Maybe that’s with good reason. The latest incriminating—well-written, too, I dare say—account I’ve read of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or “Obamacare”) is at MoneyMorning.
We’ve all read such accounts. They’re proliferating and coming, uh, “fast and furious,” from everywhere. I think it’s inevitable that, once the federal government corrects the glitches in its PPACA sign-up websites and people are actually able to apply for coverage, the rage at increased costs—required by law, no less—will become epidemic, and that rage will only grow when costs and taxes increase more next year, all as a result of the PPACA: all part of the plan.
One result of this is that democrats who inextricably tied themselves to the PPACA during the “shutdown” will be in serious trouble. Another result will be the PPACA’s inevitable repeal, and don’t believe that can’t happen. The Prohibition Amendment—for just one example—was repealed several years after it had passed, even though it had woven its way into the American fabric. Like the PPACA, it was bad law and, like the PPACA will be, it was repealed.
Meanwhile, I think we can strengthen and speed that process along by providing source-cited, factual information about the PPACA.
I'll explain. The MoneyMorning story, while well-written, has what I believe to be a factual inaccuracy:
Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.
That statement’s factual inaccuracy is borne out by the article’s next statement:
Experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect. In fact, it's estimated that Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.
Of course the PPACA will have the “exact opposite effect” from what its supporters promised; its supporters lied. They had to lie. If they’d told the truth, the PPACA would’ve never made it from the sleazy legislative cellars where it was conceived and drafted.
The PPACA was never intended to “decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce health care costs.” Compelling data suggest it was written by the private health-insurance industry to shift massive and growing health care costs from the private health-insurance industry to taxpayers: a $10 trillion burden by 3030—17 years from now.
I’ve written a little about this here, if anybody’s interested and, at the expense of appearing to shamelessly promote my own diary, I’ll assert that everybody had damned well better be interested. It’s not only that we all should know this information; more importantly, this information will go a lot farther toward debunking, criminalizing and eventually defunding and repealing the PPACA than quoting our own or even politicians' dramatic and high-sounding but unsupported condemnations.
No offense, m'Lords, but the opposition—the grass-roots democratic vote—neither believes nor even listens to our opinions.
To wit: don’t tell me the PPACA is a bad law: tell me why the PPACA is a bad law. Give me facts: raw data, not opinions.
I’m a grad student. I do grad research. Here's the rule: unsupported opinions—even politicians’ opinions—mean nothing. If you’re not going to plop down hard, irrefutable data in front of my face, then don’t waste my time. I don't want to be entertained. I want to be informed.
Is the PPACA bad law? Heck yeah, but will anybody listen to us say so if we don’t tell them why? Will we get anywhere by quoting politicians’ dramatic condemnations or coming up with our own? No. But if we dig up and publish the sordid facts about this law—and the sordid facts are available—we can hit, and we can hit hard, and few will be able to argue.
My dairy post from a few weeks ago gets the ball rolling. Compelling data suggest that the private health insurance industry infiltrated the Democratic Party, wrote the PPACA, hired Obama (the "Pied Piper") to sell it to the masses, and bribed the entire Democratic Party to vote for it.
It appears, in other words, that "big business"—in this case, the health-insurance industry—got a better deal from the Democratic Party. That debunks the attendant "republicans = big-business" myth and, over the years, democrats have got a lot of mileage from that myth, too. Debunking it—and it's certainly "debunkable"—hurts democrats; you'd better believe it does. Read democrats' blog posts. A fundamental staple of the democratic left's core orthodoxy is that republicans, and not democrats, are controlled by big business. That's not true, and the history of the PPACA proves it strongly enough that even democrats will have to believe it. (Then they'll all join the Tea Party, right? One can dream.)
But that’s just the beginning. The research I did indicated that “political intelligence” firms were marketing information about the PPACA to investment firms before the law even hit legislative tables. In other words, it was the legislative process as “insider trading information.” (Nancy Pelosi demonstrably loves that stuff, and she was one of the PPACA’s strongest supporters.) Consequently, private health-insurance company stocks soared: again, before the PPACA even made it congress.
I don’t know if that’s true: haven’t dug into it yet. But if it is, that means that thousands of people invested millions of dollars—and maybe millions of people invested billions of dollars—in the PPACA before it even came into play.
In other words, the financial imperative for this law’s passage was already in place before Obama even took office. The democrats’ corporate/governmental health-insurance industrial complex was going to get this law passed and implemented no matter what because so much money was at stake.
Had Pelosi, Reid, Obama and other federal “public servants” purchased health-insurance industry stock in 2007-2008? I don’t know, but that’s a good question, huh? If they did—if they did—wham-0: smoking gun.
That’s the dirt. That, and not hot-air opinions, will sink the PPACA: will hasten the entire country's rejection of it. Even the leftist media, when confronted with hard data, will join in condemning the PPACA and those who wrought it . . . or come away looking pretty un-credible.
(Of course, one can never tell about the leftist media. They might ban writers who criticize the PPACA the way the LA Times banned letter writers who deny “anthropogenic climate change.”)
Next stop: private health-care industry stock prices around 2007-2009. Did they spike? If they did, who bought the stock and, most importantly, why?
Let us dig like the wind, brothers and sisters. Let us ensure that if the term "Obamacare" ever makes it into MS Word’s spellcheck, it is due to the term's infamy.