Gay Patriot Header Image

Is the Left Admitting that Obamacare Is Pretty Much Marxism?

A report was issued by the Congressional Budget Office, yesterday, that contained two very useful nuggets of information.

1. Despite trillions in spending and the vast expansion of the Federal bureaucracy, the number of uninsured will be unchanged after Obamacare.

2. 2.5 million jobs will be destroyed

Democrats have been treating the reduction in jobs as wonderful news. In their spin, the reduction in jobs means workers will be “liberated” from “job-lock,” in other words, they will no longer have to work full-time to have health care insurance.

So, in other words, the workers have nothing to lose but their chains.

And the reason they will be able to work part time… or not at all… is because those who are working full-time will be subsidzing their insurance through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums. Those who work less, or not at all, will get Government subsidies to cover their insurance. Those who work more will not.

So, in other words, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

It is not so often that the left comes out and admits that this scheme of confiscating the earnings of the productive to subsidize the unproductive… i.e. their voters… is really what they’re all about.


Once You Have Seen It, You Cannot Unsee It

Richard Simmons twerks for Obamacare.

Update: WaPo ‘Fact Checker’ advises reporters not to rely on the White House for accurate Obamacare enrollment figures(more…)

The Obama Era Continues to Degenerate into a Bad 1970’s Movie

The latest brilliant idea from the minds that gave us Obamacare (and the Obamacare website written in Spanglish): The Obamacare Telethon.

ObamaCare’s state-based marketplaces are partnering with an enrollment group in a new attempt to boost young people’s interest in the healthcare law.

The campaign from Covered California, Enroll America and other exchanges will livestream an ObamaCare-themed variety show from Los Angeles on Thursday, according to an advisory.

Because young people just love the comedy-variety genre.

The way the genius progressives have set up Obamacare requires young and healthy people to grossly overpay for insurance in order to subsidize older and sicker people. So far, not enough of them have been stupid enough to take up Obamacare on this deal to make the system sustainable.

But the architects of Obamacare hope a six-hour variety show will be enough to convince them to make a really bad economic decision. [Of course, they were stupid enough to vote for Obama in the first place.] On the other hand, the insulting “Brosurance” Ads didn’t quite work the magic the genius progressives expected.


You know how I can tell Obamacare Is a Massive FAIL? Its supporters don’t call it “Obamacare.”

They aren’t even calling it the ‘Affordable Care Act” anymore because the “affordable” part has become such a tragic joke and a reminder of the lies this POS was sold under. Now, they just avert their eyes and call it PPACA when they have to defend it; trying to hide their shame behind a bland acronym.


Thanks, Peter H.

Walmart’s Health Plan Better Than Obamacare

Posted by V the K at 8:55 am - January 8, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

The left despises Walmart. [I’m not a fan, either, but unlike a leftist, my disdain for Walmart doesn’t translate into a desire to deny other people the opportunity to work and shop there; live and let live.] But in terms of affordability and access to quality medical services, Walmart’s plan beats Obamacare hands down.

Obamacare offers a restricted list of hospital participation. Walmart, on the other hand, belongs to a national healthcare network that provides almost twice as many participating hospitals. What’s more, Walmart’s network of doctors dwarfs Obamacare’s. “You will notice there are 9,837 doctors [under Obamacare]. But the larger network is 24,904 doctors. Huge, huge difference,” Slayton said.

In addition to better care, the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will incur monthly premiums up to nine times higher than Walmart premiums. JAMA indicated that the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking couple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month, while the Walmart monthly premium for the same couple would be $134 per month.

But while the Walmart health plan may beat Obamacare by costing less and offering better options, it can’t come close to Obamacare in terms of massive inefficiency, cronyism, regulation, bureaucracy, and waste.

The disaster that is Obamacare (ongoing)

My earlier post may have to become a series. As before, you may know the following already from news or other blogs, but it deserves to be acknowledged here at Gay Patriot.

UPDATES (late morning):

Remember, conservatives, many Americans do* want to like President Obama

I believe it’s been a week, maybe more, since I even checked this blog.  I did not get to the post I wanted to write on JFK, contrasting that smart Democrat’s record with the media coverage of his murder and his legacy.  I had a few notes for posts on Obamacare and honesty and one on Obamacare and prediction. Reading something this morning in the Daily Caller reminded me of a piece I had read yesterday in Commentary, articulating an idea which gets at the meaning of Obama’s reelection last year.

Peter Wehner wrote:

In their fascinating behind-the-scenes book on the 2012 election, Double Down, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write that the campaign’s research showed “that there was a deep well of sympathy for Obama among voters.” In focus groups after the first debate, they write, “people offered excuse after excuse for his horrific presentation. In Florida, one woman said, almost protectively, ‘I just bet you he wasn’t feeling well.’”

That deep well of sympathy–that willingness to give the president the benefit of the doubt and the attachment and connection voters felt for Mr. Obama–has been crucial to his success for his entire political life. He has always been viewed as a likeable and decent man, even when his campaign employed fairly ruthless tactics. But the days of broad public faith and trust in this president appear to be over. And no wonder.

I think this is why the image of Obama responding to Hurricane Sandy was so beneficial to the incumbent.  People do want to like him.  And in the coverage of the storm and his response, that Democrat looked very much like the man they wanted to like.

It remains to be see whether the disaster of the Obamacare roll-out and the realization (despite his many promises) that many Americans who liked their health care plans couldn’t keep them will erase the goodwill many Americas feel for the incumbent.  That said we on the right should not lose sight of the fact that as Halperin and Heilemann put it, many Americans do have a “deep well of sympathy for Obama”.


*And the question now becomes whether we should change the tense on this verb from present to past.

NB:   (more…)

Obama hammered in polls

This is everywhere; may as well be here. Per a CNN poll,

Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively…

…53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy…

Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don’t view him as a strong and decisive leader. All of those figures are all-time records for Obama in CNN polling.

Ouch. But will voters remember, by the 2014 midterm elections?

Another Obamalie, his mother’s medical insurance?

From Mona Charen’s new column:

Remember President Barack Obama’s mother? …The moving and infuriating story was a staple on the 2008 campaign trail. His mother had insurance, he explained, but when she came down with cancer, her insurance company claimed her disease was a “pre-existing condition” and refused to pay…In a debate with Sen. John McCain, Obama said: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

There would be, if it had been true. But when New York Times reporter Janny Scott researched the issue for her biography of the president’s mother, she discovered letters proving beyond doubt that Cigna never denied Stanley Ann Dunham coverage for her disease. The dispute was over a disability plan…

The White House did not deny Scott’s account, but shrugged it off…

The Dunham tale was meant to personify the hundreds of thousands — or millions — of Americans who were “dumped” by insurance companies when they became sick. This is an invented tale, and might have been rebutted by the insurance industry if they hadn’t gotten into bed with Obama in 2010 in return for millions of coerced new customers…

There’s more; RTWT.

Charen touches on a great point: The insurance companies are at fault, but not for the Left’s mythical reasons. The real fault is that Obamacare is based on coercion: forcing people to do business with the insurance companies, when people might choose not to. That is immoral. Obama was wrong to propose it, the Democrats were wrong to impose it, and the insurance companies were wrong to go along with it.


couple: I can't believe Obama lied.  Ambassador Stevens' tombstone: Really?

Via ZH.

Obamacare is NOT Hurricane Katrina

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 9:05 pm - November 15, 2013.
Filed under: Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

It’s not like me to lift in toto from somewhere else, but from time to time someone really nails it. In referencing how Obamacare is not Hurricane Katrina, in his weekly newsletter (to which if you’re not subscribing, you should), National Review’s Jonah Goldberg has this to say:

The New York Times today compares the Obamacare debacle to Bush’s problems with Katrina. It’s a comparison I’ve made several times myself. But the obvious difference is that George W. Bush didn’t spend years forcing the Affordable Hurricane Act on the American people. And he didn’t have three years to plan for its arrival, either. Nor did he have a national press corps desperate to minimize the downside of the storm. Unless you’re Louis Farrakhan or Spike Lee, nobody entertains the idea that flooding New Orleans has been a goal of conservatism for decades. Oh and conservatives didn’t go around saying that they had completely and totally mastered all of the nuances of meteorology and climate. And — wait — I should also mention that Republicans never said that any criticism of their Affordable Hurricane Act was racist and extremist. Aha! I almost forgot. Bush didn’t promise every single living American: “You can keep your current weather if you like it. Period.”
But other than that, I guess the comparison is spot on.

Nicely put, Jonah.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)

President Obama’s Sargent Schultz Press Conference

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:24 pm - November 15, 2013.
Filed under: Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

I missed the president’s press conference yesterday, but reading Mary Katharine Ham’s report, I realized I’d already seen it:

The distinguished blogress. . .

. . . was struck by a moment in President Obama’s press conference today where this paradox was on full display. The president floated, throughout the press conference, from profession of utter ignorance to confident declaration and directive. Allahpundit noted that Obama distanced himself from the website’s problems by saying he was never informed of its problems. He knew nothing. (more…)

Did Secretary Sebelius make this request of her IT staff?

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg explains:

Watching President Obama’s press conference Thursday, I almost started humming the old ditty “The Farmer in the Dell” because all I could think was: “The cheese stands alone.”

The president did his level best to explain that he was as in the dark as anybody about the problems with his signature legislation.

He explained that he was not “informed directly” that the website was about as ready to run as a three-legged horse at the Preakness Stakes. Apparently, the old saw that the “buck stops” with the president never took into account the possibility that the buck could get lost in interoffice mail.

Communism vs. freedom: The war is back!

And it’s happening in the middle of our own society, now.

I didn’t say nearly enough about this morning’s incredibly wrong quote from Jonathan Gruber, who is billed as the ‘architect’ of Obamacare:

We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.

The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return.

First, Gruber doesn’t understand free markets: If we had them (and we have NOT had them in medical care for decades), then health insurance would always be available to people with pre-existing conditions, at some price. And they could choose to take it, or not – as they have the means and perceive being to their own advantage (or not).

One of the ways the Left wins is by warping language. In this case, the Left has warped the concept of “health insurance” to mean “subsidized health care”, health care paid largely by Other People’s Money.

And it’s true: the free market won’t supply that – beyond voluntary charity. Because it is by definition a win-lose transaction. Someone must be forced to pay the subsidy, and that person loses. The free market is about win-win transactions. If your basic desire is to win at someone else’s expense, forcing them to pay for you, then you naturally hate free markets; the Left is your political home. Congratulations.

Next, Gruber thinks it’s “discriminatory” that people with conditions would pay more for health care. But here’s the thing: They take more health care.

Just like young men get into more car accidents, consume more repair services and thus have to pay higher rates for car insurance, so unhealthy people properly should have larger bills for health care – or health insurance.

Finally, Gruber’s quote wrongly chalks up everything about one’s health to genetics, ignoring the role of lifestyle choices in determining health – and thus ignoring the role of personal responsibility. And that may be where he’s most wrong. We know that socializing health care will lead a society to greater disease, as people make worse lifestyle choices.

But we also know that the Left has a ready ‘solution’ for it: namely, greater government control of people’s lifestyle choices. We’ve seen the beginnings of it in the U.S., with Nanny Michelle-Bloomberg’s efforts. It’s a road that ends with everyone doing mandatory calisthenics in front of the telescreen, _1984_-style. Because, at some point, no one’s life is their own anymore; each person is an investment (property) of the State.

Which brings me to my point. There are, so to speak, “two paths you can go by”.

  • If you believe in freedom – that is, in self-ownership, responsibility and choice under the Rule of Law – the logic of your position drives you toward limited government. Not to anarchy, but to *min*archy: the idea that government is there to protect people’s rights against attack and crime and, beyond that, to do little; allowing people to reap what they sow.
  • If, instead, you believe in community ownership of people’s lives and efforts – the central tendency of communism – the logic of your position drives you toward ever-larger government. You will always need more government, to solve the social problems that you caused by your last round of increases to government. Concluding in totalitarianism.

People support Obamacare and President Obama depending on whether – deep in their souls – they truly prefer freedom or dictatorship.

Gruber’s idea is essentially communist. The idea that capable and healthy people must be forced to pay for incapable or unhealthy people, lest society be “discriminatory” or whatever, means that people’s lives are not their own. Whatever people become, whatever they produce, is ultimately the State’s property to distribute as it sees the need.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – it can’t really ever be implemented, but if it could be, then only by total government diktat over everyone and everything. That is Gruber’s road – the underlying logic of his position – whether he admits it or not. It is also Karl Marx’s.

Thoughts for the day

From Jake Meyer in Bruce’s Twitter stream:

It can’t be a human right if it requires someone else’s labor. That’s theft, not freedom.

And, from Rep. Steve Stockman:

About 110,000 people contract chlamydia each month, more than signed up for Obamacare. Obamacare is less popular than chlamydia.

UPDATE: And America’s Communist era arrives thusly:

JONATHAN GRUBER, M.I.T.: …We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.

The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return.

Gruber’s argument can (and will) be used to re-distribute anything. Literally anything. Because it’s founded on the idea that everything is generated, owned and consumed communally.

Steve Jobs of Apple, for example, was just a “genetic lottery winner” – right? He should have been forced to “pay in return” for his gene-crime of being unusually driven and talented, right? So that others could consume whatever wealth he created?

Health, and all other forms of wealth or success, never have to do with a person’s individual choices or efforts, right?

UPDATE: As long as we’re thinking like Communists, I just noticed something odd about how Obamacare ranges its plans from worst (Bronze) to best (Platinum). Isn’t it…um…kind of racist?

the color Bronze the color Platinum
(the color of Bronze) (the color of Platinum)

The disaster that is Obamacare

You could get all this like I did, by a quick scan of the HotAir headlines. But then you wouldn’t have a convenient discussion thread for it, on your favorite gay blog 😉

That last link shows you this creepy pro-Obamacare ad:

Obamacare 'stupid slut' ad

Why creepy? Look – Birth control is cheap (quite a bit cheaper than Obamacare). The ad shows a young lady who believes that it’s hers only because she over-pays for her Obamacare insurance. That suggests she’s dumb. The ad also shows her gloating about having sex with a random guy. That suggests she’s a slut (as is the guy; my use of the word is gender-neutral). And so we arrive at Obamacare’s ideal demographic: Stupid sluts who think it’s “hot” to have a life of needless dependency on Big Government. That should tell you something about Obamacare.

UPDATE: Ron Fournier’s irony is note-perfect: “…We Lied to Obama. We told him he could be popular. What we meant to say was he could be popular … if he told the truth.”

Obama, being insincere

A thief takes your car. You know each other, so the next day, he drives up – in your car – to apologize for the inconvenience he’s caused you. He doesn’t return your car; he drives off in it again.

Was his apology sincere? Of course not. Had he been sincere, he would give back your car. He just wanted to blunt your well-justified anger, which could inconvenience him in the future. He hoped to manipulate your good nature.

Have no fear, kids: President Obama is here to show us how it’s done.

President Obama said Thursday that he is “sorry” that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act, despite his promise that no one would have to give up a health plan they liked.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.

“We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

Here are a few of the things Obama *didn’t* say, any of which would have made it a sincere apology:

  • I admit Obamacare was a huge mistake, and I’ve asked Congress to repeal it.
  • I admit Obamacare was a mistake, and I’m letting Republicans write the bill now to solve its huge flaws.
  • To give people immediate relief, I’ve agreed to delay Obamacare by six months.
  • I’m not delaying Obamacare; but, to give people immediate relief, I’ve signed an order that will re-grandfather all plans that existed as of Oct 1, 2013.

But he said none of them. His “apology” was geared to one purpose only: trying to gain a few points in opinion polls for Barack Hussein Obama.


Democrats in the Obama Era: Looking for Mr. Goldstein

In my “pre-mortem” on the Virginia gubernatorial election, I noted that Terry McAuliffe would win not because he offered a positive message of reform, but because he spent millions of dollars demonizing his Republican opponent.  He secure his victory in the Old Dominion this month just as Barack Obama secured his nationally last year, by running the political equivalent of a scorched earth campaign.  Their ideas not resonating with the American people, it’s all the Democrats have.

They are always looking for someone to demonize, to scare voters into voting for them to prevent some horrible, no good, very bad right-wing extremist from seizing the reins of power and taking away their birth control or their Mommy.  Or whatever.  To hold onto power, Democrats need an Emmanuel Goldstein.  Remember what they did to Sarah Palin, later the Koch Brothers and most recently Ted Cruz?

As the reality of Obamacare sinks it, they need someone — or some industry — to distract us once again.  And once again we see that  Obama’s promise to break the Washington pattern where “everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame” was, as he might put it, “just words,” his Democrats are seeking to pin the blame somewhere else, urging the “White House to attack health insurance companies“.

No, it can’t be Obama’s policies which have caused havoc on the health insurance market when these really bad, horrible extreme corporate profiteers are out there.

Obama now lying about his lying

Well covered on Ace and HotAir, but I can’t let this pass without note.

Recently on November 4, President Obama said:

If you had one of these plans before the ACA came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was, you could keep it *if* it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.

The emphasis is Obama’s, in his delivery; here is the clip.

The rules/mandates/costs of the ACA are such that it is nearly impossible for any plan to not be changed by it. But Obama has an even greater problem: what he said in the past, dozens if not hundreds of times in public speeches, had no “If…” qualifier and was much more like this example (from 2009, quoted previously):

No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, *period*. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, *period*. No one will take it away, *no matter what*.

Emphasis was probably also in Obama’s original delivery, but just to keep things easy, let’s say that I’ve added it.

So, let’s see. First Obama lied about whether people could keep their plans under Obamacare. (And he lied about most people seeing cost reductions – rather than the reality of cost increases – and about much more.) And now, Obama is lying about his lies (claiming he had always said something different).

Lies require intent to deceive; otherwise they are only mistakes. Obama has lied, because (1) the White House knew people would lose their plans at least as far back as 2010, and (2) unless Obama is mentally incompetent, he must know today that he didn’t put in those “If…” qualifiers when he was out stumping for Obamacare.

Will the Left swallow Obama’s new lie? Probably, along the lines of Orwell’s _1984_, where the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialism) believe The Party’s newly-invented claim to have raised the chocolate ration when they’d actually cut it (page 51 of the old Signet paperback).

But the Left is not America. Will America swallow it?

RELATED: Obama’s approval rating is a point lower than Bush’s was at this same time in their presidencies (1st week of November in their fifth years).

And if you want a glimpse into America’s future under nationalized health, here it is: Venezuela’s health care system is collapsing.

Romney, on Obama’s credibility problem

Via HotAir.

YouTube Preview Image

My thoughts: Glad to see Romney in decent form and telling it like it is.

Your thoughts?