Update: This from Grover Norquist: Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff. Legal Insurrection made the same point a few days ago and has an example of a productive resistance action to emulate:
“Opposition to Obamacare fueled the Tea Party wave of 2009-2010. The next wave will include continued opposition to Obamacare, along with other fiscal issues, The Tea Party tsunami at the gates. [snip]
In response, a variety of groups led by local Tea Party organizations are organizing rallies for December 5, as reflected in this announcement being circulated by e-mail and on the web (h/t Linda in Tennessee):
Please Join us at the JUST SAY NO RALLY Wed Dec 5, 12 Noon at the Capitol
Your help is needed to stop an Obamacare State Exchange in TN. Governor Haslam must make a decision by December 14 and reports indicate he is still undecided. Please join us as we raise our voices together and petition the Governor to JUST SAY NO to an Obamacare State Exchange. We will have a petition for you to sign at the Rally.“
As to the latest dicktat from the Obama admin: By the way, we’re going to need insurers to pay to use our exchanges – we’re not the only ones talking about the killer Frankenstein monster:
“Just getting these supposedly fabulous online insurance marketplaces set up is already turning into an unmitigated disaster — what on earth is going to happen when we finally get down to the business of actually insuring and caring for people? Rolling this thing out, the Obama administration is looking like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off, and their unpreparedness in dealing with their own Frankenstein’s monster is showcasing all of the new costs and consequences coming with it.”
Dracula analogies will work too.
Good riddance to November. It’s December and we continue to take stock of the damage done. There’s a lot of damage and more to come.
The damage done thus far is extensive but Americans can only see the faint darkening of roiled waters as a faraway storm approaches. Perhaps a little drizzle or fast moving birds can be witnessed as the storm approaches and the wise will stock up on emergency supplies when the twilight sky turns red.
Some Obama voting imbeciles chose him because they believe, or have been led to believe by Big Media, that with ObamaCare in full force they will be able to take their little ObamaCare card to a quality health care provider and be given white glove treatment as if they were Warren Buffet. These uninformed voters are going to have a rude awakening from their Hopium fueled reveries.
In 2010 we wrote:
“Any dunce can see that the Obama sales mantra of “bend the cost curve” was a flim-flam con and that indeed health care costs will continue to rise and rise rapidly. To lump Obama health scam opponents into a right wing bag and not acknowledge the all too real Big Pharma and Big Insurance bailout which is the Obama health scam is at best a Hopium based delusion. At worse a willful attempt to scam and flim-flam.”
The Obama health scam, even if it was a perfect plan – which this crammed through monstrosity certainly is not in any way, will be a Frankenstein horror to galvanize.
The Washington Post earlier this month described the various appendages and organs that must be scavenged from graveyards in order to give this monster life:
“These are systems that typically take two or three years to build,” says Kevin Walsh, managing director of insurance exchange services at Xerox. “The last time I looked at the calendar, that’s not what we’re working with.” [snip]
“The reality is, states and the federal government are building something new,” says Pat Howard, who runs state health issues for consulting firm Deloitte. “There’s a rough blueprint in terms of federal regulations, but there’s still a number of decisions that need to happen to operationalize this.” [snip]
“There needs to be a technology system that can support that activity, and look at multiple programs for multiple people.”
A state can’t figure out how much an individual earns on its own. For that, it needs to ping a federal data hub that does not yet exist.“
Not much exists at the moment and the totalitarian bureaucracy needed is just a dream in the Hopium addicts eye:
“Buying health insurance is a lot more difficult than purchasing a plane ticket on Expedia. That likely means setting up large scale customer-support operations, especially when the first open enrollment period starts in October 2013. [snip]
The Obama administration has known for awhile that there’s a decent chance it could end up doing a lot of this. Now though, they’re finding out how big their workload will actually become.”
It’s a big job to bring life to a monster. WSJ: Yep, the feds are totally unprepared to launch ObamaCare exchanges. From the Wall Street Journal report:
“Sixteen states have already said they won’t participate. Another 11 are undecided, while only 17 have committed to doing the work on their own. Six have opted for a “hybrid” federal-state model. That means HHS will probably be responsible for fallback federal exchanges in full or in part in as many as 25 or 30 states.
The opposition isn’t so much political as practical. Or rather, the vast logistical and technical undertaking to build an exchange helps explain why so many Governors resisted ObamaCare in the first place.
States have regulated the small business and individual insurance markets for decades (some well, others less so). Now they’re supposed to toss everything out for a complex Washington rewrite, which is still being rewritten. The exchanges will also help enforce the individual mandate and premium increases. They’ll also have to spend a ton of money. Ohio estimates it will cost $63 million to set up an exchange and $43 million to run annually, based on a KPMG study. [snip]
Private businesses spend years developing and refining such consumer software. States need to fund call centers to field queries and even hire “navigators” to actively encourage people to enroll.
The main problem is that states are being conscripted as federal contractors. HHS has declined to reveal basic operational details except to make clear that state-based exchanges won’t really be run by the states. “No matter which option is chosen,” as Scott Walker put it, “Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health-care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents.”
So if things don’t work voters will blame the Governors for decisions made in Washington. And when it turns out that ObamaCare’s costs are underestimated and its benefits exaggerated, they’ll have enabled an entitlement that many of their constituents oppose.”
Who wants this Obama health scam and is attempting to force governors that don’t want ObamaCare to join the scam plan? Take a guess and understand why we call it a scam to bailout Big Pharma and Big Insurance:
“Partly that may be due to the insurance and provider lobbies, especially the hospitals. They’re furious that states might spoil the deals they cut with the White House and frantic for new revenue, which will only flow with the subsidies. (Note that health industry stocks rallied on President Obama’s re-election.) They’re also generally more powerful at the local level and favor state-run exchanges as easier to manipulate. But Governors who give in are setting themselves up as political fall guys, just as the insurers will be when premiums inevitably spike. [snip]
But the main reason HHS and ObamaCare partisans are trashing the state hold-outs is that the federal government isn’t any better equipped to make the plan a success. HHS’s reputation as one of the most dysfunctional agencies is notorious. To take one example, an ObamaCare-mandated update to a major computer network called the System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing, which governs insurance approvals, has been delayed by months.
HHS’s bandwidth is likely to be fried and its personnel overloaded by the workload of 25 exchanges or even 16. And the effort will be complicated by the serious legal questions and eventual lawsuits about the statutory authority of a federal exchange to dispense subsidies at all.”
It wasn’t easy to force-feed Suffragettes and it is not easy to force-feed the population of entire states:
“Who could have anticipated that in a diverse country where more than 50 percent still oppose the massive federal overhaul of health care passed against the will of the people through a special legislative process with absolutely no bipartisan support, with its costs and requirements systematically hidden or avoided for 32 months, that some states wouldn’t jump in with both feet? This also sets up a constitutional fight over whether the federal government can even offer subsidies through its own exchange (the law only establishes subsidies through state-based exchanges, not the federal one). Luckily, in the world of an ObamaCare supporter, all of the mistakes made in drafting the law or overestimating the ability of the federal government to implement it can be laid at the feet of Republican governors, not you know, the people who drafted the law.”
Is it any wonder that we get this result from Gallup: Majority opposes federal health-care guarantee for first time:
“Perhaps Gallup’s result shouldn’t surprise, given the chronic unpopularity of ObamaCare. However, the trend lines began moving in this direction after support peaked for the a federal guarantee of health care in 2006, as Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in 12 years. As Barack Obama pushed his health-care overhaul, the legs had already been cut out from underneath the concept: [snip]
Actually, Gallup started polling on this question in 2000, and the result then was 64/31 in support of the federal guarantee. This poll surveyed general-population adults, too, not registered or likely voters, a sample type that generally favors more liberal points of view. [snip]
One might be tempted to believe that the process that delivered ObamaCare might have been enough to make the federal-guarantee position a minority. Unfortunately, now that ObamaCare looks like it will get entrenched absent a reversal at the Supreme Court, that realization probably came too late.”
As the monstrous scam which is ObamaCare begins to maraud through the countryside and cities to kill, the legal torches and pitchforks will continue to chase it down:
“Could Obamacare Go the Way of McCain-Feingold?
If this seems Pollyannaish, consider the fate of McCain-Feingold.
In December of 2003, many were just as shocked and dismayed when the Supreme Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) as they were by the bizarre Obamacare decision. BCRA was an outrageous assault on the First Amendment, and yet the Court allowed most of its provisions to stand. Yet, anyone who had predicted that McCain-Feingold, as this abomination was more commonly known, would be moribund a mere six years and one month after the Court had ruled it constitutional would have been disregarded as hopelessly naïve.
Nonetheless, the opponents of McCain-Feingold launched a series of legal attacks that met with little success until 2007, when the Court ruled in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. In that decision, the justices ruled unconstitutional the law’s proscription against campaign ads mentioning candidates by name within a certain period prior to an election. Then, in 2008, the Court voided another crucial provision in Davis v. FEC. Finally, in early 2010, the Court delivered the coup de gras with its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.
Are the legal foes of Obamacare as numerous and determined as those of McCain-Feingold? The answer to that question is an unequivocal YES. Their numbers are greater, they are far better financed and they are demonstrably more dedicated to the cause. In fact, the dragon’s teeth sown by the Court’s misguided June ruling produced a spate of fresh troops to reinforce those already on the legal battlefield. There are now at least forty legal challenges to the law pending in federal courts involving its various provisions as well as its implementation.
Moreover, the Court just
resurrected one of the original challenges to Obamacare by ordering the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider arguments on which it didn’t deign to rule in Liberty University v. Geithner last year.”
The Citizens United decision was the topic of a most interesting letter to the editor in the New York Times recently. The Times‘ lawyer, Floyd Abrams, gave the Times editorial board a public slap in the face as he defended political speech and the Citizens United decision by the high court. Citizens United gutted McCain-Feingold and the same might happen to ObamaCare.
The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a target which might take down ObamaCare or whittle it down to a non-entity:
“When PPACA was signed into law, Congress transferred much of its power to this committee, which will decide what services will be approved by Medicare and how much the providers of those services will be paid. The Goldwater Institute has
filed a lawsuit, Coons v. Geithner, which challenges the constitutionality of IPAB under the separation of powers doctrine.”
The religious exemption cases will likely be successful in their limited aims as even Justice Ginsberg warned the government this was a line it could not cross during the arguments at the court over ObamaCare. But in the same way that taxes was the justification used by Justice Roberts, it might be taxes that push the stake into the monster:
“And, no list of Obamacare lawsuits would be complete without mentioning the Oklahoma lawsuit challenging the illegal IRS rule by which the Obama administration will attempt to funnel tax credits and subsidies through federally-created exchanges, despite the law’s stipulation that such premium-assistance can only be offered via state-run exchanges. This litigation is, in many ways, the most important of all the lawsuits. Without its insurance exchanges, and the accompanying subsidies, Obamacare will crash and burn.”
Even without continued resistance to the monster which is ObamaCare, it will crash and burn. The only question is whether the monster can be killed before it kills.
As the country and world continue to unravel we hope the Republican Hamlets and other opponents of the Chicago flim-flam man cast off their inky cloaks and continue to resist.