« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obamacare, Mandates, Bar Tabs and Visigoth Holidays

It Costs A Lot Of Someone Else?s Money To Buy The Next Election For The Left

To read Jay Cost lay into the individual mandate provision of Obamacare with a truncheon is to see the wrath of a forgotten, dissed and dismissed America in print. He inveighs in a Weekly Standard Piece entitled The Mandate Represents What’s Wrong With Democrats. There will be a mandatory 1/10 of a point deduction for leaving off the html rant tags, but he sure did stick the landing below.

The individual mandate is the apotheosis of the modern Democratic party’s way of doing business. In particular, it is the quintessential example of how, hiding behind a smokescreen of egalitarian rhetoric, the party has become deeply, perhaps hopelessly, anti-republican, happy to dole out favors to privileged groups while the rest of the country is left with nothing. First, the individual mandate represents an enormous transfer of wealth, completely independent of income or social status. It transfers resources from the healthy to the sick, from the young to the old, without regard to who has more money to begin with.

Cost has a lot of merit here. The individual mandate is clearly designed to buy votes with other people’s money. It forces millions of Americans to become customers of various industries such as insurance, pharma, and hospitals against their will. In return for which, fat-cat lobbyists like the repulsively smarmy Billy Tauzin of Pharma become patrons of the Obama Presidency. The LA Times described the quid-pro-quo below.

“I think the pharmaceutical industry has been quite constructive in this debate,” Obama told a small group of regional reporters last week. “And the savings that they’ve put on the table are real and significant and are appreciated.”
The benefits to the White House go beyond budget savings. Tauzin’s trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, is helping to underwrite a multimillion-dollar TV advertising campaign touting comprehensive healthcare legislation.

And Tauzin successfully made sure his interests were taken care of as well.

In an interview, Tauzin said he carefully negotiated his agreements with the White House, offering the $80-billion discount program in return for assurances that there would be no government price-setting in Medicare Part D, the drug program for seniors.

It was important, he said, to block the threat of Medicare price negotiations, which he called tantamount to price-setting and a threat to the industry. In addition, Tauzin said the industry asked the administration not to allow the import of cheaper drugs because of safety concerns

Obama was taken care of. Tauzin was taken care of. Two out of three isn’t bad. And who’s that other person I just mentioned. Nobody President Obama cares about, just the taxpayer. And this is a recurring trend with this entire administration.

Veronique De Rugy described the extent to which The 2009 Stimulus Bill was distributed in an unequal fashion during FY2009 and Fy 2010. I blogged this at the time, nerd-wrestled De Rugy’s numbers in a manly fashion, and reached the following conclusion.

…the stimulus favors a lucky few over a suffering multitude. The receipts have not been equitable, or in any proportion to economic hardships endured. Accusations that the stimulus is basically a political pork barrel could well gain further credence unless the Executive Branch of The United States Government significantly alters the current pattern of outlays to better favor the unemployed.

A similar pattern occurred when President Obama managed one of the most unorthodox corporate bankruptcies in industrial history on behalf of the UAW, GM and Chrysler. The UAW did well, the corporate sycophants of our Great leader made out as well. The bond-holders who should have had first dibs on bankruptcy settlement monies fared less well and were publically attacked by President Obama when they pressed their claims.

It always ends that way with President Obama. His friends and allies get the drinks and the party while those he doesn’t know get the bar tab and the hangover. Only a Supreme Court opinion striking down the individual mandate and the community rating provisions of Obamacare at a bare minimum will prevent this nasty pattern from resurfacing again when Obamacare goes fully online in 2014. By then, we can hope, a more conservative Congress will rise up and put an end to the entire vote-buying Visigoth Holiday that is Obamacare.

COMMENTS

  • Marcus_Traianus

    That includes either the imposition of Obamacare by Executive Order (if it is overturned) or decision to uphold the law based on some scurrilous rationale.

    It would be foolish to believe the latter is not a possibility. The SCOTUS has shown a consistent proclivity to build monuments unto itself. Irrespective of who occupies the nine chairs.

    Not that I agree with that outcome. In fact, I said this earlier;

    You can not fully live up to the principles articulated in our Constitution, no matter what construct nine justices create, and uphold this law. They are not wiser or better than the men who wrote it. Nor are they authorized to amend it. That is the job of the people and an unelected branch of government has no right to usurp that power. They know the people don?t want this law, yet they have ignored that to build monuments to themselves with excuses.

    Either way, we are in a fight to keep our democratic republic.

    If you don’t believe this November’s election is the most consequential in our lifetime, you would be completely wrong. It is a vote that will decide our very existence as a nation.

    • reggie1

      Obama enforcing a law that SCOTUS (will have) just overturned would lead to impeachment, with more Dems voting for that than for Holder’s contempt charge.

  • Viet71

    The big issue isn’t so much the Commerce Clause as the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    McCullough v. Maryland (1819) gave expansive meaning to the N and P Clause.

    Am concerned six Justices, including Roberts, will say it”s up to the electorate. Just as was, ultimately, the draft.

    • renl57

      …Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall: “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the **foregoing Powers**.”

      And in this case, what is the “foregoing power” in Article I Section 8? Why, the Commerce Clause.

      In the case of the draft, the Government could argue that the “foregoing powers” in Section 8 were: “To raise and support Armies…To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”

      In fact, even if the Commerce Clause *did* motivate ObamaCare, there’s a good argument that it’s still not “necessary and proper.”

      The proof is that the Left always wanted a single-payer system, which would be funded via the constitutional power of taxation. Hence ObamaCare’s mandate isn’t “necessary” to improve health care in the U.S. And since the Left has always argued that a single-payer system is best, ObamaCare isn’t even “proper.”

      And this is a big reason why the Left has been been so incoherent in their attempts to defend ObamaCare:

      For decades now, the Left has attacked the big insurance companies in the U.S. as driving up health care costs by “profiteering” and “bureaucratic paper-pushing”.

      Now with ObamaCare, the Left is put in the position of defending a mandate that forces Americans to buy insurance policies from those same insurers the Left spent the last 20 years denouncing.

  • WA_Cowboy

    This is why I’m amazed that more people haven’t figured out who Obama is.

    Good things for me and my friends! If you’re not my friend, well tough rocks.

    He and his cronies live high on the hog while we the peons get the bill

  • youngsterz

    Is there any question that this administration will trash the place and steal the fixtures before being forcibly evicted? My concern is that they will also burn the place to the ground before they ever willingly leave. They are truly awful and getting worse every day as it becomes more and more clear to them that they just might be asked to leave in a few months.

    Obama White House: WORST. TENANTS. EVER.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      they actually did trash the white house offices and did childish things like removing the W’s from the computer keyboards.