The View From 1776

ObamaCare: Costs, Constitutionality And Contraception

Charles Krauthammer on the arrival of the Leviathan political state in which the law is whatever the sovereign decrees, and there are no inalienable political or economic liberties.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/24 at 12:46 AM
  1. As Krauthammer notes, whether the supremes knock down the individual mandate will indeed be something to watch for! It will be more interesting in this election season because "Romney-care" was used as a model for the national law, including the fractious "mandate."

    [Romney, the Heritage Foundation and none other than Newt Gingrich urged, in years past, that an individual mandate be part of national health care bill - although many of these folks are now taking pains to deny their patrimony]. "I was in favor of a mandate?" they ask in feigned amazement! "Oh, no, not me!"

    I guess, like using an Etch-a-Sketch, they think it should be easy to wash away their previous positions on the mandate (until their written record betrays them!)

    Unfortunately, the health bill only governs access to insurance coverage and does not address the nub of the matter - actual health care costs. Until the concept of universal health care, such as is available in most other industrialized nations - is accepted, the insurance companies will continue to "mark up" our health care costs by 30%, with no actual benefit for this vig accruing to the patients.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/25  at  09:38 PM
  2. My goodness, J. Jay is (for once) quoting actual facts (some, not all). Somebody mark this on a calendar as a day to be remembered. Unfortunately, he still draws conclusions from them as are unsupportable. Rather than debating the merits of the mandate versus the Constitutional limits on government, he derails debate with irrelevancies and cheap shots at Republicans (for having attempted compromised with liberals, no less). As always, you conflate Republican with conservative, policy with principle, and markup with profit. Typically, he slanders rather than challenge, as when he calls legitimate profit a
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/03  at  06:58 AM
  3. (continued from post #2)

    This is but two instances of Democrat hypocrisy and outright deceit that I can cite, but will forebear making a litany of it (unless you persist). It suffices Democrats are both hypocritical and deceitful wherever truth fails of their object. Republicans often fumble principle and sometimes admit such error (once they get past the ego part), but in 30+ years of observing Democrats at close hand, I have rarely witnesses such admissions on their part; even when it might have strengthened their hand. Yet, I am hardly at a loss for why they do this. They do it because, so weak is the entire catalog of liberal propositions that, any admission of this kind would be tantamount to surrender or to admitting liberal agendas are rotten to the core. Republican hypocrisy is easier to explain and prove. It happens whenever they behave like liberals (usually through long exposure to liberal arguments, and, yes, they are seductive) or stand for elections in heavy liberal districts while making
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/03  at  07:00 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.