Gay Patriot Header Image

The Coercive Policy and Special Interest Politics of Obamacare

As Senator Harry Reid (D-Mt. Crumpit) rammed the Democrats’ health care overhaul legislation through the Senate, many conservative bloggers, pundits and even the New York Times reported the various payoffs to certain Senators to secure their votes.  Now, some bloggers, pundits and policy wonks (having the time the average Americans do not) have been scrutinizing the actual text of the bills which have cleared the House and Senate to find them stuffed with payoffs to various special interests favored by the Democratic Party as well as provisions of dubious constitutional merit.

And they’re pointing out the coercive nature of the bill itself, stipulating what the soon-to-be “mandatory insurance must cover,” as well as its costs and our penalties for failing to comply with that mandate.  Yep, soon, we’ll have government telling us what kind of insurance we should have.  And if our income is high enough, we won’t be able to comply by buying a cheaper plan offering only catastrophic coverage.  Young people who would rather save up for a house or a car or whatever they believe would best serve their personal interests and professional goals, will soon be forced to spend more on insurance offering benefits they don’t need and likely won’t use.

The nanny state provisions of the legislation are just the start of its problems.  The House bill, for example, includes generous payoffs to trial lawyers who have been generous in rewarding Democrats with campaign cash:

the Democratic majority in Congress has included multiple trial lawyer earmarks in the House version of Obamacare. Section 257 authorizes state attorneys general to sue companies that violate any federal health care provision and to delegate the work of such suits to class-action plaintiffs’ firms. Another trial lawyer earmark in the bill pays states not to enact caps on attorneys’ fees or lawsuit settlements.

Why can’t congressional Democrats let the various states decide to whom they delegate the work of enforcement?  Clearly, Democrats want to steer work to firms which support their candidates, increasing their income so they can keep paying off supportive politicians.

And then, there are potential payoffs to “the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now,” you know ACORN.  And let’s not forget a provision of dubious constitutionality that ol’ Harry himself slipped into the Senate bill, trying to block future Congresses from repealing parts of the bill.

The more we look at the bill, the more we see its coercive nature and how it was cobbled together to benefit special interests aligned with the Democratic Party, the very type of special interests whose influence Barack Obama decried in his campaign last fall for the White House.

Some new kind of politics.



  1. The Medicare cuts are one good thing. But the rest of the bill is fascism. The federal mandate, forcing people to spend money on insurance, is un-American (that is, unprecedented in American history) and surely unconstitutional; but the Democratic political class stopped caring about the Constitution’s limits and restrictions on government power, decades ago.

    I wonder if young people, when slapped with the mandate, will ‘make the connection’ that it was Democrats who slapped them?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - December 22, 2009

  2. When the details of the legislation do not add up to the STATED goal of the legislation (reduce the cost of health care, expand availability of health insurance), one starts to look at the ulterior motives. The payouts to trial lawyers is a HUGE red flag. As for the “none of you guys can change this later” clause, it reminds me of using the genie’s third wish to ask for three more wishes.

    Comment by Greg Blum — December 22, 2009 @ 2:47 pm - December 22, 2009

  3. This is an interesting aside House Dem blames leaders for party switch how many more I wonder?

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 22, 2009 @ 4:00 pm - December 22, 2009

  4. An “aside”? Griffith’s comments on ObamaGreidPelosiCare are highly relevant:

    “I want to make it perfectly clear that his bill is bad for our doctors, our patients and will have unintended consequences far beyond what we know today,” he said. “As a doctor and as a [newly minted] Republican, I plan to once again oppose this measure and hope that we can defeat this bill that is a major threat to our nation.”


    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - December 22, 2009

  5. Harry doesn’t understand history or congress, the reason the 14th amendment came into being was to make it harder for a future congress to repealing the Civil Rights act of 1866. If he thinks he can write something into a bill and demand a future congress to obey him, he’s a nut. Were past congresses obligated to Harry? No. Neither are future congresses and why I always so, no future congress is obligated to the promises of another. Perhaps, Harry should have tried to go the amendment route first; but then, that route has the potential of enshrining all kinds of restraints on congress. Something despots don’t like.

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 22, 2009 @ 4:17 pm - December 22, 2009

  6. Oh my, so sad! Not, really.

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 22, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - December 22, 2009

  7. who will have the right to sue and take this to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

    I am an Australian citizen and I feel sorry for all of my American friends in seeing this piece of crap rammed down your throats.

    Comment by StraightAussie — December 22, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - December 22, 2009

  8. C’mon Tano. Why are the liberals willing to let 400,000+ people die before this takes effect? Surely you have the lying points memorized.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 22, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - December 22, 2009

  9. TGC, excellent point, hadn’t thought of it that way, but then I don’t think like a liberal. If the current system is makin’ ’em die, shouldn’t it be changed right away!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 22, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - December 22, 2009

  10. Hmm, maybe this is why Tano’s not been online?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 22, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - December 22, 2009

  11. I went to and found that, at the rate of two every 10 minutes, 420,400 will die while waiting for ObamaCareless. Of course they’ll have to start paying taxes for it next year. Ergo, they’ll be paying money and dying before they get the benefit of it.

    Tano and the liberals are soooo worried about health care, they’re willing to sacrifice almost half a million people.

    Another snag is that Granny said that those 2 people every 10 minutes die without HEALTH CARE, not insurance.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 23, 2009 @ 3:03 am - December 23, 2009

  12. Similarly, I keep wondering that if higher taxes is the route to economic stability, why in the hell would you support the slaughter of millions of children??? Seems to me the liberals need them, especially since at least some of them would become the dreaded “rich”. Maybe that’s why they support abortion so none of them ever have the chance to “accidentally” become self-reliant and well to do.

    But, I suppose, the plan now is to outsource taxes and elections to the illegals. That way you don’t have to put up with 18 years of crumb crunchers under your feet preventing you from going to the bars or attending Jennings’ fisting parties.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 23, 2009 @ 4:58 am - December 23, 2009

  13. TGC,

    That answer’s as easy to answer as Eugenics. You have seen the Planned Parenthood films haven’t you?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 23, 2009 @ 2:36 pm - December 23, 2009

  14. I’m proud to say I have not.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 24, 2009 @ 5:25 am - December 24, 2009

  15. I’ll find the links when I get home. It doesn’t amaze me anymore when a conversation is taped of PP staff saying they’ll abort black babies, no problem.

    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, we’ll abort and sterilize them on the cheep. Our founder would want no less.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 24, 2009 @ 6:44 am - December 24, 2009

  16. Here we go…

    Planned Parenthood lying to a patient

    Bonus: Obama being pro-infanticide

    Discussion about planned parenthood.

    More Planned PArenthood hijinks here.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 24, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - December 24, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.