Republican Suicide

After years of promises to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, and get the fiscal house in order, the Republicans are reneging on all of it.  With Democrats having no levers to prevent Republicans from doing just about anything they want, there are no excuses for not enacting at least some of their long-stated agenda.  Whether they like Trump or not (they don't), they can still make common cause with him on those items where they agree.  Nope.  Years of false promises - lies - have been exposed for all the voters to see.  The Republicans no more want to reduce government than do the Democrats.  It is just too much fun spending other people's money and tell them how to live their lives.  Power has corrupted.

Failing McConnell

President Trump has unleashed his ire on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and McConnell has responded by explaining how the president doesn't understand the legislative process.  Mitch is full of crap.  With virtually the same batch of senators, he managed to get a repeal of Obamacare onto President Obama's desk in January of 2016.  In that instance, the President was hostile to the legislative process and yet McConnell and Ryan overcame.  This time, with a president who is cheerleading the effort, they fell short.  The only problem that Trump brings to the process is that he will sign the legislation.  In 2016, the Republicans could send the legislation with supreme confidence that it wouldn't be signed but they would be able to go back to their districts and say "See, I passed it and the President vetoed it."  It was the best of both worlds, a way to convince the rubes back home that Republicans were opposed to Obamacare while still retaining all the money and power that the Affordable Care Act provided.  This time around, they couldn't even repeal just the mandates.

 

McConnell is offering empty excuses that are clearly false.  You passed it last year when Obama was there but can't pass it now that the Republicans have an even stronger hold on government?  Nah.  You don't want to pass it.  You want to keep all that power in Washington, where you are top dog in the Senate.  You don't really believe in limited government or, at the very least, too many of your Republican colleagues in the Senate don't believe in it.

Republican Suicide

The Obamacare Repeal has crashed and burned.  Again.  Despite controlling the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, the Republicans are too incompetent to accomplish what they have promised to accomplish for the last 7 years.  The Republicans took the House in 2010 on a promise to repeal Obamacare.  Oh, but we don't have the Senate.  Fine.  In 2014, the voters gave them the Senate on the promise to repeal Obamacare.  This is great and all but we don't have the Presidency.  So the voters gave the Republicans the Presidency, a man who promised to sign an Obamacare repeal as soon as it landed on his desk.  These same congressmen managed to get a bill on President Obama's desk in January of 2016 which Obama vetoed.  Where is that bill?  Dust it off, send it to Trump.  No, we can't do that because he'll sign it!

 

Politicians never want to give up power once it has been seized.  The Democrats crashed and burned in the wake of passing Obamacare, losing more than a thousand seats at all level of government across the country.  The Republicans haven't had it this good since the 1920s.  When Democrats have this kind of dominance, they legislate and seize more power!  The New Deal, the Great Society, Obamacare.  When Republicans have it, they form a circular firing squad.  They want to keep the power that the Democrats acquired.  After all, the other party suffered greatly to seize these added tax dollars and regulations, it would be a shame to retreat from this position.

 

The Republicans will richly deserve their electoral defeat in 2018.  It is a shame that the Democrats will benefit from it.  When you look at the wreckage the two parties have wrought, a viable third party has rarely been more needed.

More Illegal Spending

Senator Chuck Schumer has observed that money spent on Obamacare was not authorized by Congress.  As all appropriations must go through Congress, that would be illegal spending, embezzling tax dollars.  Sadly, this is hardly big news.  Back in 2008, the Congress declined to allocate funds to bailout the failing car companies.  Despite this lack of authorized funds, President George W. Bush spent billions of tax dollars to prop up the car makers.  Impeachable offense.  Of course, he had a month left in office so it was hardly worth the effort.  Having spent the previous year blasting President Bush's executive overreach, President Obama purchased a controlling share of the car companies while still lacking an appropriation from Congress.  Impeachable offense.  Congress let it slide.  How can we now be surprised - or even upset - that the Obama Administration continued the practice of spending without appropriation?  Without this unauthorized spending, Obamacare would have crumbled even sooner.

 

It should be noted that such spending is a crime.  Obviously, no one is going to be prosecuted because those who broke the law are members of the Washington Elite and above such laws, especially if they are Democrats.  It is a certainty that neither party will look the other way if Trump tries to spend on his pet project - the border wall - without an appropriation.  Three cheers for a return of the rule of law!

Pre-existing Stupidity

The House passed something that isn't really a repeal but rather a scaling back of Obamacare.  In order to get enough votes, more money had to be injected for those with pre-existing conditions to be covered by 'insurance.'  Obviously, Congress still does not understand how insurance works.

Let's consider a house.  The house is worth $200,000.  Flo is willing to insure the house against fire, burglary, hail damage, etc. for $2,000 a year.  Both the home owner and Flo hope that the insurance policy never pays off.  Flo doesn't want to give back that $2,000 she has been getting year after year and the home owner would rather that the house didn't burn to the ground.  However, if the worst happens, the home owner dodges financial ruin thanks to Flo's accepting that risk.  Now, consider if the home owner had not purchased insurance and instead decided everything would be fine.  And then the house burned down.  Well, the smoldering ruins of a $200,000 house are a pre-existing condition and Flo can't deny coverage.  Therefore, by law, Flo sells a policy to the home owner and then rebuilds the $200,000 house after requiring a $1,000 deductible.  That's not insurance, that's a path to bankruptcy.

 

How about a wife buying a $500,000 life insurance policy with the pre-existing condition that her husband died last week?  What if a driver wants to increase his coverage after having driven his car through the supermarket?  The huge costs are a pre-existing condition.

 

Flo stays in business by selling insurance to many home owners while knowing that comparatively few of them will suffer catastrophic harm.  The same is true for health insurance.  It would be foolish to sell a $6,000 a year policy to a person who already requires $5,000 a month in treatment.  That's not insurance, that's charity.  If mandated by law, that's welfare.  By requiring companies to 'insure' the wrecked car and smoking remains of a house, the premiums will necessarily skyrocket.  Duh.

 

If this reform manages to get through the Senate and find its way to Trump's desk, it will manage to transfer blame for bad healthcare to the Republicans.  Well done.  A better option would be to get the government out of the 'insurance' business and just create a bail out program for people with pre-existing health issues.  It would be vastly cheaper than the latest government overreach.

The Easy Button

Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

Affordable Care Repeal Act as written by Congressman Mo Brooks

That was easy.  Let's clear the wreckage that is Obamacare and rebuild rather than trying to refurbish the ruins that will still be a rickety structure prone to failure and requiring constant maintenance.  Tear it down and start clean.  Better still, tear it down and see what the private sector builds in its place, especially after some additional regulations are repealed.

 

The complicated and ambiguous nature of legislation provides plenty of work for lawyers, bureaucrats, and judges while burdening the producers of society.  As noted in a previous blog, a majority of US Senators are Doctors of Law but only 4 are Medical Doctors.  Are these lawyers particularly suited to designing a health care system?  I doubt the House has much better qualifications.  Would we entrust the Congress to design a system for computers and software and expect the costs to go down?

Obamacare Still Stands

After seven horrible years of ObamaCare (skyrocketing premiums & deductibles, bad healthcare), this is finally your chance for a great plan!

Donald J. Trump, Twitter

I disagree.  This was only the first chance.  It is inevitable, if Obamacare collapses as predicted, that another chance will come.  This was not a great plan.  A great plan would be no plan at all.  Government would withdraw itself completely and let health insurance work like car insurance or life insurance.  There is no 'great plan' from the federal government for those but they work a lot better than the Unaffordable Care Act.

 

Trump states that this is just phase one.  Dangerous.  Passing a bad bill - which this is - and hoping to improve it later is fraught with peril.  Obamacare had similar plans and that didn't work out well.

 

I remain baffled as to why the House and Senate didn't just dust off the last repeal bill that Obama vetoed and send it to Trump.  Simple.  That they did not is why I am very distrustful of Republicans.  They knew Obama would veto but they could show the voters that they tried.  Now that it will get signed, they do this Obamacare Lite foolishness.

 

Though this is currently a setback and embarrassment, it may be beneficial in the long run.  The ACA is in a death spiral and all Republican efforts to save it have failed.  Thus, the collapse should fall on the builders (Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) though I doubt the media will report it that way.

Obamacare 2.0

Back in 2009 and 2010, the Republicans managed to hold together and vote 100% in opposition to a government takeover of the healthcare sector.  When they took over the House in January 2011, the repeal bills began.  Once the Republicans captured the Senate, a repeal bill actually made it to Obama's desk where he - unsurprisingly - vetoed it.  Now, rather than just erase this disaster and have US law return to what it was in February 2010 (the month before the ACA was signed into law), they are having second thoughts.  The Democrats took the hit - having lost over one thousand elective offices across the country during Obama's Presidency - so the Republicans figure why give up the power that Democrats committed political suicide to acquire.  Really, let's not be hasty.  Is it any wonder I left the Republican Party?

Apparently, the free market is a foreign concept to the party that used to champion free markets.  Have they not noticed that goods and services provided by the free market see tremendous improvement over time and also drop in price?  Here is a great graph that shows how prices have changed over the last 20 years.  All those things government has sought to make more affordable (e.g. college, health care, housing, food) have seen massive cost increases.  Those items left to the private market (e.g. clothing, cars, furniture, cellphone plans, TVs) has seen prices flat or dramatically fall.  Maybe there is a correlation?

 

Among the crazy things the Republicans have decided to retain is the guarantee of coverage for those with a pre-existing condition.  That would be like allowing a homeowner to buy insurance while the house was on fire.  The fire is a pre-existing condition; how can the insurance company deny?  That isn't how insurance works.  Insurance is a hedge against disaster, not a payment plan for routine costs.  No one buys gas or gets their tires rotated through a copay.  Why doesn't health insurance work that way?

 

The best thing that Congress could do would be to repeal the whole enchilada.  And then just keep repealing until there are no national laws or regulations regarding health care.  Prices would plummet, insurance would transform to only paying for catastrophic care, and the states could setup modest programs to cover the poor.  The Constitution does not authorize the government to do anything with regard to health care.  Set the market free and it will do wonders.  The drawback is that government would have less power over the peasants and fewer dollars to spend.

Trump of the Union

President Trump addressed both houses of Congress, several members of the Supreme Court, and assorted others.  In his speech, he outlined the goals for his presidency.  Some of his goals, I liked.  Repeal the Affordable Care Act, allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enforce the immigration laws, put the interests of American citizens before those of non-Americans, reduce the administrative state by repealing two regulations for every new one added, tax reform, and sundry other items.  He also offered some things I don't like.  An infrastructure plan bigger than Obama's stimulus from 2009, replacing the Affordable Care Act with some Republican version of government overreach, protectionism, and so forth.  On the one hand, we need to get government out of the way so the people can innovate and on the other hand we need the government to solve your problems.

Trump's speech sought to engage the heart rather than the mind.  He would offer a rationale for his policy preference and then trigger the emotions with an appropriate guest.  The multiple guests who provided concrete evidence for his claims was effective for stirring the emotions he sought.  It is far easier to groan and shake one's head about criminal illegal immigrants when an actual victim of such is not present.  At times, it felt more like a speech a Democrat would give.  It was funny to see Bernie Sanders clap when Trump argued that it should be difficult for companies to leave the United States.  However, like Obama with Bush, Trump blamed his predecessor for whatever ails the country.  Sigh.

 

It was a better speech than his Inaugural Address.  Though he had the digs against Obama, he repeatedly called for unity and offered a number of issues that the Democrats could support.  Though the speech likely reads as well or better than most such speeches, Trump does not have the oratorical talents of President Obama.  Just listening to the tone and rhythm, Obama is like music and Trump is like construction foreman trying to talk over the jackhammer in the background.

 

The Democratic rebuttal was weak.  Governor Beshear rebutted a speech that wasn't given.  As a stand-alone speech, it works okay but it addressed the Democrats impression of Trump rather than the just presented policy prescriptions.  There were a couple lines where, if this had been a debate, the moderator would have said, "he addressed that point.  Weren't you listening?"  Of course, I'm not a fan of the rebuttals, regardless of who is president.  Maybe if the Libertarian Party got to do the rebuttal...

 

All in all, Trump gave a good speech that will benefit him in the near term.  Those who watched will long remember the emotions that were evoked while completely forgetting the content.  That is probably the point.

Repeal Deceit

During the Obama Presidency, the Republican Congress managed to pass Obamacare repeal bills multiple times.  In January of last year, a bill made it through the House and the Senate.  It landed on Obama's desk where he vetoed it.  Where is that bill?  Why not brush that off and send it to the White House?  How difficult is that?  The fact that someone at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue will actually sign it is why they haven't done it.  They were fearless when Obama was sure to veto but now they balk.  Those previous bills were nothing but fodder for the rubes back home.  They were gaming their voters, calling for repeal when there was no hope but hesitating when victory is at hand.  In truth, they never wanted it repealed.  Their actions have exposed their words as hollow.  Distrust politicians always.

 

To provide cover to the exposed charlatans, Democratic operatives are flooding Republican townhalls and making a scene about Obamacare.  See, the voters don't want us a to repeal it.  Let's not be hasty in repealing it.  Maybe we can repair it.  Once government has seized power over a sector, it is loath to surrender it.

 

What is interesting is that the point of the ACA is to collapse.  Ideally, Hillary would be president and be able to proclaim that private insurance companies were too greedy and caused the collapse so now a complete government takeover would be required.  Maybe we can implement the Cuban healthcare system.  So, repeal or not, it is crumbling.  With Trump having ordered the IRS to relax enforcement of the 'tax' portion of the law, the individual mandate is at an end.  Perhaps the spineless Republicans want to wait for the collapse without having cast any votes.  It is one thing to watch as the Leaning Tower of Pisa falls over but something different if you gave it a push.

Repeal and DON'T Replace

I keep seeing these articles about how the Congress should repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  Though I favor the repeal, I don't see any need to replace.  Let free people figure out a solution to their problems, don't let government impose a solution.  When we look at areas that have seen the most involvement by government (e.g. healthcare or education), we see prices rising faster than inflation for decades.  However, in areas where government is less involved or practically absent (e.g. internet, computers, digital cameras), prices have plummeted.  This is not a coincidence.

 

Health insurance is not insurance.  Insurance is meant to offset risk.  Home insurance is not meant to provide a new paint job every few years or pay for new bulbs in light fixtures, or reimburse for the plumber unclogging the sink.  It is there to cover large but also unlikely expenses, such as the roof being torn off by a tornado or a fire.  Likewise, car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, gasoline, or new windshield wipers.  Car insurance is for rare events like a crash that causes thousands of dollars in damage.  However, with health 'insurance,' it is expected to cover annual physicals, flu shots, and virtually every visit to a medical professional.  It isn't paying for unexpected costs but rather it is covering all costs.  Health insurance needs to turn back into insurance.  Insurance would cover something like cancer or being hit by a bus but not expected and routine expenses.  That change would dramatically reduce 1) the cost of health insurance and 2) the price of health care.

 

Prices will adjust to the ability of people to afford.   Part of the price reduction will come from the efficiency of first party payer.  If the doctor doesn't need a billing department to contact insurance companies to secure payment, that cost can be eliminated and the price of all procedures drops.  The insurance companies will likewise shrink on account of vastly fewer claims.  With the current system, the patient is only concerned with the co-pay and any expenses that might accrue directly to them.  There is no point in haggling to get a better deal.  First party payer will end the $30 aspirin and other over-inflated charges.  This free market approach will be bumpy but no worse than Obamacare has been and far more beneficial.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment

 

Health care is a power that was not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.  As such, it needs to return to the States or to the people.  Of course, government doesn't like surrendering tax dollars or regulatory power, so I doubt the free market will get the contract.  The replacement may be less odious, but will still be beyond the legal authority of the federal government.

Silver Linings

America managed to dodge catastrophe only to crash into disaster.  Still, there are some silver linings from this dark cloud of an election year.

1. The Clinton Dynasty is done.  Though it is possible that Chelsea will make a run at some future date, both Bill and Hillary are going to retire to private life.  That neither of them holds public office means that the Clinton Foundation will see its funding evaporate.  Without the play, there will be a lot less pay.

2. The Bush Dynasty was foiled.  If there is one thing Trump did for which I am truly grateful is that he crushed JEB!  These dynastic families are a threat to the country.  The growth of an elite establishment in Washington, DC is strengthened by these dynastic families.  Sadly, JEB's son, George P Bush, is currently Texas Land Commissioner and doubtless on a path toward higher political office.  They're like roaches.

3. The adversarial press is back.  Where Obama and Hillary have had a largely fawning media, Trump will have to endure a hostile media.  I like that.  Yes, the media remains biased but I am much happier when the media is biased against government rather than for it.  If Trump's Secretary of State tries a private email server, there will be hell to pay immediately.  If the IRS starts targeting MoveOn.Org or the Huffington Post, the media will rightly demand investigations and firings; they will not be satisfied with early retirements and 5th Amendment invocations.  The president should not have a comfortable relationship with the media.

4. The Rule of Law is valid again.  This is related to the adversarial press but also applies to the Democrats.  When the rule of law was an impediment, the Democrats flouted it.  Now that it can be a cudgel to be used on the ruling Republicans, the Democrats are going to call for respecting the laws.

 

5. No more excuses for the Republicans.  Though not a Republican myself, I generally side with them on most issues.  The Republicans have had a string of victories since Obama's election and have somehow failed to capitalize on any of them.  The 2010 retaking of the House led to... nothing.  They couldn't do anything without the Senate.  Right.  Have you guys read the Constitution?  Apparently not.  In 2014, the Republicans captured the Senate which led to... nothing.  They couldn't do anything without the Presidency.  Seriously?  You really need to read the Constitution.  Now they have the Presidency, the Senate, and the House.  Implement some of that stuff you promised back in 2010.

 

6. Speaking of past promises, Obamacare repeal!  Obama promised that my premiums would drop $2500 a year and I could keep my plan.  Neither of those came to pass.  In fact, my costs went up.  Repeal Obamacare and don't replace it.  Let the market work.  Government regulations always drive prices up and make it harder to innovate.

 

Yes, it's bad but it's not all bad.

Democracy Ain't What It Used to Be

A court has ruled that Brexit must first go through the Parliament, a ruling which many Remainers hope will derail the Brexit and thus the will of the people.  You see, the electorate is too stupid to know what is good for it.  Undermining the vote of the people is pretty common these days.

In California in 2000, the voters approved Prop 22 (61% in favor, 38% opposed), a law that banned same sex marriage.  The Mayor of San Francisco openly ignored the ban and various state courts eventually ruled that the law was unconstitutional.  So in 2008 the voters approved Prop 8 (52% in favor, 48% opposed) a constitutional amendment that banned same sex marriage.  As an amendment, this was automatically constitutional on the grounds of state law, so opponents went to a US District Court which found it unconstitutional as regards federal law.  The State of California refused to appeal the decision and citizens didn't have 'standing' to appeal the case.  Therefore, Prop 8 was overturned.

 

In 2010, there was a special election to fill the Senate seat of Edward 'Ted' Kennedy.  A big part of the campaign was the Republican claiming that Scott Brown would be the 41st vote against Obamacare.  The hyper-blue state of Massachusetts elected its first Republican Senator in more than 30 years to stop the Affordable Care Act.  Getting the message, the Congress used parliamentary legerdemain to pass it anyway.  How has that worked out?

 

Throughout the Western Democracies, the governments are ignoring the voters.  Angela Merkel in Germany has seen her party walloped in elections and yet is still in favor of mass immigration.  Nativist parties are rising because the supposedly moderate parties are marching their nations to bankruptcy and cultural suicide.

 

Kemalist Turkey has died and Sultan Erdogan is sowing the seeds of a new Ottoman Empire.  Erdogan saw democracy as a tram that you take to your exit and then get off.  The voters gave him enough power that he no longer needs their consent.

 

Rulers resent that they require voter consent.  They have had years to devise means of bypassing that requirement and yet they are astonished by the rise of Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, UKIP, et al.  If you ignore the voters for long enough, you will likely spark a revolution.  Currently, the revolutions are still being fought at the ballot box but continued bypassing will lead to less civilized means of revolution.

 

Ignore the voter at your peril.

Government Run Healthcare

Here is a preview of things to come if the current path for healthcare is not repealed.  A government system will destroy cost-containment (competition is the best method to keep prices down), so it will be rationing.  The first method of rationing is waiting.  We see this being used by the Veterans' Administration throughout the country.  Vets wait weeks or months for an appointment, some of them dying during the wait.  Yes, this was a scandal a few years ago but the problem persists.  However, now it is just old news.  Move on.  If waiting is not containing costs enough, then denial of service kicks in.  Oh, but it will work in the United States.  Sure, the Obamacare Exchanges are going bankrupt but that just proves that business is too greedy to run things.  Yes, it is time for single-payer, just like the UK's National Health Service.

 

It is very unfortunate that we cannot learn from the experience of others.  Nationalized healthcare, Muslim immigration, high taxation, excessive regulation, and multiculturalism have all resulted in decline in Europe.  But we will do it so that it works!  Ah, optimism.

The Coming Hypocrisy

At this very late date in the Obama Presidency, Ron Grossman of the Chicago Tribune suddenly sees a problem with bypassing Congress.  An admitted liberal, Ron expresses concern that Donald Trump might use exactly the same actions that Obama has employed during his tenure.  How can Ron demand that Trump not bypass Congress or the Constitution when he has not made such a demand of Obama?  Well, that is a quandary.  Thus we have this 11th hour article that takes Obama to task for his actions.  Now, if a President Trump or his minions challenge Ron's double-standard, Ron can point to this article and claim that he did criticize Obama's executive action.  He has seen the light just in time to oppose Trump.

 

More such articles will be written by media figures who have cheered as Obama enforced laws that Congress did not pass and failed to enforce laws that Congress did pass.  Obama rewrote the Affordable Care Act several times without Congressional involvement.  No media outcry.  Obama enforced the Dreamers Act that Congress expressly did not legislate.  Obama took the United States to war in Libya when the Congress did not authorize it, clearly abrogating the traditional interpretation of the War Power Act.  Who cares?  These same actions on the part of a President Trump will provoke media firestorms.  Grossman needed to make a sacrifice to fairness and equality and this mild (and far too late to matter) rebuke to the outgoing POTUS is his offering.

Mandatory Participation on Pain of Law

Seen on Facebook:

Why do I support Universal Healthcare paid for with our taxes?

Because I don't want to live in a country where people have to set up a GoFundMe page just so they don't die.

Clever?  Yes.  Pithy?  Certainly.  A good idea?  Absolutely not!  The big issue I have with this is freedom.  With a GoFundMe page, that person needs to convince people to voluntarily part with their money.  People are free to participate or not.  With Universal Healthcare, freedom is gone.  You don't get to pick and choose GoFundMe pages, you fund them all.  If you don't, armed men from the government will take all your assets.  If you continue in your non-participating ways, you may find yourself in prison.  Of course, the vast majority will just submit; that is how we have come so far from what the Constitution actually says.

What happened with the Affordable Care Act?  I thought that was supposed to solve everything?  I was going to get to keep my doctor.  My family of four was going to save $2500 a year.  No, premiums have skyrocketed and GoFundMe pages are multiplying.  Every time the government steps in to solve the problem, it gets worse!  And it isn't government's fault!  How does that work?  How about we expel the government from the healthcare system and see how it shakes out?

Jindal's Misconception

Governor Jindal of Louisiana has challenged Senator Cruz of Texas to a debate on Obamacare.  Politically, this is a shrewd move.  Cruz (10.5%) polls much higher than Jindal (0.7%) and Cruz has also declared that he is willing to do as many debates as possible.  However, his choice of debate topics is risky.

“You get Ted Cruz who wants to shut down the government, but he’s never even come up with his own plan,” Jindal said. “We’ve written our own plan and campaigned on it, rather than just complaining about Obamacare.”

I have not read Jindal's alternative to Obamacare but, whatever it may be, it will remain an overstep of Constitutional authority.  The federal government has no place in healthcare.  There is no amendment, no clause, no delegated power on the subject.  As such, the Tenth Amendment returns it to the states or the people; the federal government should be silent on the issue.  States are another matter.  If Bobby Jindal wanted to develop a healthcare law for Louisiana, that's fine by me.  Oregon and Massachusetts both had healthcare laws prior to Obamacare.  Medicare and Medicaid remain intact.  This is likely the argument that Cruz will offer.  Replacing one unconstitutional law with another - even if it is better and less mandatory - would still be wrong.  Healthcare should return to the states, counties, cities, or even individuals to decide.  How is Jindal going to reply to that?

 

Trust in government is at a low ebb and proposing a new government program, even to replace an unpopular one, is the wrong path to take this election season.  The voters don't want the NSA to listen to them a little less, they want the NSA to not listen at all.  If you simply repeal Obamacare, all returns to what it was beforehand, which was much less expensive than now.  The pendulum is swinging back from big intrusive government toward smaller, hands-off government, most especially among Republican primary voters.

 

I like Bobby Jindal but I don't think this will improve his standing.  Unless some of the higher tier candidates crash and burn, Jindal isn't going anywhere this time around.

Supreme Dork

Yesterday, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of Obamacare.  In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that 'Established by the State' does not necessarily mean 'Established by the State.'  You see, that could ruin the law as it is currently being executed.  Well, let's pause there.  If the law is badly or ambiguously written, shouldn't it be returned to the Legislature to correct it?  No, apparently not.  Instead, the majority of the Court ruled that the law as the Obama administration has chosen to implement it (which has been modified from the law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2012) is just fine.  Justice Scalia put it this way:

 

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that ‘[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.’

 

The majority assumed the role of legislature and made the law conform to how the Executive Branch implemented it, not how the Congress (badly) wrote it.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is Constitutional and must be allowed in all states, the democratic decisions of those states be damned. Chief Justice John Roberts, who yesterday was in favor of judicial legislation, wrote a strong dissent:

  

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Thus the Roberts’ Judicial Doctrine is that ‘legislating is acceptable when I am in the majority but a horrible breach when I am in the minority.’ You can’t have it both ways. Either you rule on the law as written or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose.

Lack of Transparency a Benefit

Here is a great clip from one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/

If the legislation had been clear on what it would do, it would never have passed.  Without deception, Obamacare could not have been foisted on the country.  And even with the lack of transparency and repeated lies (e.g. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"), the law still only passed thanks to legislative legerdemain.  The state of Massachusetts, a liberal bastion that hadn't elected a Republican Senator in decades, elected a Republican who ran on the slogan of being the 41st vote to stop Obamacare!  And still the Democrats pushed it through and Obama signed it.  They knew that the people didn't want it.  It was a power grab, an opportunity to take control of a huge portion of the American economy.

 

Once again, this should be an object lesson.  Politicians are rarely interested in serving the people.  They are more interested in getting more and more power to tell the people what they must do.  The Founders knew that government was more likely to be an oppressor than a benefactor.  The bigger it gets, the more tyrannical it can afford to be.  What Gruber said here reflects the thoughts of President Obama.

Guns vs. Healthcare

I recently saw a cartoon that contrasted the fact that Americans have a right to guns but not to healthcare.  Clever, right?  The problem is that even a cursory look at the comparison shows it to be nonsense.  No one is required to buy a gun for me whereas this right to healthcare would require someone to pay for my medical care if I was unable.

If there was an amendment for healthcare similar to the 2nd Amendment, it might say something to the effect that "the right of the people to purchase healthcare insurance shall not be infringed."  Would banning cross-state purchase of insurance be an infringement?  Would requiring that Americans buy government-approved health insurance plans be an infringement?  Or going the other way, does the 2nd Amendment require every American to own a gun or be forced to pay a fine to the IRS?  Do we need to demonstrate gun ownership on a yearly basis?  Does the gun have to have all sorts of extras that we don't need or want?

 

The Rights listed in the Constitution do not require that someone else provide them.  The Right to Free Speech doesn't require taxpayers to provide a forum in which to speak.  The Right to Practice Religion doesn't require that the government build the church.  By the same logic, a Right to Healthcare should not require the government/taxpayers to purchase it.

 

The confusion here is entitlement vs. right.  Americans have a right to bear arms but an entitlement to Social Security.  Social Security is not a right.  Nor is Medicare.  Nor is health insurance as determined by Obamacare.  These are all programs for transferring money from the person who earned it to someone who didn't.  I'm in favor of Rights - which our government was established to secure - but I'm opposed to entitlements.