Obama Lied. 93 Million Health Plans Died

Obama has said it time and time again, most recently saying it in September, 2013: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.  If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

But it was always a baldfaced lie. Still, Jay Carney recently tried to move the goalposts by saying that “only 5% of Americans would be affected” by the insurance-cancelling provisions of Obamacare. He didn’t move them quite far enough, because Obama’s administration knew as far back as 2010 that 93 million Americans would be at risk of losing their health insurance under the Obamacare bill they had just passed.

Yet Obama kept lying, and lying, and lying, and is still lying. He used the media strategy that got him off the hook for so many other lies: He denied knowledge, moved the goalposts, and then blamed the private sector and the Republicans.

But the real question is, are you as stupid as Obama thinks you are? Do you really believe that he had no idea that 93 million health care plans would be at risk from his signature law, even though we have it on record that his advisers told him? Do you really believe he had no idea the Obamacare exchange system was in trouble before the launch? Do you really believe he had no idea his NSA operations were spying on every American, as well as dozens of foreign leaders, including our closest allies? Do you really believe Obama had no idea why the National Park Service was closing down roads, lands, and private businesses that do not require federal funding to remain open during the shutdown? Do you really believe Obama had no idea his IRS appointees were engaging in illegal political harassment and intimidation to help him get reelected? Do you really believe Obama had no idea that the Benghazi attack was carried out by Al Qaeda? Do you really believe that Obama had no idea that his gun-running operation had gotten out of control and killed 300 people?

It’s no coincidence that Obama’s relationship to all of these incidents is similar. It’s called “plausible deniability.” He knew about all of it. And he lied, shamelessly and repeatedly, to avoid all responsibility. Let the subordinates suffer so the head of the operation can continue on. It’s the Chicago way.


ObamaCare Has Not Won Yet

Supporters of the Democrats’ health care bill may think that now that it’s been signed into law, it’s safe from further attack. Don’t be too sure.

Many elements of this bill are of questionable constitutionality, the most notable of which being the “Individual Mandate.”
This mandate is entirely unprecedented. Never before has Congress mandated that private individuals agree to a contract with another private entity just because they’re alive. Certainly, the purchase of a car is mandated to coincide with the purchase of car insurance. However, the purchase of a car is understood by past courts to be a form of commerce, which falls under the “Commerce Clause” of the US Constitution. Thus, the real question at hand is this: is the non-purchase of health insurance a form of “commerce” that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause? If the power isn’t specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, the 10th Amendment can, and will, be applied to deem it unconstitutional.

Some less-informed Democratic Congressmen have also tried to justify the mandate under the “General Welfare Clause.” However, this clause only states that Congress may “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” to provide for the general welfare. It does not state that Congress may force private individuals to make contracts, and it actually specifies that all taxes laid by Congress “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” making the use of tax as punishment of those without health insurance entirely unconstitutional.

So is this “Individual Mandate” unconstitutional? I certainly think so. I think it’s only a matter of time before it, along with other questionable components, are struck down in the Supreme Court.

Treasurer of Massachusetts Bashes ObamaCare

…And goes even further, saying that it will “threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years.”

Did I read that right? Timothy Cahill, a Democrat (until just recently), the Treasurer of Massachusetts no less, is saying that the similar legislation passed in Massachusetts 4 years earlier “has nearly bankrupted the state.” This man, who (I repeat) runs the Massachusetts Treasury, says that the only reason Massachusetts is not yet bankrupt is the state is “being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive [the legislation] through.”

How much more damning can you get? The one empirical test of ObamaCare (from back when it was RomneyCare) on US soil, and the state’s own Treasurer is saying that without the politically-motivated federal aid, they wouldn’t be able to make ends meet because of it.

Consider also the fact that the cost to individuals in Massachusetts has been skyrocketing as well, and this piece of national health care legislation is absolutely devastated. Under such a plan, health care costs everyone more.

How can anyone still support this folly? How can anyone still support the Democrats’ efforts to ram this thing through Congress with little regard for the Constitution?

Comprehensive, Systematic Takeover of Everything I Think I Can Run Better than You Act.

In Congress, the Democrats are pushing a lot of bills that expand the President’s capacity to set standards for and control management of quite a few major components of the economy and individual lives. There’s HR 4173, which would allow the President and his appointees to liquidate any company they deem a “danger” to the economy. There’s HR 3590, which would make the purchasing of insurance deemed “satisfactory” by the President and his appointees mandatory. There’s HR 2454, which would allow the President and his appointees to determine how much carbon dioxide you can emit. There’s the proposal to institute national age-based education standards which would be set by…you guessed it- the President and his appointees.

I have to ask: If the Democrats feel it’s so important to expand executive power in all these sectors, why not just combine it all into one sweeping bill that accomplishes all of their goals in one fell swoop? Here’s my proposal for a draft of the bill:

Comprehensive, Systematic Takeover of Everything I Think I Can Run Better than You Act.

Sec 1000. Definitions

a) Entity – Any corporation, business, organization, group, individual, or practice which is determined by the President to not be running the way the President deems to be of most benefit to everyone.

Sec 1001. Extension of Presidential Powers

a) At the President’s request, a committee shall be formed to investigate the status, actions, structure, and any other qualities of any Entity. This committee will deliberate with the President to determine what corrective actions are necessary. Corrections shall be applied immediately upon the request of the President.

b) Actions by the committee shall be subject to judicial review, evaluating the extent to which the actions are actually corrective.

There. Simple, sweeping, and effective. So, to all the statists out there, would you support such a bill? What happens when the Republicans take the White House? Do you still support it then?

Barack Obama: CEO in Chief

Is this a country or a corporation? It’s getting hard to tell. This new price controls proposal, coupled with H.R. 4173, which would give the president the power to liquidate any company deemed “too big to fail,” would make this a Corporatist (a.k.a. economically Fascist) State. This would be the totalitarian dystopia cautioned against in “Atlas Shrugged.” Is it any wonder that Ayn Rand’s books are selling better than ever before?

It is this sort of totalitarianism which has galvanized the public against the Democrat Party. It is this sort of totalitarianism which has swelled the numbers of the Libertarian Party in opposition, and given the Republican Party a new life.

Do you value your freedom? Do you want to avoid living in a totalitarian state? If so, then I suggest you drop any support you may have for “progressivism.” The newly reformed, libertarian Glenn Beck is right: progressivism is a cancer which eats away at our basic, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as it grows. The only thing we’re progressing towards when we surrender power over our lives to the government is totalitarian slavery.

Health Insurance => Health?

Does having health insurance imply that an individual has a higher chance of being healthy?

Well, of course! I mean, it’s so obvious! Having health insurance has got to make people more healthy and less likely to die, right?

Actually, no.

According to this review, every major study that was conducted scientifically enough to control for independent variables like demographics, smoking, and certain types of risky behavior has found no statistically significant link between lack of health insurance and higher mortality.

In other words, Health Insurance =/> Health, and any apparent link between them is due to common causes (e.g. someone doesn’t have health insurance because they smoke, and then they die because they smoke) rather than a cause-effect relationship.

This is a trifle surprising, but it’s certainly damning for those who believe that total health insurance coverage is necessary for a healthy society. It also supports my view that going without health insurance leaves you in danger of bankruptcy, not death.

So now that no statistical survival benefit can be seen from having health insurance, the health care debate is no longer about life or death. It’s about money. Redistribution. Control vs. Freedom.

Faced with this knowledge, why would anyone still support any form of mandatory health insurance?

What is Fascism?

Thanks to Hitler, the word “fascism” has been demonized beyond recognition. This is a good thing in that people will rarely knowingly support fascism. This is a bad thing in that most people will support it anyways, not realizing that what they’re supporting is fascism.

In Mussolini’s own words, fascism is “organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.” It is the belief that the State represents the will of “the people,” and that the will of “the people” always trumps the will of the individual. This is what allowed the horrors of fascism to occur: the belief that majority election creates a government that should be absolute in its power, and totalitarian in its reach.

Mussolini believed in the Corporate State. Contrary, to popular belief, the term “Corporate” used in this sense doesn’t specifically refer to corporations, though corporations usually play the major roles in the Corporate State. The name actually derives from the idea of the state being a single “corporis,” or body, comprised of entities which act as the organs of the body, performing the necessary functions for its survival. Mussolini saw the corporations producing cars, the health care industry providing its services, the farmers, etc., as entities working for the well-being of the people of the State, and hence the State. If any of these organs should fail, he felt, then the people within the State, and hence the State, would lose their capability to dominate nature, and would thus fail.

To believe any entity within the State as necessary to the survival of the State or Nation is to adopt the economic principles of fascism. To view the State as necessary to ensure the survival of corporations by controlling their aims is to adopt the economic principles of fascism. Again, Mussolini says it best:

The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corpo­rative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice. (speech at the opening of the Ministry of Corporations, July 31, 1926, in Di­scorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 250).

And so I charge that Barack Obama’s policies stink of fascism. From his bailout and buyout of major corporations that he felt were “too big to fail,” to his attempts to regulate the health care industry as an arm of the State, Barack Obama’s belief in his right to take away individual liberties because of a “democratic mandate” is absolutely fascist.

As a libertarian, I stand opposed to such a conception of society. I stand as a man and an individual, independent of the will of the State. Unlike the State, individuals are self-sufficient. I do not exist as a component of the State. Rather, the government should only exist to protect my independence and the independence of others. No individual or group should have the power to take away my existence as an individual, and they certainly do not have the right.