Category Archives: Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

For Wanton Destruction (& Deaths That’ll Follow) Democrats Deserve Kim-Jong-Un Justice

Conservatism, Democrats, Healthcare, Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Republicans

They may pose as adversaries on TV, but they all hang together: Conservatives love banal-brain Juan Williams, boorish Bob Beckel and the weak-minded Lanny Davis. Sean Hannity even advertized the other day that Beckel has they keys to the Hannity home.

FOX AND IMBECILE FRIEND LANNY DAVIS
How else would chattering class detritus such as Lanny Davis get away with twice admitting—and with no intelligent cross examination—on Fox News, that he supported Zero Care, because he and his Democratic ilk did not comprehend that the price of premiums would rise [when you pile on the coverage mandates], and that policy holders would lose coverage [when you legislate their “sub-standard” policies out of existence].

Oops.

The only point Megyn Kelly’s stand-in should have made during the Davis segment is this: So you’re an imbecile, Lanny (what sort of name is that, for a man?). You can’t see a few moves ahead. Fine. We get it. But there were legions of people who spoke eloquently and endlessly about the outcome of Zero Care central planning for the country.

The main crime for which these “despicable human scum,” the words of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un about his uncle, is to implement this wrecking ball of a health-care law without consulting and heeding the clever people in the room.

For this wanton destruction, Democrats deserve Kim-Jong-Un style justice.

Turley Testifies To The Emergence Of An Über-Presidency

Barack Obama, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism

The Anti-Federalists ought to be the nation’s heroes and not its anti-heroes. Libertarians who are with the Anti-Federalists, and who believe the Constitution is a dead letter (check)—and was doomed to so become (check, again)—will find Jonathan Turley’s testimony, Tuesday, as to the danger our “tripartite system of equal branches” finds itself, endearingly naive.

Still, Turley’s testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary is important (and certainly elegantly written). The Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University is perhaps the only honest constitutional scholar on the left that I can think of, since the death of the great Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Turley spoke about the chief executive’s “circumvention of Congress,” about Obama having “crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal legislation,” of his “use of executive orders to circumvent federal legislation”; of the increasing “shift toward the concentration of executive power” and the consolidation of the “imperial presidency.”

Obama, contends Turley, has “reduced the legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection.” By “claiming the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he risks becoming “a virtual government unto himself”; “the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid.”

“The Framers were clear that they saw such concentration of power to be a danger to liberty.”

Well, some—the Anti-Federalists—proved that the Framers were either wrong in the direction they took the country, or wrote a very vague document indeed.

MORE.

The New York ‘Slimes’ Stops Slumbering. But It’s Too Late.

Healthcare, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Political Economy, Propaganda, Socialism

Before their very eyes, millions of Americans are watching as Obama takes from them and gives to a favored constituency. Now the Johnny-Come-Latelies of the “New York Slimes” (the last is Mark Levin’s moniker) have discovered belatedly that entitlement programs are distribution programs, and that Obama care is a particularity glaring exampled of one:

Hiding in plain sight behind that pledge [“If you like your current insurance, you will keep your current insurance”]— visible to health policy experts but not the general public — was the redistribution required to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.
Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view.
The law, for example, banned rate discrimination against women, which insurance companies called “gender rating” to account for their higher health costs. But that raised the relative burden borne by men. The law also limited how much more insurers can charge older Americans, who use more health care over all. But that raised the relative burden on younger people.
And the law required insurers to offer coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions, which eased costs for less healthy people but raised prices for others who had been charged lower rates because of their good health.
“The A.C.A. is very much about redistribution, whether or not its advocates acknowledge that this is the case,” wrote Reihan Salam on the website of the conservative National Review.

Only healthcare experts knew of this? What liars live at the NYT. Mitt Romney repeatedly told the stupid voters that the cost of their healthcare would rise under Obamacare by about $2000 to $3000 annually. (For people in the individual market it’s much more.) There were many like him. The morons refused to heed him. Americans, for the most, were bamboozled by Obama media sycophants like the “Slimes” and were smitten by BHO’s Svengali-style hypnotism.

Libertarians are the Truthers—the good ones cleave to natural justice and to the natural laws of economics. By so doing, we are able to predict what the fools at the New York Times have only just conceded. So it was that “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists” (June 26, 2009), one of many such columns, explained to the few who listened that,

The pit of perverse incentives Papa Obama is engineering includes leveling the insurance industry, which by definition must discern and discriminate between applicants based on their health status (largely under individual control). Under his benevolent rule, private insurers will be subjected to a host of new regulations, “including a requirement to insure all applicants and a prohibition on pricing premiums on the basis of risk …”

“Destroying Healthcare For The Few Uninsured” (August 7, 2009) attempted the same:

If the US wasn’t already insolvent, I’d say that Obama was bankrupting the country, and sending the health care we have to hell in a handcart, for the ostensible benefit of less than ten percent of the population. But the US is already in the red, courtesy of the current president and his predecessor.

On an on.

CNN White-Noise News Conceals ‘Massive, Fraudulent,’ Indictable, Obama Scheme

Barack Obama, Ethics, Healthcare, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media

The thing that’s on every American’s mind—breaking news about the consequences of Obama’s devastating (developing) lies to their medical and financial well being—CNN has been concealing with the following white-noise news stories:

* A state senator’s stabbing
* George Zimmerman’s ongoing antics.
* JFK.
* The Jonestown massacre’s 30th anniversary.
* Ted Turner (“who,” you ask) turns 75, and CNN profiles him for hours on end.

National Review and Powerline have filled in the gap in reportage magnificently. In “Obama’s ‘5 Percent’ Con Job,” Andrew C. McCarthy expounds on the developing impeachable offenses of O:

… Unable to deny that millions of Americans have lost the coverage he vowed they could keep, Obama and other Democrats are now peddling what we might call the “5 percent” con job. The president asserts that these victims, whom he feels so terribly about, nevertheless constitute a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater scheme of things (“scheme” is used advisedly). They are limited, he maintains, to consumers in the individual health-insurance market, as opposed to the vastly greater number of Americans who get insurance through their employers. According to Obama, these individual-market consumers whose policies are being canceled make up only 5 percent of all health-insurance consumers.
Even this 5 percent figure is a deception. As Avik Roy points out, the individual market actually accounts for 8 percent of health-insurance consumers. Obama can’t help himself: He even minimizes his minimizations. So, if Obama were telling the truth in rationalizing that his broken promises affect only consumers in the individual-insurance market, we’d still be talking about up to 25 million Americans. While the president shrugs these victims off, 25 million exceeds the number of Americans who do not have health insurance because of poverty or preexisting conditions (as opposed to those who could, but choose not to, purchase insurance). Of course, far from cavalierly shrugging off that smaller number of people, Obama and Democrats used them to justify nationalizing a sixth of the U.S. economy. …

But that’s not the half of it. Obama’s claim that unwelcome cancellations are confined to the individual-insurance market is another brazen lie. In the weekend column, I link to the excellent work of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who has demonstrated that, for over three years, the Obama administration’s internal estimates have shown that most Americans who are covered by “employer plans” will also lose their coverage under Obamacare. Mind you, 156 million Americans get health coverage through their jobs.
John cites the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, beginning at page 34,552 (Vol. 75, No. 116). It includes a chart that outlines the Obama administration’s projections. The chart indicates that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. In fact, for small-business employers, the high-end estimate is a staggering 80 percent (and even on the low end, it’s just a shade under half — 49 percent).
That is to say: During all these years, while Obama was repeatedly assuring Americans, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan,” he actually expected as many as seven out of every ten Americans covered by employer plans to lose their coverage. For small business, he expected at least one out of every two Americans, or as many as four out of every five, to lose their coverage. …

… October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion:
The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. [Citing, among other sources, the Federal Register.] Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.
HHS and the Justice Department cite the same section of the Federal Register referred to by John Hinderaker, as well as an annual survey on “Employer Health Benefits” compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2012.
So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year. Not just the “5 percent” of individual-market consumers, but close to all consumers — including well over 100 million American workers who get coverage through their jobs — have been expected by the president swiftly to “transition to the requirements under the [Obamacare] regulations.” That is, their health-insurance plans would be eliminated. They would be forced into Obamacare-compliant plans, with all the prohibitive price hikes and coercive mandates that “transition” portends. …

MSNBC at least broaches the topic of healthcare today, but not to break the aforementioned news.