echoed this when he asked the government, “What do you suggest we do? I mean, should we appoint a special master [to go through the law]?” He then placed the blame on the government for not specifically pointing out each provision which should stand. That’s usually a sign of a justice washing their hands of the case. I don’t believe Breyer will vote to strike the entire law, but this tells me he thinks the conservatives will and he is at peace with it.

Kennedy, who is viewed as the swing vote, also appears inclined to throw out the entire law. When Ginsburg said that the court should perform a “salvage job” rather than “a wrecking operation,” Kennedy retorted that doing surgery on the law would be “a more extreme exercise of judicial power.” And he said that “by reason of the court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider.” In other words, this would be court-created legislation and that is unacceptable.

The justice who concerns me a bit is Roberts. When it was argued that leaving the rest of the law in place would leave “a hollowed-out shell,” Roberts responded by saying, “but Congress would have passed part of that hollowed-out shell.” That could indicate a desire to leave the repeal up to Congress or at least get more information about Congress’s intent (i.e. send it back to the lower court for more evidence). That was the thrust of Ginsburg’s argument, that Congress must decide this, so they should leave the rest in place and let Congress fix it. But the thing about Ginsburg’s argument is that you can flip it on its head and make an equally valid argument. In other words, you can just as validly say that if Congress must make the decision, then the court should strike the law to give Congress a clean slate. That makes her argument worthless and if that’s all she’s got, then her side is out of ammo.

So while I really can’t tell you what will happen, it looks like it’s 4-4 with Roberts at bat, and I suspect he will strike the entire law because I’m not hearing a good reason not to.

As an aside, let me clarify the severability clause issue. People are claiming the absence of the severability clause means the whole law should be automatically struck down. That’s not accurate. That was the law 200 years ago -- if any portion of the law is bad, the whole thing gets struck down. That’s why people invented the severability clause, because it told courts that the legislature’s intent was to leave the rest of the law in place. Over time, the law morphed to the point that courts no longer automatically strike down whole laws. And the severability clause now is interpreted like this: if the clause is present, then the court must automatically uphold the rest of the law. But if the clause is absent, then the court MAY strike the entire law, IF the court finds that the unconstitutional piece is so vital to the intent of the legislation that the rest of the law could not continue without it -- there is no automatic striking. And we know the Supreme Court has accepted this interpretation of this missing severability clause here, because the arguments outlined above are the court working its way through the legal test of how integral this mandate is to the rest.

● Thought Five: Can’t win by losing. The Democrats are trying to put a brave face on this. They claim that losing would wipe the slate clean for the Democrats and would remove the toxic stain of ObamaCare which cost them the 2010 election. Wrong. Their ObamaCare abuse was so bad it spawned a new political party -- the Tea Party, and it led to an historic thrashing at the polls. Having the Supreme Court declare ObamaCare unconstitutional does NOT wipe away that stain anymore than being convicted of murder makes people forgive you for killing your wife. To the contrary, this will confirm to the public that the Democrats massively abused their power.

James Carville also claims a loss will help because once ObamaCare goes down, “health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably.” Hardly. ObamaCare does nothing to restrain costs, so why would its death cause costs to rise? To the contrary, with the elimination of the taxes, requirements and restrictions imposed by ObamaCare, one would expect costs to go back down -- or more likely stay flat. Moreover, health rates are generally fixed for the year at the end of the year and won’t go up until after the election, so even if Carville is right, it won’t happen before the election. Nice try, idiot.

● Thought Six: Who are the ideologues? Finally, it’s fascinating that the left can simultaneously call the conservative justices “ideologues” as they admit that they don’t know which way three of the five justices will vote. At the same time, they ignore the fact the liberals made up their mind before they arrived and all spouted lockstep opinions. Who are the real ideologues?

It seems the individual mandate in ObamaCare is doomed. The question now is whether or not all of ObamaCare will be struck down. I originally doubted that it would be, but now I’m thinking it might be. One thing is for sure though, losing will not help the Democrats as many of them are trying to suggest.

● Thought One: Down she goes! The Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate. Kennedy was considered the weak link for the conservative side but even he observed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the Federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” That’s lawyer speak for “unprecedented power grab.” This court will not sanction an unprecedented power grab. The mandate is toast.

● Thought Two: Incompetence. The MSM’s legal analysts should be fired for incompetence. When this lawsuit was first filed, they claimed it was “frivolous.” In legal parlance that means the arguments are so ludicrously wrong that no rational attorney could possibly make those arguments in good faith. Even as late as two days ago, these same “experts” predicted ObamaCare would win on a 7-2 vote. Now they’re despondent that ObamaCare will be beaten. To give you a sense of how wrong this is, it’s like an “expert” in aviation claiming that airplanes are too heavy to fly. . . after having flown to the interview on a Boeing. Everyone who claimed this was frivolous should be fired for incompetence.

● Thought Three: Incompetence (redux). Everyone now wants to blame the solicitor general for blowing this case. That’s wrong, and the “experts” know that. The Supreme Court does not base decisions of national significance on which side brought the better lawyer. All Verrilli’s incompetence means is that the court will do its own research into these issues. And don’t forget, “it’s own” in this case also means hundreds of legal briefs filed by friends of both sides (amicus curiae briefs). This case never hinged on the performance of either attorney. So don’t let liberals get away with pretending that the law should have been found valid if only Donald Verrilli weren’t such a moron. That is false and it’s meant to distract from the fact this law was an abuse of power.

● Thought Four: Severability. The hardest part of guessing Supreme Court decisions is guessing how far they will go. Right now, we have no way to know if the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law or just the individual mandate. They essentially have three choices: (1) strike the whole thing, (2) strike the mandate but leave the rest, or (3) strike the mandate and send the case back to the lower court to gather more evidence on what other parts also should be struck. Logic tells me, they will pick number three, but this court has proven to be bold.

Politically and legally speaking, it makes sense for the Supremes to strike the mandate and send the rest back to the lower court to gather evidence on which parts of the law rely on the mandate. Why? Because the court doesn’t like to decide things it doesn’t need to, and with the Republicans likely to control the House, Senate and Presidency after the election, the Supremes have the luxury of waiting to see how things go, i.e. Congress may do their dirty work. BUT. . . should Romney NOT win, then the 5-4 Court could end up a 4-5 Court. That fear may give this court an incentive to firmly decide as many things as possible right now -- hence, they are unexpectedly taking an affirmative action case next year.

Right now, the comments of the justices indicate they are leaning toward striking the entire thing. Scalia took the lead here and said that when you “take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone.” His reasoning is simple: it distorts the congressional process for the court to pick and choose what survives. He also said it would be unrealistic to comb through the 2,700-page law to decide which parts were independent of the individual mandate. Liberal Justice Breyer actually echoed this when he asked the government, “What do you suggest we do? I mean, should we appoint a special master [to go through the law]?” He then placed the blame on the government for not specifically pointing out each provision which should stand. That’s usually a sign of a justice washing their hands of the case. I don’t believe Breyer will vote to strike the entire law, but this tells me he thinks the conservatives will and he is at peace with it.

Kennedy, who is viewed as the swing vote, also appears inclined to throw out the entire law. When Ginsburg said that the court should perform a “salvage job” rather than “a wrecking operation,” Kennedy retorted that doing surgery on the law would be “a more extreme exercise of judicial power.” And he said that “by reason of the court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider.” In other words, this would be court-created legislation and that is unacceptable.

The justice who concerns me a bit is Roberts. When it was argued that leaving the rest of the law in place would leave “a hollowed-out shell,” Roberts responded by saying, “but Congress would have passed part of that hollowed-out shell.” That could indicate a desire to leave the repeal up to Congress or at least get more information about Congress’s intent (i.e. send it back to the lower court for more evidence). That was the thrust of Ginsburg’s argument, that Congress must decide this, so they should leave the rest in place and let Congress fix it. But the thing about Ginsburg’s argument is that you can flip it on its head and make an equally valid argument. In other words, you can just as validly say that if Congress must make the decision, then the court should strike the law to give Congress a clean slate. That makes her argument worthless and if that’s all she’s got, then her side is out of ammo.

So while I really can’t tell you what will happen, it looks like it’s 4-4 with Roberts at bat, and I suspect he will strike the entire law because I’m not hearing a good reason not to.

As an aside, let me clarify the severability clause issue. People are claiming the absence of the severability clause means the whole law should be automatically struck down. That’s not accurate. That was the law 200 years ago -- if any portion of the law is bad, the whole thing gets struck down. That’s why people invented the severability clause, because it told courts that the legislature’s intent was to leave the rest of the law in place. Over time, the law morphed to the point that courts no longer automatically strike down whole laws. And the severability clause now is interpreted like this: if the clause is present, then the court must automatically uphold the rest of the law. But if the clause is absent, then the court MAY strike the entire law, IF the court finds that the unconstitutional piece is so vital to the intent of the legislation that the rest of the law could not continue without it -- there is no automatic striking. And we know the Supreme Court has accepted this interpretation of this missing severability clause here, because the arguments outlined above are the court working its way through the legal test of how integral this mandate is to the rest.

● Thought Five: Can’t win by losing. The Democrats are trying to put a brave face on this. They claim that losing would wipe the slate clean for the Democrats and would remove the toxic stain of ObamaCare which cost them the 2010 election. Wrong. Their ObamaCare abuse was so bad it spawned a new political party -- the Tea Party, and it led to an historic thrashing at the polls. Having the Supreme Court declare ObamaCare unconstitutional does NOT wipe away that stain anymore than being convicted of murder makes people forgive you for killing your wife. To the contrary, this will confirm to the public that the Democrats massively abused their power.

James Carville also claims a loss will help because once ObamaCare goes down, “health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably.” Hardly. ObamaCare does nothing to restrain costs, so why would its death cause costs to rise? To the contrary, with the elimination of the taxes, requirements and restrictions imposed by ObamaCare, one would expect costs to go back down -- or more likely stay flat. Moreover, health rates are generally fixed for the year at the end of the year and won’t go up until after the election, so even if Carville is right, it won’t happen before the election. Nice try, idiot.

● Thought Six: Who are the ideologues? Finally, it’s fascinating that the left can simultaneously call the conservative justices “ideologues” as they admit that they don’t know which way three of the five justices will vote. At the same time, they ignore the fact the liberals made up their mind before they arrived and all spouted lockstep opinions. Who are the real ideologues?

Supreme Court ObamaCare Wrap-up!

View Detail

Obama's Bad Week Continues. . .

Obama's Bad Week Continues. . .

Obama can’t catch a break. He keeps making wrong move after wrong move because he has bad instincts. Not to mention, he apparently doesn’t have a clue how to get himself re-elected. Ha ha. Let’s discuss his most recent bad moves. Consider this the feel good article for the week. :)

● El Stupido One: Obama really screwed up this week. While speaking to Vladimir Putin’s mini-me, Dmitri Medvedev, in South Korea, Obama said into an open microphone that he needed more time to surrender our missile shield as Putin demanded because of the election. Said Obama, “after my election, I will have more flexibility.” Whoops.

It is a scandal that Obama plans to surrender our missile shield and thereby expose Poland to an aggressive Russia. But that’s not why this was a problem for Obama. The real problem for Obama is the broader implication of what he said. This statement reminds voters that the only thing keeping him in check is the need to get re-elected. Once he gets re-elected, he will act like “real Obama.” That prospect will frighten conservatives, who will wonder how much worse he can get, and it will turn-off moderates, who had hoped he would moderate his views with a Republican Congress. What this does is rally conservatives behind Romney (now that the primaries are effectively over), and it will cause moderates to see Romney “the moderate” as more likely to be moderate than Obama, who has been using moderate rhetoric in public but is privately promising to go full-retard after the election. This hurts Obama.

● El Stupido Two: This Trayvon Martin thing will blow up on Obama. He should have kept his trap shut. Why? For one thing, because it reminds people that Obama is a racist and he only seems to care about the suffering of blacks. . . “what state was that flood in again?” Indeed, people are starting to ask why Obama commented on Trayvon, but didn’t comment on the shooting death of a white Mississippi State student by three black males this week, or why he hasn’t commented on the shooting of two unarmed British tourists by a black Sarasota, Florida teen. Americans do not like presidents who play racial favorites and this reminds people that Obama is such a president.

Further, the misconduct of Trayvon’s exploiters will turn off the segment of the electorate that took Obama at face value when he said he would be the first post-racial president. Indeed, since his election, his allies have smeared anyone who criticized him as racist. Blacks in the Congressional Black Caucus cried racism when they were caught breaking laws. They made up false claims of racism against the Tea Party. Eric Holder has pursued a truly racist “civil rights” agenda. And now, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers and others are busy inciting racial hatred. This is the exact opposite message Obama needs to send to win over moderate whites. And as more evidence comes out that Team Race is trying to lynch a possibly innocent man, the blowback is building. This appears to be Duke Lacrosse all over again. Indeed, we’ve now learned that a 13 year old witnesses says Zimmerman was the one being attacked -- and his wounds were consistent with that, we’ve heard the 911 call which is not at all what it was portrayed, and we’ve learned that Trayvon was a thug. Add in a mother who has trademarked his name so she can profit from his death and you have a recipe for significant blowback.

● El Stupido Three: Finally, let’s discuss Obama’s campaign video. Obama has produced a 17 minute video pimping his re-election. The video is narrated by Tom Hanks. And it is fascinating.

First, this was a stupid thing to release because only diehard supporters or opponents will watch a 17 minute video. So there was nothing to be gained here. Then it got worse because right after its release another video was released of Tom Hanks getting caught on stage with a hedge fund manager who is in blackface and who makes racist comments. Hanks now claims that he was blindsided by the appearance of this man, but he wasn’t. He doesn’t leave the stage or chastise the man. Nope. Instead, he launches into an attack on Bill O’Reilly. This has neutered the 17 minute video entirely and raised the question of the double-standard liberals use. And following Slutgate, where the left tried to defend people like Bill Maher, the timing couldn’t have been worse.

Moreover, when you look at the video’s contents, you quickly realize that Obama has no idea how to get re-elected.

● The video itself is dark, depressing and defensive. And it’s crawling with self-pity as it keeps whining about how much responsibility has been dumped on our oft-golfing president. You can’t win the White House being whiny or pessimistic.

● Most of the video blames Bush. That’s not going to work four years after Bush left office.

● He’s terrified of his record. He never says “the stimulus package,” though there is one mention of the “Recovery Act.” He doesn’t tout Dodd Frank. He does talk about the auto bailouts, but he’s defensive as he tries to claim they extracted significant concessions from the unions. He mentions ObamaCare a lot, but only the promised benefits, which is the same sale pitch which keeps ObamaCare at the 40% support level in the polls. There’s almost no foreign policy mentioned except the killing bin Laden, which got Obama a 3% bounce which faded immediately. What the video does contain is a laundry list of promises to his different constituent groups (blacks, gays, feminists, enviros, etc.). That won’t play well if someone puts them all together for a general election commercial. Also, the whole video has been torn apart for being packed with lies and distortions. Even the leftist mouthpiece The Washington Post awarded it 3 out of 4 Pinocchios. That’s bad.

So what does this mean? It means he’s planning to run a depressing campaign. That’s a loser. He’s planning to blame Bush. Good luck. It means he’s afraid of his record. But without a crazed Republican in the race, that’s what this race will be about. Hence, he’s doomed, especially since the only achievements he’s willing to discuss either can’t get above 50% support in the polls or got him no credit with the public.

Add in the above, and you also have the Democrats going out their way to alienate the electorate by stirring up racial tensions, and Obama’s Medvedev comment putting the lie to his plan to run as a moderate. Right now, Obama and friends are doing everything wrong. They are alienating moderates, alienating whites, and energizing the conservative base. This could be one of the least competent campaigns in human history.

Finally, before you say, “don’t underestimate him,” keep in mind that Obama has never won a competitive election. All of his opponents imploded on their own. What’s the one thing Romney has shown cannot happen with him? He won’t implode.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site. Today we resume the Politics of Trek series!

Obama can’t catch a break. He keeps making wrong move after wrong move because he has bad instincts. Not to mention, he apparently doesn’t have a clue how to get himself re-elected. Ha ha. Let’s discuss his most recent bad moves. Consider this the feel good article for the week. :)

● El Stupido One: Obama really screwed up this week. While speaking to Vladimir Putin’s mini-me, Dmitri Medvedev, in South Korea, Obama said into an open microphone that he needed more time to surrender our missile shield as Putin demanded because of the election. Said Obama, “after my election, I will have more flexibility.” Whoops.

It is a scandal that Obama plans to surrender our missile shield and thereby expose Poland to an aggressive Russia. But that’s not why this was a problem for Obama. The real problem for Obama is the broader implication of what he said. This statement reminds voters that the only thing keeping him in check is the need to get re-elected. Once he gets re-elected, he will act like “real Obama.” That prospect will frighten conservatives, who will wonder how much worse he can get, and it will turn-off moderates, who had hoped he would moderate his views with a Republican Congress. What this does is rally conservatives behind Romney (now that the primaries are effectively over), and it will cause moderates to see Romney “the moderate” as more likely to be moderate than Obama, who has been using moderate rhetoric in public but is privately promising to go full-retard after the election. This hurts Obama.

● El Stupido Two: This Trayvon Martin thing will blow up on Obama. He should have kept his trap shut. Why? For one thing, because it reminds people that Obama is a racist and he only seems to care about the suffering of blacks. . . “what state was that flood in again?” Indeed, people are starting to ask why Obama commented on Trayvon, but didn’t comment on the shooting death of a white Mississippi State student by three black males this week, or why he hasn’t commented on the shooting of two unarmed British tourists by a black Sarasota, Florida teen. Americans do not like presidents who play racial favorites and this reminds people that Obama is such a president.

Further, the misconduct of Trayvon’s exploiters will turn off the segment of the electorate that took Obama at face value when he said he would be the first post-racial president. Indeed, since his election, his allies have smeared anyone who criticized him as racist. Blacks in the Congressional Black Caucus cried racism when they were caught breaking laws. They made up false claims of racism against the Tea Party. Eric Holder has pursued a truly racist “civil rights” agenda. And now, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers and others are busy inciting racial hatred. This is the exact opposite message Obama needs to send to win over moderate whites. And as more evidence comes out that Team Race is trying to lynch a possibly innocent man, the blowback is building. This appears to be Duke Lacrosse all over again. Indeed, we’ve now learned that a 13 year old witnesses says Zimmerman was the one being attacked -- and his wounds were consistent with that, we’ve heard the 911 call which is not at all what it was portrayed, and we’ve learned that Trayvon was a thug. Add in a mother who has trademarked his name so she can profit from his death and you have a recipe for significant blowback.

● El Stupido Three: Finally, let’s discuss Obama’s campaign video. Obama has produced a 17 minute video pimping his re-election. The video is narrated by Tom Hanks. And it is fascinating.

First, this was a stupid thing to release because only diehard supporters or opponents will watch a 17 minute video. So there was nothing to be gained here. Then it got worse because right after its release another video was released of Tom Hanks getting caught on stage with a hedge fund manager who is in blackface and who makes racist comments. Hanks now claims that he was blindsided by the appearance of this man, but he wasn’t. He doesn’t leave the stage or chastise the man. Nope. Instead, he launches into an attack on Bill O’Reilly. This has neutered the 17 minute video entirely and raised the question of the double-standard liberals use. And following Slutgate, where the left tried to defend people like Bill Maher, the timing couldn’t have been worse.

Moreover, when you look at the video’s contents, you quickly realize that Obama has no idea how to get re-elected.

● The video itself is dark, depressing and defensive. And it’s crawling with self-pity as it keeps whining about how much responsibility has been dumped on our oft-golfing president. You can’t win the White House being whiny or pessimistic.

● Most of the video blames Bush. That’s not going to work four years after Bush left office.

● He’s terrified of his record. He never says “the stimulus package,” though there is one mention of the “Recovery Act.” He doesn’t tout Dodd Frank. He does talk about the auto bailouts, but he’s defensive as he tries to claim they extracted significant concessions from the unions. He mentions ObamaCare a lot, but only the promised benefits, which is the same sale pitch which keeps ObamaCare at the 40% support level in the polls. There’s almost no foreign policy mentioned except the killing bin Laden, which got Obama a 3% bounce which faded immediately. What the video does contain is a laundry list of promises to his different constituent groups (blacks, gays, feminists, enviros, etc.). That won’t play well if someone puts them all together for a general election commercial. Also, the whole video has been torn apart for being packed with lies and distortions. Even the leftist mouthpiece The Washington Post awarded it 3 out of 4 Pinocchios. That’s bad.

So what does this mean? It means he’s planning to run a depressing campaign. That’s a loser. He’s planning to blame Bush. Good luck. It means he’s afraid of his record. But without a crazed Republican in the race, that’s what this race will be about. Hence, he’s doomed, especially since the only achievements he’s willing to discuss either can’t get above 50% support in the polls or got him no credit with the public.

Add in the above, and you also have the Democrats going out their way to alienate the electorate by stirring up racial tensions, and Obama’s Medvedev comment putting the lie to his plan to run as a moderate. Right now, Obama and friends are doing everything wrong. They are alienating moderates, alienating whites, and energizing the conservative base. This could be one of the least competent campaigns in human history.

Finally, before you say, “don’t underestimate him,” keep in mind that Obama has never won a competitive election. All of his opponents imploded on their own. What’s the one thing Romney has shown cannot happen with him? He won’t implode.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site. Today we resume the Politics of Trek series!

Obama's Bad Week Continues. . .

View Detail

The “Dangers” Of Obamacare

The “Dangers” Of Obamacare

Obama’s Obamacare debacle continues. Not only did Obamacare rescue conservatism from disgrace, but its backlash gave us a Republican Congress. And its after effects are still coming. Indeed, even reliably liberal sources are finally noting that Obamacare may have problems. Now, in two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear the case, and all the indications are the court will strike down part of it. Let’s discuss!

In the past couple weeks, there have been a series of articles BY LEFTISTS pointing out that Obamacare may not be all it’s cracked up to be. They identify four “dangers”:

● Danger One: Obama made a big deal of promising that “if you like your current plan, you’ll be able to keep it.” Yet, according to a CBO report, under the best-case scenario, 3-5 million people will lose their current plans. Under the CBO’s worst-case scenario, this number could be 20 million people. That would be 12% of people who are currently insured.

Of course, the reality is that this will be much worse. For one thing, historically, government “worst-case scenarios” are almost always understated by a factor of five. That would mean 60% is a more likely number. And there are several reason to believe that’s the case here. The CBO scores these things using a static model, meaning they don’t take into account how people will change their behavior over time. Instead, the CBO just does the math based on how the world is today. Thus, they did not factor in the increasing costs of policies, nor did they factor in that once companies see their competitors gaining an advantage by dumping their healthcare plans, more companies will follow.

The left is trying to downplay this by saying that businesses can’t really dump their coverage without upsetting their employees -- an interesting argument for the left to make, as they regularly claim businesses don’t care about employees. But of course, this isn’t true. Employers do things for financial reasons, not sentimentality, and financially it will be stupid not to dump the healthcare plan onto the government.

● Danger Two: The Democrats promised Obamacare would reduce healthcare costs. Of course, it actually contained nothing to bring costs down, and costs have continued to soar. Recent polls show that 49% of people blame Obamacare for the rising cost of premiums! The left is whining that it’s unfair to blame Obamacare for this because Obamacare “wasn’t intended to bring down costs,” but that’s how they sold it. I guess they shouldn’t have lied?

● Danger Three: They are starting to realize the law will not pay for itself, and the cuts in Medicare which were supposed to finance it aren’t happening. Whoops. Bankruptcy, here we come.

● Danger Four: The Democrats bet heavily on the idea that “the more the public knows, the more they’ll like it.” But that’s not happening. Obamacare’s favorability sits around 41%. And the reason for this is obvious -- it hasn’t helped anyone, but its negative effects are already being seen everywhere: higher premiums, lost insurance, doctors quitting the business, higher taxes, etc. That’s the way the Democrats set it up to hide the true cost so the law could be passed. Now they are paying the price for that deception. Moreover, according to polls, in just one year, the number of people who know what the supposed benefits of Obamacare are (subsidies, can’t be turned down, etc.) has fallen by half. Basically, it’s now seen as all pain and no gain.

This is what the Democrats get for massaging the law and lying about it to get it passed. And now the law goes to the Supreme Court. In two weeks, the Court will hear the oral arguments in the case. They’ve scheduled an incredible SIX hours for oral argument over three days. They have not give a case this much time in 45 years. The implication is they plan to make a major decision, which bodes poorly for the Democrats, who will in all likelihood now lose the very thing they risked so much to pass.

Nevertheless, the left is trying to put on a brave face. Indeed, they are making all kinds of bizarre and contradictory points to explain why the various conservative justices might vote to keep Obamacare.

For example, the Washington Post argues that “Roberts is protective of the court’s reputation and sensitive to the perception that its decisions are politicized.” Thus,
he won’t want five Republican-appointed judges throwing out a law written by Democrats. Hardly. For one thing, if the Court cares about its reputation being apolitical, then it will do what it believes is correct about the law -- not what the Washington Post thinks needs to be done to please Democrats.

Moreover, this court has proven fearless at both making big decisions and making unpopular decisions. The left likes to claim that this is an “activist court” and to a degree they are right. This is not a court which respects the assertions of government that it has cart blanche power. Between this, the prior gun case, Citizens Union striking down campaign finance, and next year’s unexpected affirmative action case, this is clearly a court determined to start taking away the government’s power to control the rights the Constitution leaves to the people.

The left also argues that some of the other conservative justices might join the liberals because they have supported the use of the Commerce Clause to invade personal privacy before. Yeah, but... those were criminal cases, where conservatives have less love for the Constitution. Those also didn’t force anyone to take any affirmative actions, those laws only forbade people from doing things the Federal government wanted to make illegal. That’s a HUGE distinction.

It is interesting to note that the same leftists who are now predicting that anywhere from 1-3 of the conservative justices will jump ship are the same people who claimed that the lawsuit brought by the states was frivolous in the first place. Clearly, they had no idea what they were talking about then, and I expect they have no idea now. It seems clear to me that the Court will strike down the individual mandate, but not the rest, on a 5-4 vote.

Now here comes the part you won’t like. This COULD actually be bad for us. Here’s why. Because of the way conservatives have played the entire Obamacare debate, the public is outraged at the individual mandate, but oblivious to the rest. If the Supremes strike down the individual mandate, then the desire of the public to repeal the rest might fade. Thus, conservatives will need to pound away at the idea that the rest needs to go because it won’t work without the mandate.

On the other hand, this might actually make it easier to repeal and replace Obamacare because the public will already view the law as having been struck down by the Supremes. Thus, it shouldn’t be particularly controversial if Republicans start repealing the law’s parts piece by piece.

It’s hard to tell which way this will play. But no matter what happens, it is clear that Obamacare will continue to hurt the Democrats in November and possibly even the November after that.

Obama’s Obamacare debacle continues. Not only did Obamacare rescue conservatism from disgrace, but its backlash gave us a Republican Congress. And its after effects are still coming. Indeed, even reliably liberal sources are finally noting that Obamacare may have problems. Now, in two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear the case, and all the indications are the court will strike down part of it. Let’s discuss!

In the past couple weeks, there have been a series of articles BY LEFTISTS pointing out that Obamacare may not be all it’s cracked up to be. They identify four “dangers”:

● Danger One: Obama made a big deal of promising that “if you like your current plan, you’ll be able to keep it.” Yet, according to a CBO report, under the best-case scenario, 3-5 million people will lose their current plans. Under the CBO’s worst-case scenario, this number could be 20 million people. That would be 12% of people who are currently insured.

Of course, the reality is that this will be much worse. For one thing, historically, government “worst-case scenarios” are almost always understated by a factor of five. That would mean 60% is a more likely number. And there are several reason to believe that’s the case here. The CBO scores these things using a static model, meaning they don’t take into account how people will change their behavior over time. Instead, the CBO just does the math based on how the world is today. Thus, they did not factor in the increasing costs of policies, nor did they factor in that once companies see their competitors gaining an advantage by dumping their healthcare plans, more companies will follow.

The left is trying to downplay this by saying that businesses can’t really dump their coverage without upsetting their employees -- an interesting argument for the left to make, as they regularly claim businesses don’t care about employees. But of course, this isn’t true. Employers do things for financial reasons, not sentimentality, and financially it will be stupid not to dump the healthcare plan onto the government.

● Danger Two: The Democrats promised Obamacare would reduce healthcare costs. Of course, it actually contained nothing to bring costs down, and costs have continued to soar. Recent polls show that 49% of people blame Obamacare for the rising cost of premiums! The left is whining that it’s unfair to blame Obamacare for this because Obamacare “wasn’t intended to bring down costs,” but that’s how they sold it. I guess they shouldn’t have lied?

● Danger Three: They are starting to realize the law will not pay for itself, and the cuts in Medicare which were supposed to finance it aren’t happening. Whoops. Bankruptcy, here we come.

● Danger Four: The Democrats bet heavily on the idea that “the more the public knows, the more they’ll like it.” But that’s not happening. Obamacare’s favorability sits around 41%. And the reason for this is obvious -- it hasn’t helped anyone, but its negative effects are already being seen everywhere: higher premiums, lost insurance, doctors quitting the business, higher taxes, etc. That’s the way the Democrats set it up to hide the true cost so the law could be passed. Now they are paying the price for that deception. Moreover, according to polls, in just one year, the number of people who know what the supposed benefits of Obamacare are (subsidies, can’t be turned down, etc.) has fallen by half. Basically, it’s now seen as all pain and no gain.

This is what the Democrats get for massaging the law and lying about it to get it passed. And now the law goes to the Supreme Court. In two weeks, the Court will hear the oral arguments in the case. They’ve scheduled an incredible SIX hours for oral argument over three days. They have not give a case this much time in 45 years. The implication is they plan to make a major decision, which bodes poorly for the Democrats, who will in all likelihood now lose the very thing they risked so much to pass.

Nevertheless, the left is trying to put on a brave face. Indeed, they are making all kinds of bizarre and contradictory points to explain why the various conservative justices might vote to keep Obamacare.

For example, the Washington Post argues that “Roberts is protective of the court’s reputation and sensitive to the perception that its decisions are politicized.” Thus,
he won’t want five Republican-appointed judges throwing out a law written by Democrats. Hardly. For one thing, if the Court cares about its reputation being apolitical, then it will do what it believes is correct about the law -- not what the Washington Post thinks needs to be done to please Democrats.

Moreover, this court has proven fearless at both making big decisions and making unpopular decisions. The left likes to claim that this is an “activist court” and to a degree they are right. This is not a court which respects the assertions of government that it has cart blanche power. Between this, the prior gun case, Citizens Union striking down campaign finance, and next year’s unexpected affirmative action case, this is clearly a court determined to start taking away the government’s power to control the rights the Constitution leaves to the people.

The left also argues that some of the other conservative justices might join the liberals because they have supported the use of the Commerce Clause to invade personal privacy before. Yeah, but... those were criminal cases, where conservatives have less love for the Constitution. Those also didn’t force anyone to take any affirmative actions, those laws only forbade people from doing things the Federal government wanted to make illegal. That’s a HUGE distinction.

It is interesting to note that the same leftists who are now predicting that anywhere from 1-3 of the conservative justices will jump ship are the same people who claimed that the lawsuit brought by the states was frivolous in the first place. Clearly, they had no idea what they were talking about then, and I expect they have no idea now. It seems clear to me that the Court will strike down the individual mandate, but not the rest, on a 5-4 vote.

Now here comes the part you won’t like. This COULD actually be bad for us. Here’s why. Because of the way conservatives have played the entire Obamacare debate, the public is outraged at the individual mandate, but oblivious to the rest. If the Supremes strike down the individual mandate, then the desire of the public to repeal the rest might fade. Thus, conservatives will need to pound away at the idea that the rest needs to go because it won’t work without the mandate.

On the other hand, this might actually make it easier to repeal and replace Obamacare because the public will already view the law as having been struck down by the Supremes. Thus, it shouldn’t be particularly controversial if Republicans start repealing the law’s parts piece by piece.

It’s hard to tell which way this will play. But no matter what happens, it is clear that Obamacare will continue to hurt the Democrats in November and possibly even the November after that.

The “Dangers” Of Obamacare

View Detail

Obamacare Bureaucracy vs. Religious Belief

Obamacare Bureaucracy vs. Religious Belief

I recently introduced our readers to a small victory for religious freedom over bureaucratic absolutism (Score One for the Christians). In that case, the Supreme Court told the National Labor Relations Board that a religious organization has sole power to determine its own rules regarding hiring and firing based on religious belief. But Leviathan never sleeps, and the Obama administration is at it again.

This time, the issue is much larger than that in the employment case. It is a bold attack on religious freedom, and the attack is grounded on the idea that the mission of a religious institution can be entirely separated from its non-religious functions. The bureaucracy this time is Health and Human Services, its commander is Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the law from which the conflict stems is nothing less than Obamacare.

Simply put, the Catholic Church and some Orthodox Jewish organizations are religiously opposed to contraception. Obamacare requires that all employers, including those groups, must provide health insurance which includes coverage for contraception, certain abortifacients and sterilization at no additional charge to the employee. Contraceptive services are controversial among those groups, but it is the mandate to provide coverage for abortifacients and sterilization that has brought the issue to a rolling boil.

Obamacare does allow for some exemptions, but they are narrowly-written and are being interpreted by a bureaucracy that demands universal health care coverage whether you like it or not. In describing which employees the "religious employer" may exempt from contraception, abortifacient and sterilization coverage, Sebelius and her people rely on the preliminary regulations (which will undoubtedly remain unchanged in the final version) that require four concurrent things to be true:

1. The inculcation of religious values is its purpose.
2. It primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets.
3. It primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
4. It is a non-profit organization under sections of the code that refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.

Paying careful obeisance to and obfuscation of the ruling in the NLRB employment case, HHS has issued a statement that specifically says: "The Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions." By pretending to honor the unanimous decision in the NLRB case, HHS is actually carving out a rule that defeats religious belief outside the confines of the "ministry."

One student of the Department's position lays it out rather well. "The group insurance covering nuns in a Catholic religious order would probably not have to cover contraception. But insurance provided by the same order's elementary school probably would. The latter would also be true of a hospital established by the nuns."

The NLRB case was based on religious freedom ("the ministry"). This issue revolves more around religious worship and what information a religious organization must provide to non-members. So even in those cases where the Department may find the exemption applies, it will still require the organization to pass out information about "preventive" services which it does not provide under the exemption. Essentially, this means that the exempt religious organization must tell its employees where and how to obtain those services which are anathema to the organization and church teaching.

Sebelius's official statement explains how the new rule should be applied: "We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive and sterilization services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." At its most basic it means that Father Flanagan will meet with his employee and tell her that the Church utterly opposes artificial contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, but since the Church's medical insurance doesn't cover it, here's a list of all the places that will provide the services we find abhorrent and contrary to scripture.

So as it stands, Catholic employees at non-Catholic institutions must pay for insurance for preventive services as part of their insurance package, but cannot be charged anything additional for them. Likewise, Catholic and non-Catholic employees of a Catholic institution may be required to purchase contraception and sterilization insurance through their employers depending on how the Department classifies the religious employer. In the latter case, both the religious institution and its employees are bound by entirely secular rules determining the religious status of the employer and employee.

Church charities, hospitals, universities and other non-church activities are affected. Current organizations preparing to challenge the HHS ruling are Catholic Charities USA, Notre Dame University and the Catholic hospital network. Regardless of the outcome, or even a later softening of its position for political gain, this is another example of how the Obama administration and its leftist supporters are innately hostile to religion. It also demonstrates how a bureaucracy can hide its anti-religious agenda in gentle-sounding legalese.

I recently introduced our readers to a small victory for religious freedom over bureaucratic absolutism (Score One for the Christians). In that case, the Supreme Court told the National Labor Relations Board that a religious organization has sole power to determine its own rules regarding hiring and firing based on religious belief. But Leviathan never sleeps, and the Obama administration is at it again.

This time, the issue is much larger than that in the employment case. It is a bold attack on religious freedom, and the attack is grounded on the idea that the mission of a religious institution can be entirely separated from its non-religious functions. The bureaucracy this time is Health and Human Services, its commander is Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the law from which the conflict stems is nothing less than Obamacare.

Simply put, the Catholic Church and some Orthodox Jewish organizations are religiously opposed to contraception. Obamacare requires that all employers, including those groups, must provide health insurance which includes coverage for contraception, certain abortifacients and sterilization at no additional charge to the employee. Contraceptive services are controversial among those groups, but it is the mandate to provide coverage for abortifacients and sterilization that has brought the issue to a rolling boil.

Obamacare does allow for some exemptions, but they are narrowly-written and are being interpreted by a bureaucracy that demands universal health care coverage whether you like it or not. In describing which employees the "religious employer" may exempt from contraception, abortifacient and sterilization coverage, Sebelius and her people rely on the preliminary regulations (which will undoubtedly remain unchanged in the final version) that require four concurrent things to be true:

1. The inculcation of religious values is its purpose.
2. It primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets.
3. It primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
4. It is a non-profit organization under sections of the code that refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.

Paying careful obeisance to and obfuscation of the ruling in the NLRB employment case, HHS has issued a statement that specifically says: "The Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions." By pretending to honor the unanimous decision in the NLRB case, HHS is actually carving out a rule that defeats religious belief outside the confines of the "ministry."

One student of the Department's position lays it out rather well. "The group insurance covering nuns in a Catholic religious order would probably not have to cover contraception. But insurance provided by the same order's elementary school probably would. The latter would also be true of a hospital established by the nuns."

The NLRB case was based on religious freedom ("the ministry"). This issue revolves more around religious worship and what information a religious organization must provide to non-members. So even in those cases where the Department may find the exemption applies, it will still require the organization to pass out information about "preventive" services which it does not provide under the exemption. Essentially, this means that the exempt religious organization must tell its employees where and how to obtain those services which are anathema to the organization and church teaching.

Sebelius's official statement explains how the new rule should be applied: "We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive and sterilization services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." At its most basic it means that Father Flanagan will meet with his employee and tell her that the Church utterly opposes artificial contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, but since the Church's medical insurance doesn't cover it, here's a list of all the places that will provide the services we find abhorrent and contrary to scripture.

So as it stands, Catholic employees at non-Catholic institutions must pay for insurance for preventive services as part of their insurance package, but cannot be charged anything additional for them. Likewise, Catholic and non-Catholic employees of a Catholic institution may be required to purchase contraception and sterilization insurance through their employers depending on how the Department classifies the religious employer. In the latter case, both the religious institution and its employees are bound by entirely secular rules determining the religious status of the employer and employee.

Church charities, hospitals, universities and other non-church activities are affected. Current organizations preparing to challenge the HHS ruling are Catholic Charities USA, Notre Dame University and the Catholic hospital network. Regardless of the outcome, or even a later softening of its position for political gain, this is another example of how the Obama administration and its leftist supporters are innately hostile to religion. It also demonstrates how a bureaucracy can hide its anti-religious agenda in gentle-sounding legalese.

Obamacare Bureaucracy vs. Religious Belief

View Detail

Welcome Back Peeps! :)

Welcome Back Peeps! :)

Welcome back! We’ve missed you! Hopefully everyone had a nice Christmas?! Anyhoo, here’s a quick update on what you missed followed by a brief discussion of negative campaigning. This will all be on the year-end test...

Wha’d I Miss?

● The big news is that Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska announced his retirement. This is great news for several reasons. First, I suspect Nelson had a solid chance of getting re-elected. Nelson was down in the polls, but polls this far out are unreliable because they are little more than a means of registering a protest. And come election time, people rarely look at the past but instead focus on the future. That’s where things like seniority, client services, and comfort level with candidates all come into play and Nelson scored well in those. Secondly, if Nelson had won, then the MSM narrative would have been that ObamaCare obviously wasn’t a problem with voters. This cuts that off.

● Speaking of ObamaCare, the Supremes have agreed to hear the ObamaCare case, and they’re giving it an unprecedented three hours for oral argument. Except in rare instances, each side normally gets 30 minutes.

● Still speaking of ObamaCare, there are more problems arising. Remember how the plan calls for subsidizing everyone’s healthcare? Well, it turns out the bill was written poorly and this may not be possible. Even the Obama people admit it will require a Congressional fix to solve this problem. That ain’t happening. So even if the Supremes don’t strike it down, ObamaCare may collapse under Obama/Reid’s incompetent drafting.

● Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and Perry all failed to get their names on the Virginia ballot. This shows a lack of seriousness as candidates which should alarm their supporters. Gingrich then doubled-down on stupid by blaming one of the people he hired to get signatures. Apparently, this individual submitted 1,200 fake signatures. . . like ACORN. But this shows Gingrich’s stupidity. First, everyone knows you hire people to cross-check the names against voter rolls. What competent candidate could let someone get away with making up 1,200 fake names? Secondly, Gingrich played too fast and loose with the rules by only giving himself about an 11% margin of error. This is stupid. Romney and Paul gave themselves 50% margins. In any event, Gingrich sued and apparently will be let on the ballot if he agrees to stop crying.

● Rick Perry also sued Virginia for not protecting him from his own stupidity. Nice conservative values there, Rick: when you don’t follow the rules and things don’t work out. . . sue. Perhaps a homosexual/teletubby conspiracy slipped Rick litigious pills? In any event, recent reports have his whining working and he too will be let on the ballot.

● American Idol Kelly Clarkson endorsed Ron Paul. While I would have preferred she picked a different Republican, I am thrilled that a young, single female in the pop music world would endorse a non-leftist.

● A new video has emerged of Gingrich praising RomneyCare when it was passed and saying it would lead to great things.

Negative Campaigning

Negative campaigning is a tricky thing. Almost everyone professes to hate negative campaigning and it’s pretty clear that truly negative campaigns backfire on the candidates who wage them. But on the other hand, negative ads do work.

In fact, negative ads can be so effective, that some blame them for bringing about the current cynical state of our politics. I understand the logic in this -- if everyone attacks everyone else, then everyone is brought down in the public’s estimation and there’s nothing positive to latch onto -- but I don’t actually buy this argument. I think the cynical state of our current politics is a reaction to the lack of clear ideological choice, deep-seated corruption in both parties, and Democrats and Republicans blatantly lying about their intentions.

But what constitutes a negative ad? The Economist just wrote a stupid little piece in which they “worried” (read: hoped to promote the idea) that the Republican candidates were becoming so negative that no one would support them in November. Interestingly, the ad they discuss is a Ron Paul ad about Gingrich which shows:

● Gingrich sitting with Pelosi “warning of the dangers of climate change”;
● Gingrich bragging about receiving “speaking fees of $60,000 a pop”; and
● A voiceover pointing out that “Gingrich once supported the individual health mandate.”

This is hardly “going negative.” These are legitimate policy questions. Does Gingrich or does he not support global warming legislation? He did before and he’s hazy on it now. That’s a pretty important issue. Gingrich claims to be an outsider, yet he’s bragging about his speaking fees at large corporate gatherings. Is it not valid to question who his supporters are? And how can Gingrich’s support for the central abuse of ObamaCare not be a policy issue? (Also, isn’t it funny that supporting a Democratic agenda is “going negative”?)

The reality is none of this is negative. Negative is false statements, distortions of records, and baseless smears hinting that someone is a racist, a harasser, a philanderer or a bigot. Negative is repeating isolated, context-less quotes from decades ago and pretending they represent a lifetime record. Negative is smearing a candidate’s family or invading their bedroom. Negative is suggesting Barry Goldwater is unstable and will start a nuclear war, suggesting Ronald Reagan is old and senile or that he cut a deal with the Iranians, and publishing fake rumors about affairs that never happened, spreading lies about military records, and springing stories about a drunk driving arrest 40 years prior. Negative is NOT pointing out that your opponent supports political policies with which you disagree.

I am not a believer in negative campaigning. I think it cheapens your victory and destroys your mandate, and positive candidates will always be better leaders. But I also think we need to stop calling the pointing out of policy disagreements negative campaigning. And we really need to stop letting the MSM spin any criticism of another candidate as negative just so they can drive the narrative that Republicans are all negative.

(P.S. Don't forget, Star Trek Tuesdays start tomorrow morning at the film site.... 9:00 AM, be there.)

Welcome back! We’ve missed you! Hopefully everyone had a nice Christmas?! Anyhoo, here’s a quick update on what you missed followed by a brief discussion of negative campaigning. This will all be on the year-end test...

Wha’d I Miss?

● The big news is that Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska announced his retirement. This is great news for several reasons. First, I suspect Nelson had a solid chance of getting re-elected. Nelson was down in the polls, but polls this far out are unreliable because they are little more than a means of registering a protest. And come election time, people rarely look at the past but instead focus on the future. That’s where things like seniority, client services, and comfort level with candidates all come into play and Nelson scored well in those. Secondly, if Nelson had won, then the MSM narrative would have been that ObamaCare obviously wasn’t a problem with voters. This cuts that off.

● Speaking of ObamaCare, the Supremes have agreed to hear the ObamaCare case, and they’re giving it an unprecedented three hours for oral argument. Except in rare instances, each side normally gets 30 minutes.

● Still speaking of ObamaCare, there are more problems arising. Remember how the plan calls for subsidizing everyone’s healthcare? Well, it turns out the bill was written poorly and this may not be possible. Even the Obama people admit it will require a Congressional fix to solve this problem. That ain’t happening. So even if the Supremes don’t strike it down, ObamaCare may collapse under Obama/Reid’s incompetent drafting.

● Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and Perry all failed to get their names on the Virginia ballot. This shows a lack of seriousness as candidates which should alarm their supporters. Gingrich then doubled-down on stupid by blaming one of the people he hired to get signatures. Apparently, this individual submitted 1,200 fake signatures. . . like ACORN. But this shows Gingrich’s stupidity. First, everyone knows you hire people to cross-check the names against voter rolls. What competent candidate could let someone get away with making up 1,200 fake names? Secondly, Gingrich played too fast and loose with the rules by only giving himself about an 11% margin of error. This is stupid. Romney and Paul gave themselves 50% margins. In any event, Gingrich sued and apparently will be let on the ballot if he agrees to stop crying.

● Rick Perry also sued Virginia for not protecting him from his own stupidity. Nice conservative values there, Rick: when you don’t follow the rules and things don’t work out. . . sue. Perhaps a homosexual/teletubby conspiracy slipped Rick litigious pills? In any event, recent reports have his whining working and he too will be let on the ballot.

● American Idol Kelly Clarkson endorsed Ron Paul. While I would have preferred she picked a different Republican, I am thrilled that a young, single female in the pop music world would endorse a non-leftist.

● A new video has emerged of Gingrich praising RomneyCare when it was passed and saying it would lead to great things.

Negative Campaigning

Negative campaigning is a tricky thing. Almost everyone professes to hate negative campaigning and it’s pretty clear that truly negative campaigns backfire on the candidates who wage them. But on the other hand, negative ads do work.

In fact, negative ads can be so effective, that some blame them for bringing about the current cynical state of our politics. I understand the logic in this -- if everyone attacks everyone else, then everyone is brought down in the public’s estimation and there’s nothing positive to latch onto -- but I don’t actually buy this argument. I think the cynical state of our current politics is a reaction to the lack of clear ideological choice, deep-seated corruption in both parties, and Democrats and Republicans blatantly lying about their intentions.

But what constitutes a negative ad? The Economist just wrote a stupid little piece in which they “worried” (read: hoped to promote the idea) that the Republican candidates were becoming so negative that no one would support them in November. Interestingly, the ad they discuss is a Ron Paul ad about Gingrich which shows:

● Gingrich sitting with Pelosi “warning of the dangers of climate change”;
● Gingrich bragging about receiving “speaking fees of $60,000 a pop”; and
● A voiceover pointing out that “Gingrich once supported the individual health mandate.”

This is hardly “going negative.” These are legitimate policy questions. Does Gingrich or does he not support global warming legislation? He did before and he’s hazy on it now. That’s a pretty important issue. Gingrich claims to be an outsider, yet he’s bragging about his speaking fees at large corporate gatherings. Is it not valid to question who his supporters are? And how can Gingrich’s support for the central abuse of ObamaCare not be a policy issue? (Also, isn’t it funny that supporting a Democratic agenda is “going negative”?)

The reality is none of this is negative. Negative is false statements, distortions of records, and baseless smears hinting that someone is a racist, a harasser, a philanderer or a bigot. Negative is repeating isolated, context-less quotes from decades ago and pretending they represent a lifetime record. Negative is smearing a candidate’s family or invading their bedroom. Negative is suggesting Barry Goldwater is unstable and will start a nuclear war, suggesting Ronald Reagan is old and senile or that he cut a deal with the Iranians, and publishing fake rumors about affairs that never happened, spreading lies about military records, and springing stories about a drunk driving arrest 40 years prior. Negative is NOT pointing out that your opponent supports political policies with which you disagree.

I am not a believer in negative campaigning. I think it cheapens your victory and destroys your mandate, and positive candidates will always be better leaders. But I also think we need to stop calling the pointing out of policy disagreements negative campaigning. And we really need to stop letting the MSM spin any criticism of another candidate as negative just so they can drive the narrative that Republicans are all negative.

(P.S. Don't forget, Star Trek Tuesdays start tomorrow morning at the film site.... 9:00 AM, be there.)

Welcome Back Peeps! :)

View Detail

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the upcoming appeal of the State of Arizona challenging the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the major enforcement provisions of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law. She has done the right and ethical thing.

Simply put, Arizona's law included among other things a provision that during the course of a lawful stop or arrest, the police officer could inquire into the individual's immigration status if he had a reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally. The police could then hold the suspect pending determination of his immigration status. If the person turned out to be in the United States illegally, the Arizona authorities would then turn the suspect over to the federal immigration authorities. The Obama administration successfully took Arizona to court, claiming that this was unconstitutional interference with the federal government's sole authority over immigration.

Arizona argued unsuccessfully that it had a compelling state interest in protecting its lawful citizens, and that the new law merely provided a means by which the federal authorities could be made aware of an illegal immigrant by use of ordinary and established state and local police procedures. The law did seem to grant power to the state to establish its own rules on immigration, and did provide for certain non-investigatory detention beyond the initial inquiry into the person's immigration status. The law did not allow or require the state to take any further action against the detainee such as deporting him from the United States, but there were some criminal sanctions for being present in Arizona illegally. Arizona argued that its law merely reported illegal immigration, while the Obama administration argued that it regulated immigration, a solely federal prerogative.

The law does make it a crime for an undocumented worker to be present in the state. And the law makes it a crime to fail to register with the federal government or attempt to take work or hold a job without government authorization. Unlike the "reasonable suspicion" provision, these provisions do seem to skate very close to the edge of federal supremacy. In any event, all the provisions mentioned were stricken by the federal judge, and his ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort these provisions out.

A federal judge and ultimately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against Arizona. Arizona appealed, and the US Supreme Court has now granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case). Justice Kagan immediately recused herself and made a public statement as to why she was doing so. As a senior attorney at the Justice Department (Solicitor General), she had played a major role in the early litigation against the Arizona law. Good for her. She did the right thing. Why she did the right thing may yet turn out not to be quite so honorable.

Caution: What follows is comprised largely of my opinions about anyone or anything having to do with the Obama administration, combined with a healthy dollop of paranoia and suspicion. I'm not stating anything except the jurisdictional matters as fact, and if this turns out to be a debate over Kagan's intentions versus my wariness, that would be a good thing.

I'm sure that every one of you is sophisticated enough to know that the state challenges to Obamacare will be wending their way to the Supreme Court. Different appellate districts have made diametrically opposite decisions, and it's up to the Supreme Court to resolve them. Mounting evidence shows that Justice Kagan was deeply involved in the preparation and final versions of Obamacare while she was Obama's Solicitor General. In fact, within just a few days before the passage of Obamacare, Kagan wrote to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that a lawsuit was being prepared to block the House from "deeming" the measure passed by a quirky procedural rule if it didn't get enough votes. She not only alerted them, but made suggestions as to how to defend against the lawsuit.

She even went so far as to alert the Office of Legal Counsel of all the arguments which were being prepared against the procedural trick (by a former Tenth Circuit US Appeals Court judge who is now Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University). During her confirmation proceedings, Kagan was asked for a written response to the following question posed by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

"Have you ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the underlying or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including, but not limited to Pub. L No. 111-148 PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?" Kagan answered "no."

Kagan's early opinions of the efficacy of socialized medicine offered as a professor of law at Harvard (pictured) would not automatically require her to recuse herself from considering the Obamacare cases at the Supreme Court. Every professor of law (except possibly Barack Obama) has legal opinions. They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Most prominent law professors have written law review articles (again, except Barack Obama, editor of the Harvard Law Review). Those articles frequently go against current prevailing law. But those opinions are largely political abstract law in nature until they start coming down from the bench. So her early legal career was important to the process, but not necessarily to her ultimate confirmation.

So where am I going with this? From everything I've seen and read, Kagan's involvement in Obamacare was at least as deep as her involvement in the Arizona statute controversy and litigation. Her self-recusal from the Arizona case leads me to think that doing the right thing in that case was a red herring, designed to draw attention away from Kagan's personal views and actual involvement in the preparation of the Obamacare legislation.

She, her liberal Democratic friends and their errand boys in the mainstream media can now point out how upright, honest and ethical she is about not hearing cases in which she has been personally and professionally involved. When she refuses to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision, as I expect she will, they can all say "why look, she recused herself in the Arizona case, so if she doesn't recuse herself here, it's because her hands are clean and she is justified in hearing the matter."

Along with her "recusal credentials" she is likely to claim that if she has to recuse herself, the same should be required of Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, hooey. Thomas had no personal or professional involvement in passing or litigating Obamacare. His wife is an ardent anti-socialized medicine advocate. So what? She's not sitting on the bench, he is. And unlike Obama, Thomas does not allow his wife to make his decisions for him. Double red herring.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. But I suspect Kagan's self-recusal in the Arizona case is even more cynical. Sorry, folks, I just don't trust their phony good intentions. So, what do you think?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the upcoming appeal of the State of Arizona challenging the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the major enforcement provisions of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law. She has done the right and ethical thing.

Simply put, Arizona's law included among other things a provision that during the course of a lawful stop or arrest, the police officer could inquire into the individual's immigration status if he had a reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally. The police could then hold the suspect pending determination of his immigration status. If the person turned out to be in the United States illegally, the Arizona authorities would then turn the suspect over to the federal immigration authorities. The Obama administration successfully took Arizona to court, claiming that this was unconstitutional interference with the federal government's sole authority over immigration.

Arizona argued unsuccessfully that it had a compelling state interest in protecting its lawful citizens, and that the new law merely provided a means by which the federal authorities could be made aware of an illegal immigrant by use of ordinary and established state and local police procedures. The law did seem to grant power to the state to establish its own rules on immigration, and did provide for certain non-investigatory detention beyond the initial inquiry into the person's immigration status. The law did not allow or require the state to take any further action against the detainee such as deporting him from the United States, but there were some criminal sanctions for being present in Arizona illegally. Arizona argued that its law merely reported illegal immigration, while the Obama administration argued that it regulated immigration, a solely federal prerogative.

The law does make it a crime for an undocumented worker to be present in the state. And the law makes it a crime to fail to register with the federal government or attempt to take work or hold a job without government authorization. Unlike the "reasonable suspicion" provision, these provisions do seem to skate very close to the edge of federal supremacy. In any event, all the provisions mentioned were stricken by the federal judge, and his ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort these provisions out.

A federal judge and ultimately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against Arizona. Arizona appealed, and the US Supreme Court has now granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case). Justice Kagan immediately recused herself and made a public statement as to why she was doing so. As a senior attorney at the Justice Department (Solicitor General), she had played a major role in the early litigation against the Arizona law. Good for her. She did the right thing. Why she did the right thing may yet turn out not to be quite so honorable.

Caution: What follows is comprised largely of my opinions about anyone or anything having to do with the Obama administration, combined with a healthy dollop of paranoia and suspicion. I'm not stating anything except the jurisdictional matters as fact, and if this turns out to be a debate over Kagan's intentions versus my wariness, that would be a good thing.

I'm sure that every one of you is sophisticated enough to know that the state challenges to Obamacare will be wending their way to the Supreme Court. Different appellate districts have made diametrically opposite decisions, and it's up to the Supreme Court to resolve them. Mounting evidence shows that Justice Kagan was deeply involved in the preparation and final versions of Obamacare while she was Obama's Solicitor General. In fact, within just a few days before the passage of Obamacare, Kagan wrote to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that a lawsuit was being prepared to block the House from "deeming" the measure passed by a quirky procedural rule if it didn't get enough votes. She not only alerted them, but made suggestions as to how to defend against the lawsuit.

She even went so far as to alert the Office of Legal Counsel of all the arguments which were being prepared against the procedural trick (by a former Tenth Circuit US Appeals Court judge who is now Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University). During her confirmation proceedings, Kagan was asked for a written response to the following question posed by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

"Have you ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the underlying or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including, but not limited to Pub. L No. 111-148 PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?" Kagan answered "no."

Kagan's early opinions of the efficacy of socialized medicine offered as a professor of law at Harvard (pictured) would not automatically require her to recuse herself from considering the Obamacare cases at the Supreme Court. Every professor of law (except possibly Barack Obama) has legal opinions. They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Most prominent law professors have written law review articles (again, except Barack Obama, editor of the Harvard Law Review). Those articles frequently go against current prevailing law. But those opinions are largely political abstract law in nature until they start coming down from the bench. So her early legal career was important to the process, but not necessarily to her ultimate confirmation.

So where am I going with this? From everything I've seen and read, Kagan's involvement in Obamacare was at least as deep as her involvement in the Arizona statute controversy and litigation. Her self-recusal from the Arizona case leads me to think that doing the right thing in that case was a red herring, designed to draw attention away from Kagan's personal views and actual involvement in the preparation of the Obamacare legislation.

She, her liberal Democratic friends and their errand boys in the mainstream media can now point out how upright, honest and ethical she is about not hearing cases in which she has been personally and professionally involved. When she refuses to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision, as I expect she will, they can all say "why look, she recused herself in the Arizona case, so if she doesn't recuse herself here, it's because her hands are clean and she is justified in hearing the matter."

Along with her "recusal credentials" she is likely to claim that if she has to recuse herself, the same should be required of Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, hooey. Thomas had no personal or professional involvement in passing or litigating Obamacare. His wife is an ardent anti-socialized medicine advocate. So what? She's not sitting on the bench, he is. And unlike Obama, Thomas does not allow his wife to make his decisions for him. Double red herring.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. But I suspect Kagan's self-recusal in the Arizona case is even more cynical. Sorry, folks, I just don't trust their phony good intentions. So, what do you think?

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

View Detail

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

Just a short time before the House took a vote forbidding the use of federal funds to pay for any part of a health plan that covers abortion, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill would mean that "women can die on the floor." Fifteen House Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for what the president of NARAL called The Let Women Die Act.

The bill is aimed at one portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Prior law forbade direct use of federal funds for abortion, but Obamacare slipped in provisions which did by the back door what it couldn't do through the front. Rather than pay for the abortion directly, Obamacare allowed abortion to be paid for by insurance plans which accept federal funds. The bill bans that practice.

The bill also covered another problem created by Obamacare. It prevents punitive action against any health care provider who refuses to perform or assist in performing an abortion based on moral or religious objections. It's important to note that as we review the Democratic hysteria over the bill, it doesn't ban abortion, just direct or indirect federal funding of it. Multiple polls have shown that somewhere between 65% and 70% of Americans who may otherwise have divergent views on abortion itself oppose federal funding of abortion in any form.

The Republican position on the bill was that Obamacare contains loopholes galore that allow the use of federal subsidies and stimuli for the purpose of purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. Many of the supporters of the new bill (called the Protect Life Act) clearly believe that Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety, but wanted to take an early step in that agenda by eliminating one of the most egregious of Obamacare's flaws. Unlike many of the provisions of Obamacare which are purely economic nostrums or bureaucratic "solutions," this flaw flagrantly allowed federal funding for a medical procedure abhorrent to a substantial number of Americans.

Pelosi went off on a journey of free-association in discussing the bill. "Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. It's just appalling. It falls right into their--all, it's a health issue." In other words, if the doctors don't perform a procedure which would terminate a perfectly normal pregnancy, a woman will die on the floor while the doctors stand by and swap golf stories.

Perhaps she doesn't realize that if a woman comes into a Catholic hospital bleeding heavily from a botched abortion performed elsewhere, those Catholic doctors will do everything in their power to save the mother (and the baby, if it still lives). But what can you expect? This is a practicing Catholic woman who lectures the bishops and the Pope on their misinterpretations of the Bible and their incorrectness on Church doctrine.

For a woman her age, Pelosi has amazing lung power. She can string together thoughts in random order and pronounce them without taking a breath. Example: "This is a health care issue and it falls right in with a lot of other initiatives that they [the Republicans] had coming up on the floor (where the women are dying?) about clean air, clean water, mercury, you name it--America's families deserve better than this and, again, today is another example of a wasted opportunity, instead of taking up even an aspect of the president's job bill that could create jobs they're--I can't even describe to you the logic of what is is that they are doing, I just know that you will see a large number of women on the floor today (dying women?) fighting for women's health issues, as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation." Whew! I'll bet she could blow out a 150 birthday candle cake without taking a second breath.

Pelosi also went on to say "this is not a jobs bill." No, really? "Everybody in America has the creation of jobs as their top priority and what we are doing is wasting time. Every woman in America should be concerned with this assault on women's rights. This is just one aspect of women's health. But it has an impact across the board on how women get their health insurance. It's a waste of time." So if I'm hearing her right, women's health and access to abortion is vitally important, but it's a waste of time because jobs are at stake.

National Right to Life Director Douglass Johnson said: "President Obama won enactment of Obamacare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion. But now the mask is coming off. Obamacare contains multiple provisions designed to authorize federal subsidies for abortion." The Protect Life Act removes those subsidies. But it does not prevent any woman who wants health care insurance with abortion coverage from purchasing it. It just prevents them from purchasing federally-subsidized insurance which provides coverage for abortions.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 251-172 (236 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor). There are two hurdles remaining. First, the Senate helmed by Democrat Harry Reid may never even get to vote if Reid uses his parliamentary tricks to keep the vote away from his colleagues. Even if Reid doesn't manage to table the bill, passage in the Senate is far from a sure thing. And in the event that the bill does pass the Senate, there's that final roadblock in the White House.

President Obama will have to do some serious spinning to come up with a reason to veto the bill. But spin he will. He spent months on the political trail obscuring the Obamacare loopholes for abortion because he claims to believe that federal funding should not be used for abortion. He can't veto the bill on that basis, then, without having another lie added to the long list of lies he has told. He might try to do his new "capitalist" thing, and claim that the bill interferes with the right to private contract. Who knows? But it is highly likely that he will veto the bill if it ever gets to his desk.

Just a short time before the House took a vote forbidding the use of federal funds to pay for any part of a health plan that covers abortion, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill would mean that "women can die on the floor." Fifteen House Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for what the president of NARAL called The Let Women Die Act.

The bill is aimed at one portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Prior law forbade direct use of federal funds for abortion, but Obamacare slipped in provisions which did by the back door what it couldn't do through the front. Rather than pay for the abortion directly, Obamacare allowed abortion to be paid for by insurance plans which accept federal funds. The bill bans that practice.

The bill also covered another problem created by Obamacare. It prevents punitive action against any health care provider who refuses to perform or assist in performing an abortion based on moral or religious objections. It's important to note that as we review the Democratic hysteria over the bill, it doesn't ban abortion, just direct or indirect federal funding of it. Multiple polls have shown that somewhere between 65% and 70% of Americans who may otherwise have divergent views on abortion itself oppose federal funding of abortion in any form.

The Republican position on the bill was that Obamacare contains loopholes galore that allow the use of federal subsidies and stimuli for the purpose of purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. Many of the supporters of the new bill (called the Protect Life Act) clearly believe that Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety, but wanted to take an early step in that agenda by eliminating one of the most egregious of Obamacare's flaws. Unlike many of the provisions of Obamacare which are purely economic nostrums or bureaucratic "solutions," this flaw flagrantly allowed federal funding for a medical procedure abhorrent to a substantial number of Americans.

Pelosi went off on a journey of free-association in discussing the bill. "Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. It's just appalling. It falls right into their--all, it's a health issue." In other words, if the doctors don't perform a procedure which would terminate a perfectly normal pregnancy, a woman will die on the floor while the doctors stand by and swap golf stories.

Perhaps she doesn't realize that if a woman comes into a Catholic hospital bleeding heavily from a botched abortion performed elsewhere, those Catholic doctors will do everything in their power to save the mother (and the baby, if it still lives). But what can you expect? This is a practicing Catholic woman who lectures the bishops and the Pope on their misinterpretations of the Bible and their incorrectness on Church doctrine.

For a woman her age, Pelosi has amazing lung power. She can string together thoughts in random order and pronounce them without taking a breath. Example: "This is a health care issue and it falls right in with a lot of other initiatives that they [the Republicans] had coming up on the floor (where the women are dying?) about clean air, clean water, mercury, you name it--America's families deserve better than this and, again, today is another example of a wasted opportunity, instead of taking up even an aspect of the president's job bill that could create jobs they're--I can't even describe to you the logic of what is is that they are doing, I just know that you will see a large number of women on the floor today (dying women?) fighting for women's health issues, as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation." Whew! I'll bet she could blow out a 150 birthday candle cake without taking a second breath.

Pelosi also went on to say "this is not a jobs bill." No, really? "Everybody in America has the creation of jobs as their top priority and what we are doing is wasting time. Every woman in America should be concerned with this assault on women's rights. This is just one aspect of women's health. But it has an impact across the board on how women get their health insurance. It's a waste of time." So if I'm hearing her right, women's health and access to abortion is vitally important, but it's a waste of time because jobs are at stake.

National Right to Life Director Douglass Johnson said: "President Obama won enactment of Obamacare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion. But now the mask is coming off. Obamacare contains multiple provisions designed to authorize federal subsidies for abortion." The Protect Life Act removes those subsidies. But it does not prevent any woman who wants health care insurance with abortion coverage from purchasing it. It just prevents them from purchasing federally-subsidized insurance which provides coverage for abortions.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 251-172 (236 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor). There are two hurdles remaining. First, the Senate helmed by Democrat Harry Reid may never even get to vote if Reid uses his parliamentary tricks to keep the vote away from his colleagues. Even if Reid doesn't manage to table the bill, passage in the Senate is far from a sure thing. And in the event that the bill does pass the Senate, there's that final roadblock in the White House.

President Obama will have to do some serious spinning to come up with a reason to veto the bill. But spin he will. He spent months on the political trail obscuring the Obamacare loopholes for abortion because he claims to believe that federal funding should not be used for abortion. He can't veto the bill on that basis, then, without having another lie added to the long list of lies he has told. He might try to do his new "capitalist" thing, and claim that the bill interferes with the right to private contract. Who knows? But it is highly likely that he will veto the bill if it ever gets to his desk.

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

View Detail

He’s Back!

He’s Back!

For those of you who missed it, which is probably all of you except the Elves who heard this by phone, I got to spend my weekend in the hospital. And a fun weekend it was. Having literally just gotten back from the hospital a few minutes ago, I thought I would share a few observations about modern medicine in the evil private sector.



By way of background, let me apologize to everyone whose comments/articles I’ve ignored since Friday. Friday night I got to experience my first heart attack! Good times. Oddly, it didn’t seem like a heart attack at all. It felt like someone punched me, just below the throat. It totally seemed like a muscle thing and the only reason I even went to the hospital was that the pain kept burning and eventually I could feel it around back -- which I knew from a legal case could be a sign of a dissection. So I went to the hospital to make sure it wasn’t that.



I got the ER of our brand new private sector hospital (3 years old) and was immediately taken to the back, where the staff were able to give me a bunch of tests on the spot to confirm that they should probably give me more tests. There was nothing conclusive, but there was enough that they wanted to look further, including some damage to the heart tissue as shown by an enzyme test. Over time, the testing showed a greater likelihood of a heart attack, so eventually I ended up getting a heart catheterization. This is where they go in through one of your limbs and poke around inside the heart with a camera. If they find something, they can fix it at that point. Fortunately, they found nothing.



What struck me first and foremost was how not-hospital-like the hospital was. I’ve stayed in luxury hotels that weren’t this nice. They had everything from private rooms for everyone to flat screen televisions to an abundance of staff. But even more interestingly, everything was computerized. I had a band on my wrist with a bar code. Before anyone could give me a medication or do anything to me, they had to scan the bar code and then ask my name and date of birth as confirmation. This was just really impressive. As someone who has handled both sides of medical practice actions, this struck me as an ingenious way to (1) prevent mistakes and (2) document everything. And indeed, it did stop one nurse from giving me the wrong medications after a shift change.



Then it hit me, aren’t we supposed to assume that the private sector can’t handle things like hospitals because they want to go el cheapo? Strangely, I saw no evidence of that anywhere. They had spent large amount of money everything they did.



For example, like I said, everything was computerized. The nurses pushed around carts with laptops on them. They could give me lab results the minute they were done. They had wireless things all over me sending off data that alerted the nurses immediately if something weird was going on with me. Everyone on staff had a cell phone and could reach anyone else at any point.



The physical lay out was great too. Well furnished, very tasteful. Each room had its own temperature controls and a private bath. The staff was professional and in no way understaffed. They all seemed quiet content with the management. The food was really good as well. It wasn’t something you would buy at a restaurant, but it was quite tasty.



How could this be with a private company running the hospital?



Maybe it was just because it was a new hospital? Nope. I ended up being transferred to the older branch of the hospital for the catheterization and discovered a nearly identical facility. This company had spent a ton of money rebuilding the older hospital right after putting up the new one -- they are also adding more parts.



Ok, so maybe it was my primo Commentarama Insurance, right? Actually, I don’t have insurance. And they asked me that at the front door, so the hospital knew right away. BUT they didn’t care. They could have turned me away and sent me to the city hospital downtown, but they didn’t.



Moreover, they apparently don’t even share this information with the doctors or nurses. So they have no idea if the person they are working on is on great insurance or doesn’t have two dimes to rub together.



Again, none of this makes sense if you believe the Obama version of the private sector or the scare tactics about “two tiers” of care.



In fact, there are two tiers of care. Downtown, there is a city-owned hospital. It’s a pit. They are finally entering the 1930s in terms of medical quality and their facilities resemble a prison.



So tell me this. If private sector companies are so bad, then why wasn’t I turned away when I said I had no insurance? With a public hospital in town, this hospital has no obligation to see me. And why did they not curtail my care somewhere along the way until I could prove that I could pay my bills? (They never once asked what I earn -- in fact, they assumed I won’t be paying and they automatically referred me to an indigent group that picks up some of the tab for people who can’t pay.)



All of this flies in the face of what Obama and his fellow travelers tell us we should find in a private sector hospital. And it makes you wonder what our healthcare will look like if Obamacare ever takes hold?

For those of you who missed it, which is probably all of you except the Elves who heard this by phone, I got to spend my weekend in the hospital. And a fun weekend it was. Having literally just gotten back from the hospital a few minutes ago, I thought I would share a few observations about modern medicine in the evil private sector.



By way of background, let me apologize to everyone whose comments/articles I’ve ignored since Friday. Friday night I got to experience my first heart attack! Good times. Oddly, it didn’t seem like a heart attack at all. It felt like someone punched me, just below the throat. It totally seemed like a muscle thing and the only reason I even went to the hospital was that the pain kept burning and eventually I could feel it around back -- which I knew from a legal case could be a sign of a dissection. So I went to the hospital to make sure it wasn’t that.



I got the ER of our brand new private sector hospital (3 years old) and was immediately taken to the back, where the staff were able to give me a bunch of tests on the spot to confirm that they should probably give me more tests. There was nothing conclusive, but there was enough that they wanted to look further, including some damage to the heart tissue as shown by an enzyme test. Over time, the testing showed a greater likelihood of a heart attack, so eventually I ended up getting a heart catheterization. This is where they go in through one of your limbs and poke around inside the heart with a camera. If they find something, they can fix it at that point. Fortunately, they found nothing.



What struck me first and foremost was how not-hospital-like the hospital was. I’ve stayed in luxury hotels that weren’t this nice. They had everything from private rooms for everyone to flat screen televisions to an abundance of staff. But even more interestingly, everything was computerized. I had a band on my wrist with a bar code. Before anyone could give me a medication or do anything to me, they had to scan the bar code and then ask my name and date of birth as confirmation. This was just really impressive. As someone who has handled both sides of medical practice actions, this struck me as an ingenious way to (1) prevent mistakes and (2) document everything. And indeed, it did stop one nurse from giving me the wrong medications after a shift change.



Then it hit me, aren’t we supposed to assume that the private sector can’t handle things like hospitals because they want to go el cheapo? Strangely, I saw no evidence of that anywhere. They had spent large amount of money everything they did.



For example, like I said, everything was computerized. The nurses pushed around carts with laptops on them. They could give me lab results the minute they were done. They had wireless things all over me sending off data that alerted the nurses immediately if something weird was going on with me. Everyone on staff had a cell phone and could reach anyone else at any point.



The physical lay out was great too. Well furnished, very tasteful. Each room had its own temperature controls and a private bath. The staff was professional and in no way understaffed. They all seemed quiet content with the management. The food was really good as well. It wasn’t something you would buy at a restaurant, but it was quite tasty.



How could this be with a private company running the hospital?



Maybe it was just because it was a new hospital? Nope. I ended up being transferred to the older branch of the hospital for the catheterization and discovered a nearly identical facility. This company had spent a ton of money rebuilding the older hospital right after putting up the new one -- they are also adding more parts.



Ok, so maybe it was my primo Commentarama Insurance, right? Actually, I don’t have insurance. And they asked me that at the front door, so the hospital knew right away. BUT they didn’t care. They could have turned me away and sent me to the city hospital downtown, but they didn’t.



Moreover, they apparently don’t even share this information with the doctors or nurses. So they have no idea if the person they are working on is on great insurance or doesn’t have two dimes to rub together.



Again, none of this makes sense if you believe the Obama version of the private sector or the scare tactics about “two tiers” of care.



In fact, there are two tiers of care. Downtown, there is a city-owned hospital. It’s a pit. They are finally entering the 1930s in terms of medical quality and their facilities resemble a prison.



So tell me this. If private sector companies are so bad, then why wasn’t I turned away when I said I had no insurance? With a public hospital in town, this hospital has no obligation to see me. And why did they not curtail my care somewhere along the way until I could prove that I could pay my bills? (They never once asked what I earn -- in fact, they assumed I won’t be paying and they automatically referred me to an indigent group that picks up some of the tab for people who can’t pay.)



All of this flies in the face of what Obama and his fellow travelers tell us we should find in a private sector hospital. And it makes you wonder what our healthcare will look like if Obamacare ever takes hold?

He’s Back!

View Detail