If ObamaCare Is Still On the Block, What Is At Stake? … Everything!

Republicans on Capital Hill had an opportunity this week to honor their long-standing commitment to repeal ObamaCare — the Democrat party’s controversial health care regime that is merely a stepping stone toward socialized medicine. Republican efforts to repeal portions of ObamaCare (the so-called ‘Skinny Repeal’) failed yesterday to garner a simple majority in the Senate.

‘Dependence’ disguised as ‘sustenance’ can, over time, be the undoing of a great republic. That is why this remains the most significant matter that will come before this Congress, and why some Republicans in Congress still have not given up.

We published a column, back in December 2014, on what is at stake with ObamaCare; and it seems as relevant today as it was then. If you wish to read that column, entitled “ObamaCare is Heroin” … click here.

 

ObamaCare Repeal Is Now in the Offing

The Women’s March on Washington, that took place last weekend, was not the first time they came out with signs and chants. Outside the U.S. Supreme Court there were de rigueur demonstrations, in anticipation of the court’s decision, in the case of King v. Burwell. They held aloft signs reading, “Don’t take my healthcare away!” For every such sign, there should’ve been another reading, “Let me have my healthcare back!”

The year was 2015, and Democrats, via the legislative monstrosity known as ObamaCare, had taken away the health care that millions of Americans had previously taken for granted. This was the first time … ever … the bureaucrats in our federal government told us that we (who pay the salaries of said bureaucrats) must buy an overpriced, overly burdensome consumer product of the government’s choosing, whether we want to or not. They took away doctors and health insurance plans that millions of Americans wanted to keep. ObamaCare forced millions to take up insurance plans ill-suited to their individual needs. ObmaCare raised health insurance premiums and heath care deductibles so high that, for millions of Americans, health care itself was becoming, in effect, inaccessible.

Among the most important decisions people make, for themselves and their families, are those concerning health care. Democrats took many of those decisions away from the people, and put them within a massive federal bureaucracy … destined to become ever more burdensome and oppressive … You want to try a new medication to keep your diabetes in check? In the future, don’t ask your doctor about that; ask the bureaucrats in Washington. You need a kidney transplant? In the future, don’t check with your spouse; ask the bureaucrats in Washington, and see if they will allow your life to be saved … WAIT!!!

America! … That nightmare scenario can now be avoided. With a President Donald J. Trump and a Republican Congress, we have a chance. It’s time to fill the streets of Washington with demonstrators, carrying signs that read, “Hallelujah! I’m getting my healthcare back!”

The Fix Has Never Been More In

Jaws have been dropping since yesterday’s presser by FBI Director James Comey. He used the bulk of that presentation to outline a clear and detailed case against Hillary Clinton for her email related crimes, then ended his comments by recommending no criminal charges be brought against her. And he took no questions from the assembled media hounds.

Mr. Comey’s incongruous, tightly scripted speech leaves many claiming there is one set of laws for the well-connected Hillary Clinton and another for the rest of humanity. Indeed, the ‘rule of law’ in this once great American republic — and the romantic notion that all citizens receive equal justice thereunder — has been decimated. But let’s be clear, it’s not just Hillary Clinton.

One remembers the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on the purported constitutionality of ObamaCare. Chief Justice Roberts began his majority opinion with reasons why ObamaCare ought not pass constitutional muster, then ended his opinion with a convoluted rationale for upholding the ObamaCare statute, as if to justify a pre-determined outcome. That’s awfully similar to what Mr. Comey did yesterday, arguing for another pre-determined outcome. Care to hazard a guess as to who did the pre-determining?

A pattern of obfuscation and outlandishly straight-faced denials has become part of President Obama’s presidential legacy. One cannot be faulted for wondering if Mr. Obama and his people somehow ‘got to’ James Comey. Did they similarly ‘get to’ John Roberts? Did they intentionally lie about ObamaCare in order to get it through Congress? Did they deliberately target conservatives for harassment by the IRS and then lie about it? Did they politically calculate and deliberately allow the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, before they lied about that? Did Justice Antonin Scalia really die of natural causes (feel free, at your own peril, to consider that a sarcasm)?

Nothing seems off-limits to Obama’s cabal, in which Mrs. Clinton is now ensconced as heir apparent, and their consuming pattern of corruption, a pattern deeply rooted in Mr. Obama’s own authoritarian tendencies and his utter ruthlessness in securing his objectives. It is so essential to their conduct that almost no suspicion or accusation of impropriety is beyond belief. And the ‘rule of law’ seems ever more a quaint notion of America’s once illustrious past.

Obama’s Legacy Becomes Clear

 

Earlier this week President Obama gave a speech describing his so-called Clean Power Plan, which would, for the first time, mandate severe, nation-wide reductions in U.S. greenhouse gases. He called it “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.”

But America has not taken this step. Mr. Obama has. His Clean Power Plan is a new set of regulatory directives from the Environmental Protection Agency, deliberately intended to cripple and eventually destroy America’s coal industry, and to severely weaken any other type of energy not derived from renewable sources. It is a massive, administrative overreach, likely to be ruled illegal in federal court. For now, however, the President has another notch in his belt of left-wing partisanship.

During his six-plus years as president, when has Mr. Obama made more than a cursory effort to garner support for his agenda – other than from those who already agree with him out of political obligation or ideological reflex?

This latest EPA overreach is reminiscent of the nuclear agreement the Obama Administration recently reached with Iran, an arrangement negotiated by Mr. Obama’s team with no attempt to garner the congressional support needed for it to pass as a treaty. This is also akin to the President’s approach on ObamaCare, which passed cloak-and-dagger style, by the slimmest of hyper-partisan margins, in a Congress controlled overwhelmingly by Democrats.

Mr. Obama’s accomplishments are consistently controversial and divisive because he doesn’t seek consensus, only victory. And that is why his legacy will be one of procedure over substance, and not only controversial, but weak, like a house of cards upon a foundation of sand. Much of what he has done, in the face of popular opposition, by way of executive order or administrative fiat, may be swept away by the nation’s next Chief Executive.

Disinclined toward constitutional protocol, toward negotiating with his political opposition, Mr. Obama has ushered in an era where the President of the United States inclines toward celebrity, toward looking good in a suit and reading well from a teleprompter, toward lying with impunity while impugning those who disagree, and ultimately doing whatever he or she can get away with, regardless of the consequences.

It’s no wonder Donald Trump resonates among Republicans. He’s the candidate seen most likely to stick it right back in Obama’s face.

Where Romney, Clinton and Biden Meet

 

It goes back at least to 2011, when the powers that determine Republican presidential politics began to hone in on Mr. Romney as the man to face President Obama in 2012. Romney went on to lose a winnable race against a vulnerable sitting president, when others could perhaps have performed better.

Other Republican contenders were not hampered by RomneyCare – the system of public health insurance (seen by many as ‘ObamaCare light’) that Mr. Romney brought to Massachusetts when he was governor there, and later refused to disavow, putting himself directly at odds with his own party’s base – and so, you get the idea. Romney had problems from the outset, from which he could not or would not extricate himself.

Now we have Hillary Clinton, who, as noted before on these pages, has problems of her own. She lacks the two most important characteristics a presidential candidate needs – charisma and credibility. It seems people don’t much trust her, or much like her. After all, it’s hard to like someone who’s stiff as dried timber and who you’re convinced is both a rich elitist and a brazen liar; recent polling suggests a burgeoning consensus views Mrs. Clinton that way. Such public opinion, once entrenched, is nigh on impossible to change to a meaningful degree.

Hillary, like Romney, has been designated by her party’s elite as their standard bearer. And she, like Romney, has chosen not to deal early and directly with her own political baggage. She has, instead, chosen to ignore it and pretend it will go away. Mrs. Clinton’s overly orchestrated, utterly unnatural public appearances, with her segregated press corps and pre-screened audiences, will not manufacture credibility. She’ll only lose more of what little she has left.

Enter Joe Biden. He’s the guy some liberal pundits are now pointing to as the next best hope for their party in 2016. As Hillary continues to slip, we may hear more voices join the ‘Draft Joe’ chorus. Problem is, old Joe is himself a severely gaffe-prone, lumbering dunce of a politician. Turning to him is an act of desperation, since he has serious problems of his own. In due course and if need be, we’ll discuss them on these pages. Stay tuned, as the formerly no-drama Democrat side of this race gets ever more interesting.

SCOTUS Does It Again

 

ObamaCare remains a train wreck, and the U.S. Supreme Court has once again kept it hoisted atop the flimsiest of rails.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned today’s six-justice majority opinion, in King v. Burwell, upholding the Obama Administration’s provision of health insurance subsidies via federally established health care exchanges. The court did so despite the fact that the language of the ObamaCare statute provides no such federal authority, and only authorizes subsidies via exchanges established by the states.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged the problematic nature of ObamaCare’s statutory language, but he went on to state, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

One could also argue in the converse, that a hyper-partisan, Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, without a single Republican vote, in order to weaken America’s health care system, not to improve it; and that they intended to pave the way for the eventual reconstitution of health care in America under a socialist model.

Chief Justice Roberts chose to embrace the former argument, and ignore the latter. He and five other Justices have based their interpretation of Congressional intent not on the language Congressional Democrats employed when drafting ObamaCare in 2010, but rather on the rhetoric they now employ in defense of their ill-conceived, ill-gotten health care scheme.

The Roberts rationale aims toward a political end. Dressing it up in a legal opinion does not change that sad reality.

Savaging Cruz, As Expected

 

When you hear the name “Sarah Palin” what is your reaction? I would wager that even among her supporters, the reaction tends toward defensiveness, as though Ms. Palin must be excused, explained or rationalized; all due to the liberal media (a.k.a. mainstream media) carpet-bombing of negativity that she endured, once she appeared in 2008 as a political threat to the liberal establishment and specifically to Barack Obama.

In something reminiscent, we today see the liberal media, as if on cue, attacking Republican Senator, and newly announced presidential candidate, Ted Cruz with all barrels blazing. He is such a threat to liberalism’s status quo that the left uses the flimsiest pretense to accuse him of hypocrisy, obstinacy, and whatever else they can conjure; intending to indelibly brand Sen. Cruz as distinctly unappealing.

Today’s specific charge concerns Sen. Cruz’s purchase of health insurance for himself and his family. Because he is an ardent opponent of ObamaCare and advocates a massive overhaul of the statute, his buying health insurance through a government-run healthcare exchange purportedly makes Sen. Cruz a hypocrite. This despite the fact that the ObamaCare statute requires him, along with millions of other Americans, to purchase health insurance for himself and his family or else pay a fine; and despite the fact that a government healthcare exchange is, due to ObamaCare itself, one of the very few purchasing options still available.

By the left’s perversion of logic, Sen. Cruz might also be called a hypocrite for paying his income taxes. After all, he does advocate a massive overhaul of the U.S. tax code, and he wants to abolish the IRS. If, in the interim, he continues to pay his taxes, as the law requires, does that not make him a hypocrite as well?

If there weren’t this flap about Sen. Cruz and his family’s health insurance, there would be, and surely will be, something else. Ultimately, when Americans hear the name “Ted Cruz” the liberal establishment wants our collective reaction to be – viscerally – a negative one. They succeeded in doing that to Sarah Palin. Past success emboldens them to keep trying.