Obamacare: Puncturing Liberals' Self-Delusion Bubble

Liberals got a shocking dose of reality at the Supreme Court this week, to the delight of Constitution-loving Americans. Here are a few must-read articles:

Constitutional Contempt: Why the Obama Legal Team Struggled at the Supreme Court

After three days of arguments before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration and its supporters have been found in contempt. Not of the court, but of the Constitution. ... The sophistries on which the Obamaphiles relied to defend their health care power grab were perhaps best summarized by Slate legal columnist Dahlia Lithwick: "That the law is constitutional is best illustrated by the fact that -- until recently -- the Obama administration expended almost no energy defending it."

That lack of energy came back to haunt them Tuesday when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli turned in a stammering, barely coherent performance worthy of the public defender in My Cousin Vinny as he struggled to articulate a constitutional defense of Obamacare. The arguments went only slight better for Verrilli yesterday. The administration seemed ill prepared to answer even basic, predictable questions about the law's constitutional basis. ...

A Supreme Shock for 'La-La' Libs

The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.

They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so. That’s what happened this week. ...

Did Bloggers Kill the Health Care Mandate?

A handful of right-wing legal experts have changed the way Americans view the Affordable Care Act. But why did they wage this battle in the media instead of in the courtroom?

Blogs—particularly a blog of big legal ideas called Volokh Conspiracy—have been central to shifting the conversation about the mandate challenges. At Volokh, Barnett and other libertarian academics have been debating and refining their arguments against the mandate since before the ACA was signed. ...

Whatever the merits of those claims, it started a national, popular conversation about the Constitution. ... The way conservatives have framed this issue also makes the public feel more confident about discussing it in a substantive way. ... Americans today are especially excited by reasoning that makes the Constitution feel more accessible. ...

Meanwhile, Obamacare's implementation marches on in the bowels of the Executive Branch, and it promises an invasion of personal privacy that would make a proctologist wince.

IRS Gearing Up for Health-Care Crackdown

The rest of the country may be waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's health-care law, but the Internal Revenue Service is wasting no time. It wants to add new agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend $303.5 million building a system to oversee the effects of the health law even though its future is unclear.

As for the new IRS workers, the Government Accountability Office said the total will be about 4,500, with nearly 4,000 (3,997) slated for enforcement...

Although no one can predict the High Court's final decision(s), constitution-loving Americans everywhere can be at least a bit hopeful that liberals' bubble of self-delusion will be thoroughly punctured in June.

UPDATE: Add this article to the mix.

How Obamacare Derailed the Economic Recovery

Here we go again. All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it wrestles with whether or not President Obama’s healthcare bill is constitutional. The country is divided on the merits of the law, but this we can say with certainty: Obamacare profoundly gummed up our recovery from the financial crisis.

Assuming that the $800 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus, would work the magic promised by his economics team, Mr. Obama set off on his quest to guarantee healthcare for every American. The resulting food fight over the legislation – the ugly parceling out of favors in return for votes and lies told to justify passage -- permanently damaged President Obama’s reputation, divided a country desperate to heal, and distracted the White House from further efforts to build employment. It was a terrible decision, and the country continues to pay for it.

Whether or not the Supreme Court upholds the government’s mandate that every American must purchase healthcare insurance, Obamacare is a failure. ... The reality is that numerous projects and programs might have passed a less fractious Congress and been supported by a less divided country. Though rising deficits ultimately would have alarmed taxpayers, more growth would have tempered both budget and enthusiasm gaps. Instead, we have suffered the worst of all worlds – a government hobbled by political and economic constraints and a people pessimistic about the future. This is the legacy of Obamacare.

Obamacare Goes to Court

A Georgetown constitutional law professor explains the "unprecedented combination of economic, political and legal stakes" of the 6 hours of oral arguments before the Supreme Court that begin today:

• Economic: 18% of the U.S. economy hangs in the balance;
• Political: Obamacare has become a proxy for the nation's deep philosophical divide between conservatives' individual liberty form of governance and liberal/progressives' collectivist form of governance; and
• Legal: the "biggest test of the president and Congress' power since the New Deal."

Each day will focus on different questions before the Court:

• Day 1: Can judges rule on the individual health insurance mandate before it goes into effect in 2015?
• Day 2: Is the individual mandate constitutional?
• Day 3: What happens to the rest of the law if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional.

Constitutional issues relative to the individual mandate will turn on the federal reach and power permitted by:

• the commerce clause
• the tax collection clause
• the spending clause (in the case of Medicaid funding to states)

Audio of these arguments will be made available at the U.S. Supreme Court's website. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

More:
Newsmax: Obamacare 'Biggest Test' of Presidential, Congressional Power Since New Deal
Heritage Foundation: Attention, Obamacare Court Watchers: Synchronize Watches... Now!
Manhattan Institute: Why Obamacare Will End Health Insurance as We Know It

Obamacare: Treating People Like Dogs

A practicing surgeon for 30 years is witnessing a transformation in health care that abandons the "Hippocratic Ethic," which serves patients, and adopts a "veterinary ethic," which serves government bill payers with 3 pet-like options: cure, palliation or euthanasia. Dr. Jeffrey Singer explains:

For centuries, my predecessors and I have been inculcated with what has come to be called the “Hippocratic Ethic.” This tradition holds that I am ethically required to use the best of my knowledge to recommend to my patient what I consider to be in my patient’s best interests—without regard to the interests of the third-party payer, or the government, or anyone else.

But gradually the medical profession has been forced to give up this approach for what I like to call a “veterinary ethic,” one that places the interests of the payer (or owner) ahead of the patient. For example, when a pet owner is told by a veterinarian that the pet has a very serious medical condition requiring extremely costly surgery or other therapy, the veterinarian presents the pet’s owner with one or more options—from attempt at cure, to palliation, to euthanasia—with the associated costs, and then follows the wishes of the owner.

Dr. Singer highlights several changes by which "government is putting the medical profession—and your health—at risk," not to mention your privacy.

• Government adopted price controls for Medicare in the 1980s, and Medicare is Obamacare's test model.
• Government required all health care providers to adopt electronic health records, with "the ultimate goal that every health care provider, including pharmacies, will have electronic databases ... accessible to the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS).
• Obama's 2009 'Stimulus Bill' created a new government agency to collect "data culled from all electronic health records" and determine the "most cost-effective way" of allocating health care resources for 310 million people—a clear turn to health care rationing. This new process produced its first determination in 2009: no mammogram screenings for women under age 50.
• In 2014, Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) of 15 presidential appointees "will determine what therapies, procedures, tests and medications will be covered" for Medicare and government-run health care exchanges.

In his full article, The Coming Medical Ethics Crisis, Dr. Singer goes on to explain how medical students "are now being trained to follow federally-driven protocols and guidelines," and how current physicians and hospitals are being methodically reshaped to government's will.

It is a chilling look at the future of a U.S. health care system that, if left intact by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, will treat people like dogs.

The Ryan Budget Plan

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's federal budget is a "plan to slash trillion dollar deficits and revive reforms to the Medicare program," with options floated last year by Democrats, reports Newsmax. "The raw material is there," concludes Michael Barone, "for bipartisan majorities for reform—if the president goes along." Just how far apart are the Ryan and Obama budget plans? Not even in the same universe, according to Don Surber's chart:

This chart from James Pethokoukis

Conservative Women - The Third Sex

"Slutgate has revived the theme of conservative women as a third sex," writes Kay Hymowitz, author of Manning Up.

Just last week, "progressive talk show personality"' Randi Rhodes launched into a tirade on the subject that made Bill Maher look like Pee-wee Herman. "You know, these women, somebody really needs to go repossess their ovaries," she said of conservative women. "Really, truly, they have no right to them. ... Just cut 'em off, let 'em go through the hot flashes, let 'em just sit there and complain about hormone therapy, okay?"

Stop and wonder for a moment at Rhodes’ lunatic hatred, but let’s not ignore the deeper point here. Second- and third-wave feminists have insisted that they speak for women. They know what constitutes “women’s issues.” They define how to achieve women’s progress — more government services, regulations, and laws, legalized abortion, not just equality but parity. The issue here is not whether you think these policies are good or bad; I might agree with some of them myself. It’s why liberal feminists have convinced the media and themselves that they are the ones who know and speak for women. What do we then make of creatures with ovaries who don’t agree with them? Ed Schultz and Bill Maher: take it away.

Slutgate raises a lot of other serious questions about the nature of our political discourse, especially in relation to women. Women’s presence in the political sphere is growing at the same time that the Internet is ridding the public conversation of many of the familiar formal and informal censors. Surely men don’t need to pull their punches when disagreeing with a woman, but are any words taboo? When are comments about physical appearance, of men or women, okay? What is hate speech, anyway? Does calling a woman a slut mean that you hate women? Then is calling George Bush a “prick” evidence that you hate men? Where is the line between entertainer and talk show pundit?

My guess is that even conservative women will have some opinions about these questions — assuming they can stand the blowback from Bill Maher.

The 2% Oil Dishonesty

Hotair.com exposes the fallacious claim that the U.S. consumes 20% of the world's oil, but has "only 2%" of the world's oil reserves. According to the U.S. Dept of Energy, the 2% figure is "proved oil reserves" only, and "proved oil reserves" are a tiny fraction of the U.S.'s total domestic oil supply. In fact, the U.S. is oil rich.

Proved reserves is a valuable number to keep track of, no doubt. It gives you a good snapshot of the amount of oil you’re currently tapping into, and that allows you to develop solid estimates of what’s going to be entering the pipeline each season.

But by the same token, it’s not any sort of reflection of what your total assets are. That’s like saying that Bill Gates only has $20K of liquid cash in his primary checking account this month so he must be close to filing for bankruptcy. Here’s a more complete picture for you:

• At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered
• About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.
• Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska’s North Slope
• Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.
• As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands
• A stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming

The main problem is that most of these resources are roped off. Just knowing the oil is there comes as little comfort if there are never going to be any leases issued by the government for energy companies to explore. And our ability to access the shale oil – while technically well within our capability today – will be significantly hamstrung as long as activists continue to fight fracking and horizontal drilling.

HE: Top 10 Obama Energy Blunders

From the Keystone Kerfuffle to the Volt Vanity, Human Events puts together great talking points — for busy conservatives — on this Administration's biggest energy policy blunders.