Obamacare

And You Thought the Health Care Debate Was Over

|

In a sharp op-ed at KHN, Philip Klein says this sucker's going to have more sequels than Battlefield: Earth.

Now we will have leverage over the health care system!

When Obama signs the largest government expansion of entitlements since the introduction of Medicare, he will be ensuring that health care becomes an even more contentious political issue from now on.

For liberals, the legislation doesn't go far enough. And in the coming years, they will continue to push for tighter regulations on insurance companies, higher subsidies for purchasing coverage and for the inclusion of a government-run plan in the exchanges. Further, those who still believe the legislation is insufficient will continue to press for a single-payer system.

In the meantime, conservatives will begin the immediate drive to legally overturn and/or legislatively repeal the health care bill, or at least scale back its major provisions. Even if none of the efforts to overturn or repeal the health care legislation finds success, the implementation of "Obamacare" will help clarify for the American people what it means to have the government take such an active role in the medical system.

As I argued back in November, the experience of other countries suggests that once the more influence the government exerts over the health care sector, the more it infects the political debate.

NEXT: And For Our Next Mandate....

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “For liberals, the legislation doesn’t go far enough….In the meantime, conservatives will begin the immediate drive to legally overturn and/or legislatively repeal the health care bill”

    For starters, how’s about we finally stop referring to the combatants as exclusively “liberal” or “conservative”? This lazy nomenclature, this “team” mentality–propagated and perpetuated by the press and blogs in order to keep complex issues simple and manageable and sound bitable–is an impediment to meaningful dialogue and debate.

    1. Agreed it’s an impediment to meaningful dialog and debate (to vastly understate the current state of public discourse in this country), but it is real — lots and lots of Americans self-identify as being on one of those two teams and believe their team is good, and the other team is evil.

      1. Unfortunately many of the “common folk” are willing participants in this gang mentality. What’s disturbing is that those who should know better, don’t.

        1. They know better,ed, they just don’t act better. Big difference. Worse to me.

          1. Agreed, and amended to read (clumsily) “Those who should know better, don’t act better.”

    2. How about “red team” and “blue team”?

  2. Does Obamacare cover an ingrown thetan?

  3. Kill. . .it.

    1. WITH FIRE!!!!!

  4. Sadly, It has only just begun!

    Lou
    http://www.privacy-news.us.tc

  5. I’ve been meaning to wax poetic about HCR for a few days, so here’s a haiku.

    Like a big hard stool
    Passed through Pelosi’s colon
    Health Care Reform Bill

    1. poetic

      1. Have you seen her grinning about the bill’s passage? That’s a woman who just pushed out a baby-sized turd through her anus.

        1. I guess her head was too big to push out.

          1. Dammit, sasob, you owe me a coffee! (not seen you for a while, btw, my fault)

  6. While I fully support healthcare reform, I do not support a flawed bill that will end up just being a gift to the health insurance companies. Don’t vote for crap just to say you voted for something.

    That being said, I’d be perfectly willing to give up any and all healthcare reform as “unconstitutional” if we would start applying the Commerce Clause again, like we used to before 1937. Get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all government programs… get rid of the drug war, get rid of anything the government does that is not truly “regulating interstate/foreign commerce.” That means almost completely gutting Title 18, USC, and releasing 99% of federal prisoners, as 99% of federal criminal laws are based on breaking the law “in or effecting interstate commerce” which just means you did it because anything and everything is and effects commerce. I’d gladly give up healthcare reform to get rid of the “everything is/effects commerce” reading of the Commerce Clause, which has given the federal gov’t unlimited power over the past 60 years.

    There’s such simple way to solve the healthcare problem – get rid of the stupid antitrust exemption the health insurance companies bought themselves with bribery and corruption. Make them compete with each other, like all other businesses in a capitalist system. As long as they can collude and price fix, they are going to be keeping 90% of premiums. They should be paying out 90% of premiums. That’s what would happen if they actually had to compete.

    I don’t see how any “capitalist” can support such anticapitalist bullshit. Incidentally, breaking up monolopistic/anticompetitive actions IS legitimate “regulation of interstate commerce.”

    1. While I fully support healthcare reform, I do not support a flawed bill that will end up just being a gift to the health insurance companies. Don’t vote for crap just to say you voted for something.

      The bill goes in a completely wrong direction. It deals with health insurance. But the real issue is health care costs, as a commenter on the <> Huffington Post , of all places, pointed out .

      Now, price controls have really nasty side effects, as older people would recall. Are there government policies, either state or federal, that increase the cost of health care?

      1. “” But the real issue is health care costs,””

        I agree.

        And we all know that the best way to save money is to build a bigger buracracy. 😉

    2. Fuck antitrust laws. Regulation is what causes businesses to consolidate towards monopolies in the first place.

      1. oh really? so without antitrust laws there would be no monopolistic business practices? clueless

        1. He didn’t say “antitrust laws.” He said that regulation encourages unlawful monopolies, which it does. All those state insurance companies are heavily regulated.

          Monopolies do occur from time to time in unregulated sectors, but they’re very expensive to maintain unless they’re actually so efficient that they make things cheaper for consumers.

        2. What Thacker said.

          Regulations often create barriers to entry, that protect large businesses from new competition because the costs to enter the market are too great for upstarts.

          If a monopoly forms in an unregulated market, it won’t last more than a minute because someone else will see a business opportunity.

          Antitrust laws are just political horseshit, the regulators target businesses and business transactions only based on who already has the closest relationships with government.

        3. The FTC bastards have been known to prevent smaller companies from consolidating, in markets already dominated by large companies. Thus, antitrust regulation sometimes protects monopolies from competition by smaller businesses.

      2. When you consider the amount of personnel turnover between industries and the boards that “regulate” them (among other forms of regulatory capture, but this perhaps is the most significant), it seems likely that taken together they effectively form a cartel, and moreover that the government encourages this as a means to broaden its control over the economy.

    3. For 65 years under the McCarran-Ferguson Act health insurance was not considered “commerce”. That is why it was regulated by the states and the states could impose mandates and limit providers. It also excluded health insurance companies from the anti-trust laws. Now Congress is making the case that they can regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause. So which is it? Commerce or not commerce? It will take a court case to decide. If it is commerce then we should be able to buy insurance across state lines and eliminate state mandates. If it’s not commerce then the new bill is unconstitutional and should be thrown out.

    4. There’s such simple way to solve the healthcare problem – get rid of the stupid antitrust exemption the health insurance companies bought themselves with bribery and corruption.

      You do realize that this antitrust exemption only applies to federal antitrust law? And that it only applies when states choose to regulate their own health insurance markets, and only allow health insurance companies to engage in single-state commerce instead of interstate commerce.

      Incidentally, breaking up monolopistic/anticompetitive actions IS legitimate “regulation of interstate commerce.”

      Even when a state has laws mandating that health insurance companies only operate in that one state? Isn’t that intrastate commerce?

      On the one hand, you say you want to limit government to interstate commerce. Then you immediately go and say that commerce that takes place only in one state is “interstate commerce.”

    5. There’s such simple way to solve the healthcare problem – get rid of the stupid antitrust exemption the health insurance companies bought themselves with bribery and corruption…Incidentally, breaking up monolopistic/anticompetitive actions IS legitimate “regulation of interstate commerce.”

      But the exemption only applies to federal antitrust laws if the health insurance companies only operate in one state and the state regulates them that way.

      So you’re arguing that the government should be able to regulate business that takes place entirely in one state (and is regulated by that state) as “interstate commerce?” Sorry, if you want that, there’s no way you can get your other Commerce Clause dreams.

    6. “As long as they can collude and price fix, they are going to be keeping 90% of premiums. They should be paying out 90% of premiums.”

      What in god’s name are you talking about? Insurers don’t keep 90% of premiums, or anything close to that. Pretty much every economist agrees that the anti-trust exemption for insurers doesn’t affect premiums.

    7. As long as they can collude and price fix, they are going to be keeping 90% of premiums. They should be paying out 90% of premiums. That’s what would happen if they actually had to compete.

      Huh? They do pay out 90% of premiums. Health insurance has one of the lowest profit margins in the industry, not least because it’s so heavily regulated. In every state, either health insurance plans have to apply for permission to raise rates either beforehand or afterward.

      I have a lot of sympathy for idea of buying insurance across state lines, but it wouldn’t affect profit margins much. What it would do is allow someone to buy a plan currently banned by the state government for not having enough expensive mandates.

  7. As I argued back in November, the experience of other countries suggests that once the more influence the government exerts over the health care sector, the more it infects the political debate.

    And yet just yesterday you were telling us that this whole thing is no big deal and nothing to get overly worried about.

    Honestly Suderman, you’re more wishy-washy than Charlie Brown.

    1. +1!

    2. You mean the post in which I said ObamaCare would likely lead to creeping systemic decay? The one where I agreed that it would make our long-term fiscal problems “significantly worse?” I was making a point about how people act and react, not trying to suggest that ObamaCare is something we shouldn’t worry about.

      1. no we are talking about the article where you(Suderman) was talking about getting “some perspective” then quote Pro-fed-republican douchebag shill Greg Mankiw :

        “I like to think of the big tradeoff as being between community and liberty. From this perspective, the health reform bill offers more community (all Americans get health insurance, regulated by a centralized authority) and less liberty (insurance mandates, higher taxes). Once again, regardless of whether you are more communitarian or libertarian, a reasonable person should be able to understand the opposite vantagepoint.”

        then suderman(you) agree with this diarhea:

        “On this point, believe it or not, I also agree.”

        Lots of people do not think that this bill brings about “equality”. It creates the opportunity for a small group of insurance companies and big pharma to make big money…while also getting the camels nose further underneath the tent to regulate every aspect of our lives (since “the government is having to pay for our lifestyle now”…this creates INEQUALITY…as the individual loses rights and the dicks in the government GAIN rights to control our lives. You never responded to these criticism yesterday and now you act like the criticisms never existed. Keep it up you may get that next washington post gig.

  8. Well, if they are going to reform the reform, maybe there’s still a chance for the inclusion of “Death Panels”. It was the only part of the past year plus of debate that I could fully support.

    1. No way do I want my taxes to pay the salary of a death bureaucrat. Free market death is the only way to go.

  9. Maybe enough libs will lose their jobs and open their eyes that the Fearless leader is driving the koolaid bus off the cliff.
    http://www.suckitupcrybaby.com

  10. Here’s an interesting take on the healthcare bill from the NRO website:

    http://article.nationalreview……williamson

    The gist of it is essentially that the bond viginlantes will kill the program by refusing to fund it.

    Here is the payoff exerpt:

    “So here’s a prediction for you: Obamacare is not going to happen, regardless of the fact that the president is going to sign it into law today, regardless of what happens in the 2010 and 2012 elections, and regardless of any speech given anywhere in Washington. The government’s ability to simply say “Make it so!” and ignore economic reality is coming up against its limit. If Nancy Pelosi thinks the Republicans are obstructionists, wait until she wants to borrow money from people who don’t want to lend it to her and don’t have to run for reelection.

    Obamacare will be a huge new outlay on an already bloated federal budget, two-thirds of which is committed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense, and interest payments on the national debt. Somebody’s not going to get paid. Bond investors are worried that it’s going to be them, but my bet is that it’s going to be those who have put their faith in Obamacare. But, hey, it was fun while it lasted. Have a Tylenol.”

    1. bond vigilantes I meant to say.

      Typing is not my strong suit.

    2. That is an interesting point. Of course they can always just print their own money. I am not sure Pelosi is intelligent enough to understand that printing money causes inflation. But I am sure someone up there does.

      There is a certain surrealism about passing a giant entitlement at the very time governments all over the world are going bankrupt because of entitlements. They are running out of other people’s money to steal. They think that if they just make the entitlement state big enough that it will be so powerful it can steal everything. But of course even everything has a limit. And even communist countries who had the power to summarily jail and execute millions couldn’t sustain themselves. The whole thing is about to go belly up. It will suck for a while, but we will come out of it a better country.

      1. How long until the bottom falls out? I’m guessing it will be drawn out and painful.

      2. Agree, I thought it was strange that the lefties wanted a massive new entitlement when it was obvious that European welfare states are going broke as a result of all their entitlements.

        1. Agree, I thought it was strange that the lefties wanted a massive new entitlement when it was obvious that European welfare states are going broke as a result of all their entitlements.

          When the collapse comes, who will be the first to be sacrificed?

          1. Who do you think ME? The weakest, most infirm and the ones who needed the “healthcare” the most. From these insane overlords who said the sickest, weakest and most in need of protection needed it: In. The. First. Place.

            In other words, the needs of the many… Circle of Life and all that.

            1. Who do you think ME? The weakest, most infirm and the ones who needed the “healthcare” the most. From these insane overlords who said the sickest, weakest and most in need of protection needed it: In. The. First. Place.

              In other words, the needs of the many… Circle of Life and all that.

              Indeed.

              A lot of medical care will be deemed to be elective.

              1. Also prepare for lots of procedures being denied if you are over a certain age. No more bypasses for 90 year olds.

                1. Also prepare for lots of procedures being denied if you are over a certain age. No more bypasses for 90 year olds.

                  They can get bypasses if they pay for it themselves.

                  1. Oh, so the rich get better health care than the poor, just like now. Good thing this bill was passed.

                    1. Oh, so the rich get better health care than the poor, just like now. Good thing this bill was passed.

                      That is just the way it is.

                    2. If it’s legal to trade for a good or service, the rich can get more of it than the poor. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t be rich.

        2. “””I thought it was strange that the lefties wanted a massive new entitlement when it was obvious that European welfare states are going broke as a result of all their entitlements.”””

          Screw Europe, we don’t need their failure to understand we were too broke to take on a massive new entitlement.

          It takes a special moron to complain about the massive amount of money the last guy spent, yet still thinks we can spend even more than the last guy. What was his complain? Bush didn’t spend enough?

          1. It takes a special moron to complain about the massive amount of money the last guy spent, yet still thinks we can spend even more than the last guy. What was his complain? Bush didn’t spend enough?

            It takes a specialer type of moron to believe them.

            1. “””It takes a specialer type of moron to believe them.”””

              Yeah, one might think that since we are in the 21st century, people wouldn’t fall for the honest politician routine, but they do. I expect many people to believe the talk coming out of the next republican candidate too. That sort of moronship in bipartisan.

              But the specialest moron, is the politician that believes another politican will be honest. You know, like the kind that sells his vote on one bill, for the promise of a different bill being passed. Now that Obama has signed the health care legislation, there is no need for the Senate to pass the reconciliation bill.

              1. Yeah, one might think that since we are in the 21st century, people wouldn’t fall for the honest politician routine, but they do. I expect many people to believe the talk coming out of the next republican candidate too. That sort of moronship in bipartisan.

                I’d argue that someone is just as big of a moron if they refuse to vote for a politician because he’s not perfect and honest, if they expect that doing so will result in a perfect and honest politician appearing down the road. Expecting your protest votes to result in an honest politician later is just as silly as expecting that we’ve achieved an honest politician now.

                I thought that McCain is a particular type of self-righteous bastard with absurd blind spots and confused philosophy, but I thought he was better than the other guy. The morons that thought that Obama was better because we didn’t know exactly what type of bastard Obama was (unlikely McCain) I find ridiculous.

                1. “”Expecting your protest votes to result in an honest politician later is just as silly as expecting that we’ve achieved an honest politician now.””

                  Who expects that?

                2. “”I’d argue that someone is just as big of a moron if they refuse to vote for a politician because he’s not perfect and honest, if they expect that doing so will result in a perfect and honest politician appearing down the road. “”

                  Will a perfect and honest politician ever appear? Does one even exist?

                  I don’t see the benefit of voting for someone not honest, forget about perfect, in the hopes that the Easter Bunny will one day appear.

          2. It takes a special moron to complain about the massive amount of money the last guy spent, yet still thinks we can spend even more than the last guy. What was his complain? Bush didn’t spend enough?

            Actually, the Democrats in Congress and Obama were elected on a platform of “Bush and the Republicans didn’t spend enough.” Somehow they also complained about the deficit and denied that taxes would be raised, but no one said politicians had to be consistent.

    3. The health care bill probably includes language requiring insurance companies to keep reserves, in guess what, government bonds!

    4. There is a Deficit Reduction Commission report that is due shortly after the elections this year.

      They will recommend adoption of a VAT to provide a funding source for our entitlement leviathan.

      If it passes (which is to say, if the Dems survive November with even a single vote majority in the House), the bond market may well be satisfied that the feds have the revenues for all this.

      1. That is the plan. They figure when the whole thing goes bellyup and the choice is bankruptcy or huge taxes, they can get the Republicans to be “statesman” and agree to destroy what remains of the country.

        1. My vote is for bankruptcy. Although it would be interesting to see who would administer said bankruptcy. Some brutal Swiss lawyers, perhaps?

          1. that is my vote to.

          2. Ditto. As I said 2 years ago, no company is too big to fail. No country is too big to fail.

          3. Yeah, anything to speed up the implosion at this point.

          4. Ah yes, always a good idea to destroy the savings of retirees on fixed incomes. That will make them even more dependent on Social Security.

            US Treasuries are an actual obligation and a promise. Damned if I’ll favor reneging on that in order to add random government entitlements that don’t have real property rights.

            1. So in John’s scenario, you support the huge taxes?

              1. I favor massive slashing of government spending first.

                Bankruptcy would destroy the country as surely as the taxes. Neither of them is a solution. There’s no use in forcing the contradiction or speeding the implosion. There’s no bright side to it, no

                In John’s scenario, I favor leaving.

      2. Aren’t VATs super ass regressive?

      3. If these deranged psychopaths put a VAT on top of the new health care tax increases to go along with the tax increases that take effect January 1 (the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), this really will turn into the Second Great Depression. Individual discretionary spending will grind to a virtual halt and small business across the country will fold like lawn chairs.

        1. On the other hand, we can solve the shortage of organs for transplant if we coordinate with the roving bands of democrat lynchers that will crop up afterward.

    5. Again, regarding this meme “Buffet is trusted more than Obama”

      It’s 3.5 basis points on 2 year instruments that each have a market yield of less than 1%. It’s a fluke, and miniscule difference that likely difficult to arbitrage for the time it existed

      Markets are awesome, but they don’t everywhere and all the time have the correct value. Otherwise Nasdaq would still be above 5K. And there was the period in fall of ’08 when nominal interest rates on short term US instruments went negative, while TARP was authorizing up to 700 billion and change.

      Besides, this variation, ‘the bond bullies will keep it in check’ misses the fact that there are only two types of govt debt, and the spending within one category is entirely fungible between between health care, defense, national parks, mohair subsidies etc.

      It won’t necessarily kill health care – it may require ‘tough choices’ which is a good thing – but for a bit of a tu quoque, I didn’t see NRO worrying about this sort of thing when Bush was ramping up defense spending.

      1. I didnt respond the other time, but the fact that ANY company is considered lower risk than the US government (even by a miniscule amount) is telling. It should never even be close.

    6. Ignorant and naive. Bond auctions from the fed don’t have specific programs attatched to them. If you had been following the auctions you’d know, the Fed is ALREADY just buying most of the auctions themselves with new money. This can go on for quite awhile I’d guess since most people think it is only nutbags conspirracy theorist who see any problems with the situation. It is not sustainable in the long term, but one more stupid government initiative isn’t that big a deal…we need Carbon taxes, more wars and pension bailouts thrown in there o have any hope of seeing the end of this rotten empire.

  11. Battlefield Earth had sequels?

    1. The book did.

  12. Battlefield Earth had sequels?

    Yeeeaaahhh… no, it didn’t.

  13. Keep your laws off our bodies!

    Unless you were considering subsidizing our choices, in which case, put your laws on our bodies!

    1. +1

  14. Wow, healthcare will be a contentious political issue in the future? Bold prediction, Phil!

  15. The only good Democrat is an aborted Democrat.

    Abortion…it’s for Democrats.

  16. Are not all those “Mission Earth” novels sequels?

  17. Are not all those “Mission Earth” novels sequels?

    Nope. Separate series, and even more poorly written and insipid than Battlefield Earth.

    1. Wait, did you actually read them all? Because I bow to your superior masochistic tendencies if you did. I couldn’t even get through Battlefield: Earth.

    2. Okay, I take back what I said above, I thought all those books were the same series.

  18. Looks like a great republican candidate is running in NJ Cd-12 this season-Scott Sipprelle, against the very liberal Rush Holt. Sipprelle even has a commericial out already attacking health care reform.

    Great stuff-Repulicans need to get behind him!

    http://www.youtube.com/supportscott2010#p/u/0/9KNWR4kHa4o

  19. is there really a metric for how bad El-Ron’s writing truly is?

    1. i forgot about e-meters. doh!

  20. Nipplemancer, the wife and i have been collecting the works of L. Ron in our library for some time now. I recommend that all aspiring writers read L. Ron — it’s incredibly encouraging to realize that, not only can the shittiest writers get published, they can become bestsellers, and even go on to found wacky religions.

    1. I read the entire Mission Earth series when I was a teenager.

      I’m not sure why–I must have been impressed by the size.

      1. It could have been worse. You could have read The Wheel of Time.

        1. Um… *hand up*

          I gave up somewhere around the ninth book. It was clear that he was going to have congestive heart failure or something before the plot ever got moving again, and I was right.

    2. It’s L. Ron Hoover, at the first church of applantology.

  21. Very nice summary of the healthcare bill:

    here

  22. Wait, did you actually read them all? Because I bow to your superior masochistic tendencies if you did. I couldn’t even get through Battlefield: Earth.

    Hell no. They’re so bad that they’re actually difficult to read, and continued attempts may actually result in mental damage. I got through the first chapter of, i think, the last one, and then it occurred to me that plucking the hairs out of my arm was a better use of my time, so i did that for a while until the Thorazine kicked in.

    1. when I was in junior high, my father picked up all ten books of the Mission Earth series. It was the 80s and neither one of us really knew who the hell Hubbard was. OMG, those books were bad. The first one was kind of readable. The second I read because I took it as a challenge. And the third one I read 20 pages of and finally got smart. How is he so popular?

      1. “How is he so popular?”

        And how did Obama get elected? Too many stupid fucking Americans want to believe in fairytale horseshit, thats how.

        1. And how did Obama get elected? Too many stupid fucking Americans want to believe in fairytale horseshit, thats how.

          A fifth columnist media was a huge contributor.

          In a collapse of society, the journalists will end up lynched.

      2. when I was in junior high, my father picked up all ten books of the Mission Earth series. It was the 80s and neither one of us really knew who the hell Hubbard was. OMG, those books were bad. The first one was kind of readable. The second I read because I took it as a challenge. And the third one I read 20 pages of and finally got smart. How is he so popular?

        I am tempted to write a book.

        1. “””I am tempted to write a book.””

          If you do, write one that creates a Religion. Worked well for Hubbard.

          1. and Rand.

  23. For 65 years under the McCarran-Ferguson Act health insurance was not considered “commerce”. That is why it was regulated by the states and the states could impose mandates and limit providers. It also excluded health insurance companies from the anti-trust laws. Now Congress is making the case that they can regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause. So which is it? Commerce or not commerce? It will take a court case to decide. If it is commerce then we should be able to buy insurance across state lines and eliminate state mandates. If it’s not commerce then the new bill is unconstitutional and should be thrown out.

    1. “””For 65 years under the McCarran-Ferguson Act health insurance was not considered “commerce”. That is why it was regulated by the states and the states could impose mandates and limit providers.””

      It will be interesting to see how that plays out. If a state has a law on the books preventing federal mandate, the state law should be upheld.

  24. Where’s my check?

  25. kaiser health news? you’re kidding, right?

  26. kaiser health news? you’re kidding, right?

    They’re paid partners in this bill, and their boys on the Hill wrote a big chunk of it, so surely they know what it is.

  27. Just wait until most people who generally supported the bill figure out it provides very little in benefits until 2014. I just had a repairman at my house. He said, so Obama just signed that health care bill, I’m finally going to get health care now! When I told him he might get it in 2014 when the subsidies and exchanges, etc. kick in, he looked at me like I just killed his child. I suspect he’s not alone.

    1. But they had to pass it so people could find out what was in it.

      Nate Silver never included “do you know that the benefits don’t kick in until 2014” in those polls he was touting about how people don’t know the super-awesomeness of it.

    2. “” When I told him he might get it in 2014 when the subsidies and exchanges, etc. kick in, he looked at me like I just killed his child. I suspect he’s not alone.””

      It would have been funny if you followed up with, but don’t worry, you’ll start paying for it soon.

      I’m still convinced that Obama is able to get away with this because some people really believe he wouldn’t raise their taxes for it.

    3. he looked at me like I just killed his child

      Call me an evil bastard, but this little anecdote really cheered me up.

  28. That being said, I’d be perfectly willing to give up any and all healthcare reform as “unconstitutional” if we would start applying the Commerce Clause again, like we used to before 1937.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.