Re Obamacare, I’m with Michael. It has been somewhat dispiriting to see so many of my colleagues apparently sideswiped by what ought to have been stark staring obvious. As those of us who’ve lived under such systems have endeavored to point out:
I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible.
That’s not an accident, it’s the whole point of it:
Government health care is not about health care, it’s about government. Once you look at it that way, what the Dems are doing makes perfect sense. For them.
If you don’t get that after this last fortnight, you never will. As I write in my weekend column, there is almost literally nothing that does not fall under Commissar Sebelius’s “health” portfolio. And she’s just getting warmed up:
The Secretary shall establish by regulation standards for determining and disclosing the nutrient content for standard menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or combinations, but which are listed as a single menu item, such as soft drinks, ice cream, pizza, doughnuts, or children’s combination meals, through means determined by the Secretary, including ranges, averages, or other methods.
So once the Bishops have fought back the pharmacological abortion, maybe they can save the church bake sale.
As Michael says:
That’s the kind of men the country used to be made of: citizens, not subjects. It’s high time they and their representatives in Congress stepped up and said: Nuts, without waiting for the Supreme Court to do it for them.
Given the willingness of courts to torture the language of the Constitution to endorse whatever novelties tickle their fancy, is it so hard to picture five judges concluding that the Commerce Clause now extends to “tooth-level surveillance”? Michael’s right. Even in as overly legalistic a society as America has become, what sort of freeborn citizen bets his liberties on Anthony Kennedy?
More likely Obama supports health care reform because the people who vote for him want it. He campaigned on it in 2008. Doing what the people want is not necessarily a sign of evil.
Before you give the Fox retort: "Polls show a majority against health care reform", look at the actual polls. If you add up those who support the present law and those who don't think it goes far enough, you get a clear majority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoing what people want doesn't put you on the side of the angels either. Let's say that a Democrat running for President thinks we should institute slavery. He has polled his constituents and between those who think it's a good idea and those who think owning a few black folks is a great idea he has a clear majority. Would that make it right? I know that this is an absurd premise (not the idea of Democrats owning slaves, the idea of the poll results) but is it any more absurd than what you state? Obama is bound by the Constitution (in theory). This is a direct attack on religion. This is a direct infringement on my ability to worship. It doesn't matter what a poll says.
The Constitution is there to CONTROL the Government, not the citizen!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure ole' Johnny boy, just chuck Article 1 Sect. 8 of the Constitution and the 10th amendment in the trash can labeled: Deposit all of your freedoms and liberties here.
Fight's on Johnny, this aint' gonna' be pretty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe citizens already said "Nuts!" rather clearly - and had well before the obamanation passed in the first place. Scott Brown won the seat held by Ted Kennedy because of his opposition, but Harry Reid used a budget exception to the filibuster rule to pass it anyway.
And since the Senate Majority Leader has virtually absolute control over what comes before the Senate, the only chance of repeal is to defeat the Democrats and Obama at the polls.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou speak truth. NRO and it's readers can make it so by getting this story out there:
External Link
"If there was a question Friday morning whether the Obama administration might cede ground, there was no doubt at the end of the day. They haven’t budged.
Despite what President Obama said at his White House press conference, the actual regulations make permanent the “interim final regulations” issued August 3, 2011 — the ones that sparked the furor in the first place.
Prefaced by 17 pages of the kind of rhetorical squid ink that President Obama defensively deployed at his press conference, the words that have the force of law appear on pages 18 to 20. That’s where the actual amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations are made by three departments — Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services — that Congress previously granted joint oversight of employer health plans.
The bottom line is this: “Accordingly, the amendment to the interim final rule with comment period amending 45 CFR 147.130(a)(1)(iv) which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 46621-46626 on August 3, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.”
Translation: The Obama administration Friday afternoon put into federal law the very regulation that drew objections from almost 200 Catholic bishops, some 50 religiously affiliated colleges and universities, 65 North American bishops of Orthodox churches, numerous other Jewish, Evangelical and Lutheran leaders, and even some liberals — and without changing so much as a comma.
From this point forward, any changes to this regulation have to go through the formal regulatory process all over again."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseas awful as Commissar Sebelius is, can you imagine how horrific life would have been under Reichsmarshall Daschle?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Secretary shall establish by regulation standards for determining and disclosing the nutrient content for standard menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or combinations, but which are listed as a single menu item, such as soft drinks, ice cream, pizza, doughnuts, or children’s combination meals, through means determined by the Secretary, including ranges, averages, or other methods."
I have a not completely rhetorical question--- what human being could possible think up something like this?
And who would have hired the author of this to work on Capitol Hill?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I have a not completely rhetorical question--- what human being could possible think up something like this?"
A liberal fascist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember, the bill was passed BEFORE it was written.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis passage, and many, many, others, makes it clear that it was written in a manner to grant the Executive branch of the national government maximum (absolute?) power over health care.
Why is it wrong to give the public information about what they are eating, so they can make their own decisions?
They're not banning sandwiches or pizza. That would take away freedom. They're letting you know what's in them so you can make your own choice about what and how much to eat. That gives you power and corrects some bad incentives that imperfect information has created. And good gravy - they're talking about children's meals. Do you ever eat out? Do you think you know what's in the food you and your children eat? I live in an area that recently adopted calorie labeling, and even though I'm pretty well informed there were a number of surprises on the menu. I'd bet if you had to guess how many calories were in your last restaurant meal you'd be way, way off.
Calling menu labeling the next step to the gulag - especially to help parents know what they're giving their kids - is preposterous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince Romney has never said he favors repeal (how can he, it's his program), a Romney vs. Obama match all but guarantees that Obamacare is here for the duration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again my comment has not appeared. I find that sending a followup like this often gets the original comment posted. Not sure why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, it's because you posted on a weekend, when the moderators are away. As you can see, it got posted this morning as the mods cleared the weekend backlog.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt frustrates me when they decide not to post your comment ever. Let's test your theory...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNope. It didn't work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are a lot of complaints from Corner writers about the way liberals try to control everyone's thoughts and silence dissent. But if I try to post a comment that dissents from a post, it never shows up. My comments aren't abusive or ad hominem; you may think they're wrong but they're never insulting or a departure from good conduct.
How about practicing what you preach and allowing some fresh air into the room?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about posting on a weekday when the moderator's working?* This is also true of late night/early morning comments. Being a mod for The Corner is a part-time/additional duty sort of thing, so you have to wait for the next business day for your comments to show, if you post in the off-times.
* (Yes, I'm being silly - I'm not actually roughing you up. Your post is fine, except for timing.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMany conservatives were in support of the state stepping to prevent a religion from conducting their own affairs on their own private property.
If you were one of those opposed to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, I'm curious how you square your opposition to that mosque with your defense of religious liberty as it applies to ObamaCare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Secretary shall establish by regulation standards for determining and disclosing the nutrient content for standard menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or combinations, but which are listed as a single menu item, such as soft drinks, ice cream, pizza, doughnuts, or children’s combination meals, through means determined by the Secretary, including ranges, averages, or other methods.
Shades of the Schecter Brothers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Original, distribute freely-
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse