Obama Machine Preparing for Healthcare Defeat

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 8, 2012

The Obama administration recognizes that it may actually be handed a defeat later this month if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate that obligates Americans to buy health insurance from a government program or worse, if the judges find Obamacare unconstitutional as a whole. While a decision is made by the Supreme Court justices, the administration is taking steps to cope with a defeat that could be decisive during an election year both politically and in the economic realm.

Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius officially announced what she called contingency plans should Obamacare be rejected as unlawful by the US Supreme Court. The Court does not need to declare Obamacare illegal in order to cause chaos for the administration. A declaration that the controversial individual mandate violates individual rights, would basically and automatically defund Obamacare, because it is based on the use of government force that the Obama administration intends to finance its program.

The prospect of defeat raised awareness in the Federal Government and all responsible parties are now working extra time to mitigate the impact of a decision not to uphold Obamacare. While she was speaking at a women’s health town hall meeting held at the White House, Kathleen Sebelius said that although the government remained optimistic, they were also preparing for the worst. “We are confident and optimistic that this change within the law was well within the purview of Congress. Having said that, we’ll be ready for court contingencies,” she said. Sebelius made sure to use scare tactics in order to seek support and to put pressure on the Court’s decision. She added that if Obamacare is stroke down such a decision would have a “pretty cataclysmic impact”. Her explanation went on to say that such outcome would indeed undo what she called the “incredible changes and improvements to Medicare.

The Obama administration’s hopes are now riding on a positive decision by the Court that ratifies the healthcare law based on the premise that the judges will consider the large number of people who will allegedly benefit from socialized medicine, many of whom, Obama himself has said, cannot afford to pay for healthcare themselves. This is often added to other measures included in the legislation which allow children to remain under their parents’ health coverage and a mandate for insurance companies not to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

The parts of the law that the Obama administration does not want the justices or the public to remember is that constitutionally, government cannot obligate an individual to buy insurance. It must be a decision made by each person. But since the success of the law depends on the financing provided by all participants, a declaration that the individual mandate is unconstitutional would effectively defund Obamacare. “What we’re doing right now is just working as hard as we possibly can to get ready for 2014,” Sebelius said, referring to the time when most of the law will actually take effect.

Obama Quietly Diverting Money to Fund Obamacare

Whether the Supreme Court will uphold or throw out Obamacare is yet to be seen. But one thing is true: Obama is making sure his socialist legislation will have funding should the Justices strike down the individual mandate.

By SAM BAKER | THE HILL | APRIL 9, 2012

The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to implement the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated the justices might well overturn at least the individual mandate, if not the whole law.

“While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and unworkable law that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional in a matter of months, I’ll continue to stand with the American people who want to repeal this law and replace it with something that will actually address the cost of healthcare,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare and is in a closely contested Senate race this year.

The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal and political challenges.

It has moved aggressively to get important policies in place. And, according to a review of budget documents and figures provided by congressional staff, the administration is also burning through implementation funding provided in the healthcare law.

Did Obama just threaten to overturn a Supreme Court Decision?

By LUIS R. MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 3, 2012

U.S. President Barack Obama publicly challenged the Supreme Court Justices on Monday, reminding them that they are not elected officials. This action comes in light of what could be a declaration by the Supreme Court of the United States, that Obamacare is indeed unconstitutional. Last week, during the hearing sessions, defenders of the government controlled health care program were continuously grilled by conservative and liberal Justices, who defied Obama administration spokespeople to explain why should the government have the power to obligate individuals to buy a product they did not want or did not need.

On Monday, Obama said the Justices had to be very careful with their decision, and that if they declared the law unconstitutional, such decision would impact the government’s capacity to provide healthcare to a portion of the population. “The president challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his landmark health reform law,” reports the news agency AFP. Will the “unelected” adjective be Barack Obama’s next move to save his healthcare bill which for now seems to have strong opposition among the Supreme Court Justices? Will he claim that due to the unelected nature of the Justices’ position their decision can be overturned by the president? This is not a far fetched scenario for a man who has said that he does not need Congress’ approval to send US troops to war because he has a mandate from the United Nations to carry out military strikes anywhere in the world.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” said Obama. The U.S. president added that even Republicans rejected Supreme Court decisions that according to them were made based on activism as supposed to on objective interpretation of the laws. Obama intends to shield his healthcare law against a Court decision that may have a tight vote. Instead of focusing on whether there is a constitutional power for the president or the central federal government to mandate that citizens buy insurance, or broccoli, for that matter, Obama is trying to distract the public with his assertion that if Obamacare is thrown out, such a decision might be invalid because the Supreme Court Justices are not directly appointed by the people of the United States.Mr. Obama forgets that it is the president who decides who to recommend for a seat at the Supreme Court and that all presidents have done so in the past.

“I am pretty confident that this court will recognize its duty and not take that step,” Obama said while speaking in the Rose Garden.Mr. Obama’s comments outside the White House are seen as a warning to the Supreme Court, one of the three branches of government that Barack Obama has forcefully tried to turn into one during his first term in the highest office. Besides the fact that the Justices are not directly elected by the people, Obama also argued that there is a “human element” to his law and that this is one of the strongest reasons for the Justices to vote Yes on Obamacare. In the past, Obama has questioned and dismissed Congress’ powers and independence to carry out the people’s business and has said that he will make decisions unilaterally should Congress refuse to pass any legislation that he deems necessary. This is a surprising statement if it is taken into account that this Congress has approved laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act, that allows the president to kidnap, torture and kill any individual, American or otherwise, within the United States territory or elsewhere, if he or she is considered a suspect of aiding terrorists groups.

Many Republicans and independents who oppose Obamacare argue that the passage of this law provides the government with powers that go beyond the real conceded by the U.S. Constitution. Forcing individuals to buy a product, in this case healthcare, is an unprecedented action; perhaps even more than the Supreme Court ruling Obamacare unconstitutional or even what Obama called “judicial activism”. “It’s not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court,” said Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman to Reuters. “But it’s also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president’s central legislative accomplishments.” In the meantime, Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney said through his spokesperson Andrea Saul, that “What was ‘unprecedented’ was the partisan process President Obama used to shove this unconstitutional bill through.” Ms. Saul added that Mitt Romney plans to repeal Obamacare if he is elected the next president of the United States.

The most challenged aspect of Obamacare is the individual mandate, which obligates people to buy healthcare from the Federal government, even if they don’t want it or don’t need it. A decision by the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare but to throw out the individual mandate, wouldn’t be good news for Obama either. It is through the mandatory payment made by all citizens that the government will collect money to pay for the socialist leaning healthcare package. “I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” Obama said. What Obama meant is that without forcing people to pay their share, Obamacare would not have the necessary funding to give free healthcare to everyone Obama promised to give it to during his political campaign. Of course, Obamacare has nothing to do with bringing healthcare to more people. It has everything to do with having an all mighty government that tells people what they can and can’t do, or what they must and mustn’t do. It is not necessary to force anyone to buy healthcare from the government in order to allow people with pre-existing conditions, for example to have care, as Obama wants everyone to believe. All he has to do is send a law to Congress that mandates that insurance corporations allow coverage for those people with pre-existing conditions. But is not going to happen, because it was precisely the insurance industry the one that wrote Obamacare.

As many critics of Obamacare have mentioned, this is another tool for wealth redistribution born inside an administration that believes that the government is responsible for taking care of everyone and everything and that has been aided by the insurance industry to give more power to themselves.

You may share our original content as long as you respect our copyright policy as shown on our website footer. Please don’t cut articles from The Real Agenda to redistribute by email or post to the web if you don’t follow our policies.

Obamacare: I’ve seen rabbits being pulled out of a Hat

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MARCH 28, 2012

As the Supreme Court of the United States reviews the legality of the so called Obamacare socialist healthcare legislation, the first accounts of the justices opinions about it seem to be negative to say the least. Meanwhile, Obama supporters like James Carville are trying to win the battle already for the Democrat side. Carville has said that a loss in the Supreme Court will help democrats.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin said that Obamacare is a train wreck and that expectations are low for the legislation to survive the justices’ review. As the hours go by, some opinions from their analysis have been leaked into the media, with Justice Kennedy saying that Obamacare fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and their government. Justice John Roberts has compared the mandate too make anyone and everyone buy government sponsored healthcare to having that same government mandating that people buy a cellphone. “Can government make you buy a cell phone?” asked Roberts. Meanwhile, Justice Anthony Scalia questioned the individual mandate by asking pro Obamacare folks why was the definition of “market” so broadly represented in the text of the legislation. “Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,” Scalia said. Does government make people buy broccoli?

Given this scenario, you would think that defenders of Obamacare would be absolutely sharp when speaking in favor of the legislation. But it wasn’t the case for Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who stumbled when trying to make the case for a legalized socialist healthcare system. Mr. Verrilli continuously coughed and stuttered while trying to speak about the wonders of Obamacare and justifying the government controlled healthcare scheme. But is this a doomsday sentence for Obamacare? It is also being reported that even Justice Sotomayor has expressed some doubts about some aspects of Obamacare. According to Reuters “the four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, all indicated that they believed the mandate valid under the U.S. Constitution. Two conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, were vocal in their skepticism about the requirement.”

I’ve seen rabbits being pulled out of hats before, so I would not hold my breath for a decision against Obamacare just yet. “Obamacare is in big trouble,” says Jeffrey Toobin, who has been in attendance during the review process. But just as Carville manage to paint a defeat as a victory, the main stream liberal media has orchestrated a campaign to prepare their audience for a possible loss, while at the same time lowering expectations in the minds of the rest of the public in order to take some pressure off a potential decision that upholds Obamacare as it stands. It is the typical “playing possum game”. They’ve done it before with the so-called kinetic action in Libya, the war in Iraq and a possible attack against Iran and Syria.

What are the chances that Obamacare will not pass, that it could be upheld? According to Mr. Toobin, there are 5 very solid votes to throw out this healthcare legislation out the window. But the idea that people should participate in this socialized way of delivering healthcare also has four very strong votes that support it in the four liberal Supreme Court justices. Mr. Toobin says the fifth vote, a conservative one, could decide whether or not Americans are indeed obligated — even if such obligation is unconstitutional — to purchase government healthcare. That vote comes from Justice John Roberts, who although has expressed reservations about Obamacare, has not shown a clear cut opinion about the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the law. “I think it just looks bad for this law,” says Toobin.

A popular talking point that has been circulating is that those who do not enter the government mandated healthcare system will make it that much more difficult for those who do pay for the services provided under such a system. This is a way to sort of hijack public opinion and to misguided the public to support and accept Obamacare because it is good for the ‘commonwealth’. It is the typical collectivist view that people must do what is better for the mass, as supposed to taking care of themselves first, to then help others.  Those who do not support Obamacare, as we have seen since the law was brought up and discussed in mainstream American, will be ostracized and called names for not complying.

If the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare as it is now, it would establish a dangerous precedent that the government can tell anyone to buy any product as supposed to people being able to choose whatever they think it’s better for them. Here is where the government telling people to buy broccoli comes in handy. What will be next? Government telling people what car to buy? What airline to fly or what supermarkets to go to purchase groceries? How about how much electricity, gas or water people should use? As explained by Mr. Toobin, who acts as a legal expert for CNN, Obamacare forces people to buy a product they may not want or that they may not need. The same is true for tax collection, for example. Although the Constitution is very clear about the ways in which government must operate, people are obligated to pay income tax. If Obamacare is thrown out due to its unconstitutional nature, couldn’t citizens also make a case for not paying income tax because of the unconstitutional way in which government forces people to pay it? How about challenges against the constitutional amendment and the way it was passed to allow the government to tax people’s income?

What happens if the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not? Because Obamacare is directly dependent on the government’s ability to force citizens to buy insurance in order to finance Obamacare, it is hard to see how the rest of the program would be able to stand on its own feet. Government would have to kill Obamacare as a whole, restructure it in order to make it available without the monies collected from individuals who decide not to join the program, or raise taxes in order to finance it. It is now well-known that the actual cost of Obamacare goes way beyond the total provided by the Federal Government and that it would take more than a national consensus for everyone to join in order to keep it alive for as long as the government wants.

According to recent polls, at least 30 percent of the interviewed Americans do support a decision to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. As the system stands now, the healthcare system is 20,000 doctors short to help the number of patients who use Medicare and Medicaid. What will happen if Obamacare is upheld and many more millions of people decide to make an appointment to see their doctor? What good does it make to have free healthcare if there isn’t a doctor to visit?

You may share our original content as long as you respect our copyright policy as shown on our website footer. Please don’t cut articles from The Real Agenda to redistribute by email or post to the web if you don’t follow our policies.

Luis Miranda is the founder and editor of The Real Agenda. For more of his stories, subscribe to our article feed. You can also follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Email article ideas and insights through the Contact page.

Democrats sneak Uncle Sam into your bedroom…

… and Republicans prepare a comfortable bed for him.

As bad as George Bush was — and he was very bad news — Barack Obama has managed to overdo him in almost every aspect. If under Bush the powers of the government grew exponentially, under Obama the central federal bureaucrat-controlled government simply went out of control, out of hand. As bad as a government led by Democrats may be, a Republican administration ends being just as bad, because it does not end with any of the big government policies established under the Democrats. So there you go, the two-party dictatorship Americans have been voting for in the last century.

by Dr. Milton R. Wolf
Washington Times
March 12, 2012

Pop quiz: What is the most expensive lunch you can buy? Answer: The one someone convinces you is free. Ask your average fifth-grader if there’s such thing as a free lunch. Now ask a Democrat. Care to wager who’s smarter? Another quiz: How can Democrats avoid discussions of Obamacare’s growing price tag, the failed stimulus, green job boondoggles, unemployment, bank bailouts, auto takeovers, food stamps, credit downgrades and soaring gas prices? Answer: Claim that Republicans want to steal your girly parts.

When the going gets tough, the left gets predictable. Democrats’ false promises of big-government utopia have collapsed once again and so they retreat to their well-worn playbook, which really only has three plays: class warfare, an overcharged race card and an equally overcharged gender card. Throw in some good old-fashioned corporate boondoggles and voila! Democrats have their re-election plan.

Under the sweeping powers of Obamacare, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is empowered to reach into our churches and direct how they will practice their religion. Yawn. Just another day under President Obama’s authoritarian regime. But why harass churches? Because, as New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney claims, there’s a “Republican crusade to limit access to birth control. …” There is?

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a spinoff of Planned Parenthood, “Virtually all women (more than 99 percent) aged 15-44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.” This is a crisis of limited access?

Democrats showcased Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke and her plea for a $3,000 birth control free lunch. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart and Target pharmacies offer $9-a-month birth control – $108 a year. Why the wild difference? Because Democrats can’t enrich their cronies on a mere hundred bucks a year.

The new HHS provisions make no distinction between high-end, expensive birth control and generic versions. This is the big wet kiss to Big Pharma. They get rich much quicker collecting $3,000 for each coed instead of a measly $108. So Ms. Fluke gets a free lunch? Well, not quite. Somebody’s got to pay the increased taxes, higher insurance premiums and – mark my words – increased contraception costs. So the government simply transfers those bills to someone else, like the janitors at Georgetown Law, for example, who humbly clean up after spoiled kids. I’ll bet those janitors buy their own birth control at Wal-Mart without whining. But Ms. Fluke is entitled and I’m sure she’s worth it.

This corporate boondoggle that turns Big Pharma into a welfare recipient on the backs of the working class is not so different than the light bulb ban. General Electric gets rich much quicker if Ms. Fluke’s janitors are forced to buy $5 compact-fluorescent light bulbs instead of the 50-cent incandescent version. But it’s for the environment, right? That GE and Big Pharma contribute generously to Mr. Obama is just a mere coincidence.

Do you see the pattern here? Democrats solve the global warming “crisis” (even though the globe forgot to warm) and the “limit” on birth control access (even with essentially 100 percent access already achieved) always by making their friends richer, you poorer and themselves more powerful.

There’s another pattern here. Politicians are like drug dealers. Once you’re addicted to freebies, you suddenly realize the free lunch is not so free. Like the drug dealers, the politicians want your money, to be sure, but what they really covet is your submission. They love telling you what to do and they always claim it’s for your own good.

Think about it. The U.S. Constitution grants no authority to the federal government – and, in fact, the 10th Amendment prohibits it – to declare how fast you can drive your car or when you can buy your first beer or how many vegetable servings you must pack in your kid’s school lunch. And yet they still do all these things. How? By dangling highway funds or education grants like a carrot. Take that bait and you’ll soon learn in the fine print that you surrendered control of everything from how much water your toilet can flush to what websites your computer can access. And now the contraception free lunch is the politicians’ key to your bedroom door. Do you trust them with it?

Of course, Democrats assume there will always be an endless supply of birth control pills to dole out. But should they? The current prescription drug shortage epidemic is essentially limited to the medications that are most highly regulated by the government: injectable chemotherapies and antibiotics.

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert,” economist Milton Friedman famously said, “in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Well I say, if you put the federal government in charge of birth control, there will be another shortage soon. We’ll call it the Obama Baby Boom.