Message to Obamacare Goons: Kiss My…

Tyrant with a law degree

I’ve been looking at some of the information about the case that comes before the United States Supreme Court over the matter of the Affordable Care Act(widely known as Obama-care.)  I ran into one story that frankly made me angry, because it’s typical of the sort of lies and misdirections of this administration, and frankly any stink-from-the-head lefty one may encounter.  It’s ridiculous to read their arguments and realize that their backward logic is actually the basis for laws in the United States.  The Obama administration is full of some very despotic people, but the garbage Neal Katyal spews on behalf of Obama-care is some of the most obnoxious.  AFP is reporting via YahooNews a story I find so detestable that it has caused me to spit coffee across the screen.  AFP interviewed Neal Katyal who has defended Obama-care as the acting solicitor general, and frankly, leftist double-speak like this needs to be shredded:

“The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product. We’re not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don’t know when you’re going to consume it. You could get struck by a bus, you could have a heart attack and the like. And if you don’t have health insurance, then you show up at the emergency room. The doctors are under orders to treat you — as any Western, any civilized society would do. And who pays for that? Well, ordinary Americans pay for that. They’re the ones who have to pick up the tab for those who don’t have insurance. We are not regulating what people buy, we’re regulating how people finance it.”

There’s a good deal to tear apart here, but let’s begin with the first premise: Katyal says they’re not forcing you to buy a product.  Instead, the claims is laid that they’re merely regulating how you finance it.  What if I don’t want to finance it, because I won’t use it?  What if I refuse care?  What if I want to finance it differently?  What if I’m in a car wreck tomorrow and killed before I ever use any?  Do I get my money back?  No? Then you’re forcing me to buy something I may never use.

The claim is made that doctors are under orders to treat those who show up at an emergency room, and it’s true that this is the law.  Get rid of the law.  Don’t command the entire population of Americans on behalf of the claim that doctors, nurses, and hospitals must labor without any proof of a patient’s willingness or ability to pay.  Don’t like that?  Fine. What the government can do is put medical bills outside the reach of bankruptcy protection, much like they do your tax bill, or you child support payments, or your student loans. Give it the second bite at the apple of one’s estate, after federal taxes.  The fact that some people do not pay is not a burden to be commanded upon all.  We shouldn’t be doing that anyway, and I really don’t want to hear any silly arguments about Western or “civilized” societies.  There is nothing remotely civilized about the government putting a gun to my head and forcing me to pay for products and services I may never consume, or may have not intention of consuming.

Life and death and all of the other necessities of life are not the government’s proper role or responsibility, ridiculous laws notwithstanding.  When I read remarks from a useless jack-ass like Katyal, I realize that this is one of these idiots who probably wants to mandate legal insurance on us too. (Trust me, there is a whole movement among lawyers who want this.)  There can be no authority to regulate how I finance something on the basis that I might decide to buy it, otherwise what you’re compelling me to do is purchase in advance.

The rest of the article is filled with similar drivel, and I encourage you to read it on the basis that you ought to know what we’re fighting.  I also saw the beginnings of a smear-campaign against the court in the interview, and I want you to notice how they’re preparing to smear the court with this “unelected” business:

“If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn’t just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: ‘Look, we’ve got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can’t have it. And that’s a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.”

On the one hand it’s true: If 95% of Americans want to suppress free speech, that doesn’t make it constitutional, but let me suggest to this legal moron that if 95% of Americans want to suppress free speech, they can easily amend the constitution to do it, thus making it constitutional.  Besides, 60-65% of Americans oppose this law anyway, so the very idea posited is false. Give me a break!  Here comes the garbage, however:

“The two main outcomes that one can predict — the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate as unconstitutional because it’s unprecedented or it upholds it and says it is part of Congress power over commerce and over taxation. The latter is far more likely because it is such a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people. I expect the Supreme Court’s ruling at the end of its current term, June 30.”

Is this clown kidding?  That’s what the Supreme Court exists to do: Make judges of this magnitude for the American people.  More, the very idea that the Supreme Court is unelected is now a bad thing flies in the face of lefty arguments that were only too happy to see “unelected judges” impose Roe v. Wade, or Social Security, or any other damned thing they want on the American people. No complaints then, at all.

Leftists are scum. I truly hope there is still sufficient wisdom on the court to overturn this unconstitutional monstrosity.  If not, the only course remaining is repeal, but for that to happen, Republicans will need to capture sixty seats or more in the Senate, and replace Barack Obama.  That’s a tall order in any year, but if Romney is the nominee, prepare to live as slaves to the will of idiots like Katyal.

 

Like Be the first one who likes this post!
  • JohnInFlorida

    Finally, someone who’s willing to talk about the true problem in healthcare. FORCING hospitals and doctors to care for those who can’t/WON’T pay for themselves.

    As stated here, it’s not government’s responsibility to care for those who won’t care for themselves.

    And as for those who CAN’T care for themselves, that’s what charities were all about before government effectively forced them from the scene. People/Americans have always been willing to help others … until government put it’s hand too far into the people’s pockets and stole the people’s ability to give voluntarily. I cannot give what has already been taken from me and I resent the fact that government steals my ability to choose WHO I help.

    People are entitled to the best healthcare THEY CAN AFFORD and beyond that they should be dependent upon family and the GOOD WILL of strangers. For the government to put a gun to the heads of the general public and steal our property so that politicians can bestow our property upon those THEY CHOOSE to assist is criminal. The fact that it’s done for the primary purpose of getting the politician re-elected is adding insult to injury.

    Is this reply off the subject? Maybe, but I don’t think so. It’s not just “Obama’s goons” that are at fault, as it’s been going on for a very long time and the blame certainly crosses party lines. This country was created by men who did their best to LIMIT the encroachment of government into the lives of FREE people. People free to choose who to help, how to help, when to help, and who/how/when NOT to help.

    This country’s deviation from the principle of LIMITED government of FREE people is the biggest crime of all.

    • http://markamerica.com markamerica

      John, I agree with all of that. There’s no rightful claim to the wealth of one’s neighbors in order to subsidize one’s healthcare, and yes, this has been a bi-partisan problem.

      The GOP establishment has been complicit in helping the left build this monster.

  • Pingback: Obamacare At The United States Supreme Court « Anne's POWER SURGE Blog

  • Cbartlett

    The bottom line to any discussion on this is that there is a HUGE difference in “health CARE” and “health INSURANCE”. Until the public understands those principles and the level of responsibility required for each, they’ll never understand why Obamacare is such a horrible horrible law.

  • Pingback: Did the Solicitor General Lie to the Supreme Court? « Mark America | ZT News Today

  • dnr

    “If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn’t just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: ‘Look, we’ve got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. ”

    Bitter irony.  That is exactly what the Dems did, despite the will of the people against this tyranny, the Dems imposed THEIR will on us.  Oh, and while they were at it, made sure they were personally excluded from the reach of this disastrous piece of legislation.  And the US is NOT a democracy – it is a constitutional republic.  If we were a true democracy, we wouldn’t elect representatives to a higher body – not that many of them are really interested in representing those who elect them, anyway.