All posts in Health Care

New Obama campaign theme: Re-elect me so I can re-do Obamacare

Apparently the president isn’t so confident after all that his signature health care bill will be upheld as constitutional.

Of course you wouldn’t know this from him directly unless you’re able to pay $35,800 for a plate of food and are willing to check your smart phone at the door.

But even though he’s no boy scout the president is prepared and has made contingency plans: arrange for regular folks to break out into spontaneous pro-Obamacare demonstrations if the Supreme Court happens to not “exercise it’s jurisprudence carefully” and instead decides to take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step” to throw out an unconstitutional law.

In other words, “if they dare defy me they’ll regret it.”

Then again if Ahmadinejad and Assad can laugh at Barry’s threats I don’t see why John Roberts can’t.

Big Pharma support for Obamacare paid for by White House

Surprise surprise. In 2010 the Obama administration promised to block key provisions that Big Pharma couldn’t live with in return for a big money ad campaign by Big Pharma supporting Obamacare.

The president who promised complete transparency and a break from business as usual cut this backroom deal in the dark of night and when confronted with how nakedly corrupt it was all the administration could offer was that such criticism was “nakedly” political and “everybody does it”:

Obama’s fellow Democrats who backed the health-care law’s passage in 2010 pushed back against Republicans and said today that the documents released by the Republicans were misleading.

‘Always Done’

“President Obama’s efforts to enlist the support of private industry are exactly what presidents have always done to enact major legislation,” U.S. Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Diana DeGette of Colorado said in a joint statement.

At least the pretense of 2008 is gone. Not only is Obama not a higher form of political creature but he also has proven himself to be a member of its basest class.

President Chutzpah (and Vice President Dopey)

He’s still blaming Bush:

“[Republicans] run up these wild debts and then when we take over, we’ve got to clean it up.”

No one can defend profligate spending by government.  The creep of big government is inexorable and both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of feeding the beast.  But not only is Obama’s spiel tired, it is also farcical.
Arguing that the deficits and debt that are overwhelming our country will be controlled and beaten back by adding even more to the deficits and debt is utterly asinine.
For that li(n)e to be swallowed the president must be expecting us to suspend all disbelief when we come into his presence.  In fact, that reminds me of another pill he’s asked us to take.

Obama 2012: “Pro-Child Pro-Family Pro-Choice”

I ran into a nice old guy with hearing aids and a beard in the parking lot of the church where my son goes to his Mother’s Day Out program.  His Prius had broken down and he was waiting on a ride.  I noticed a bumper sticker on the back of his car and I couldn’t resist taking a picture.

I introduced myself to him and we shook hands and smiled.  I told him I hadn’t seen that bumper sticker and I hoped he didn’t mind if I took a picture of it.  He replied, “Oh, not at all.  It’s my favorite.”  I smiled and said, “Well I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”  He smiled back and that was that.  The entire exchange was completely cordial.  I don’t know if he gave it a second thought but I’ve been thinking about it all day.

Now I live in a very blue city that will probably go 90% for Obama in November.  In fact he’s probably not left enough for the majority of voters in my town.  But the good thing from my vantage point is that my city is not representative of the country as a whole.  Still I found the bumper sticker interesting, especially in light of some of the recent information out there that shows that pro-choice Americans are at a record low.  Clearly this old man was in the 41% that are still pro-choice.

I also should note that the bumper sticker was in fact two bumper stickers and that the top one did not originate, at least not directly, from the Obama campaign.  But were it not for the 41% issue, it probably would have.  After all, the pro-choice position, despite its declining popularity, is central to the Obama social platform.

I have always taken issue with the term “pro-choice,” so I find it especially ridiculous when it’s married to “pro-family” and “pro-child.”  I understand that “pro-abortion,” or even “pro-abortion rights,” doesn’t have quite the beneficent glow of the other terms.  Certainly, “pro-right to destroy my living fetus” or “I’m for de-limbing the fetus,” while perhaps technically accurate, is completely impolite, way over the line, and frankly, gross.

By the way, I understand that the “pro-choice” folks disdain those who are opposed to inalienable abortion rights for calling their position “pro-life,” as if pro-choicers aren’t very fond of life themselves.  However, I do find it less Orwellian, especially in light of all the advances in medicine and our understanding of the early stages of human life that have occurred since 1973.

This issue of abortion rights is an emotional one.  It’s emotional for me as well.  Rationally speaking, I was converted once and for all on the issue after speaking with a woman in college who had run a bunch of abortion clinics in a major metropolitan area in the 1980s.  Her experience was horrifying and she struggled with massive guilt at what she saw, what she allowed to go on, and what she even encouraged young women to do.

My rational view on the matter was solidified emotionally after having spent more time in the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) than anyone should have to with two of my kids.  I witnessed children being brought into this world at around 20 weeks–and surviving to live young healthy lives–something that was unthinkable in 1973.  It became so clear to me personally that trying to identify a point in time when life became a life worth protecting was absolutely arbitrary.  How can one say that a 20-week-old fetus was not a life in 1973 but is a life now in 2012?  Because medicine says so?

How can a mother have the right to abort her fetus, while at the same point in that fetus’ life, a person can be charged with manslaughter if the fetus dies in the course of an accident for which that person is responsible?  The fetus dying is a crime or not based solely on whether the mother wants the fetus to live?

The issue of abortion is probably the pre-eminent moral issue of our day and I do not presume to have answers to the myriad questions that arise from a federal directive that would undo Roe v Wade.  Living in a time where Roe v Wade isn’t law is almost unfathomable it’s been with us for so long.

But what I do know is that a facile “I’m pro-choice” doesn’t cut it anymore.  It might have in 1973.  It might have in 1993.  But in 2012 any thinking American knows that the knowledge we’ve picked up over the last 40 some odd years is a weight as well.  There is no room for knee jerk slogans on this issue anymore.

Another messianic ultimatum from President Obama: you’re either for me or you’re against me

President Obama is fond of spotting what he considers to be false choices.  Mostly these “false choices” are code for you’re too stupid to see the better way, but fortunately I, Barack Obama, am here to spell it out for you.  However, this higher plane doesn’t always suit the present cause, so Obama and the Democrats have identified at least one area where there is no false choice: Obamacare.  You are either for it or you are an uncaring, selfish, precedent-rejecting fool.

Interestingly, the Dems have put this either/or proposition to the one person who will have a large say in whether Obamacare survives–the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts.  From the Wall Street Journal:

You can tell the Supreme Court is getting closer to its historic ObamaCare ruling because the left is making one last attempt to intimidate the Justices. The latest effort includes taunting Chief Justice John Roberts that if the Court overturns any of the law, he’ll forever be defined as a partisan “activist.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral argument but before its ruling. “I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch,” the Democrat declared on the Senate floor. “The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”He added that, “Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce.”

The elite liberal press has followed with pointed warnings that Mr. Roberts has a choice—either uphold ObamaCare, or be portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the New Deal and a century of precedent.

While I do not admire or even respect the chutzpah of these idealogues I do marvel at it.

Can you be a good Catholic and vote for Obama? Um, no?

Voting for your soul.  It looks like the Catholics are serious this time.

And more on this from PowerLine.

Julia’s a real catch


Geisha or courtesan? The Problem of Julia revisited

The New York Times’ token conservative Ross Douthat has a remarkable piece (remarkable partly because the Times actually printed it) on Obama’s Julia campaign.  It is a very measured, analytical op-ed that sums up both Obama’s Julia marketing campaign as well as what this election in 2012 is all about: what is your vision of America.

As I discussed before, part of what is fascinating with the candidates’ ads and messages is trying to figure out whom they are targeting with them.  Douthat does an excellent job identifying that this Julia campaign oddly seems to target the base Democrat female demographic–white, female, affluent, liberal etc.

So why?  Is he trying to consolidate his base?  Does he think there are undecided independent female voters out there who will be swayed by the pro-government/ hysterically anti-Romney/Ryan approach?  I guess he must.  I don’t think there are so many.  But maybe I’m wrong.

Maybe his pollsters and focus groups Read more…

Bishops v Obama

My money is on the bishops.

The President’s $8 billion Medicare slush fund

Why would the President borrow from taxpayers to postpone the crushing effect of Obamacare on seniors (til after November)?


10 things to consider about an Obama second term

From IBD