“The Congressional Record will forever show
that [Obamacare] was passed in a romper room of overgrown children seemingly barely old enough to keep from peeing on themselves.” Matt Taibbi
Obamacare
is a Public Requiem by Supreme Decree
Do you have an absolute right to refuse
medical treatment? Well, if you recognize the immutable authority of natural rights, you must defend the birthright of individuals
to reject the quackery of government-imposed medicine. Common law clearly discerns that there are limits on the power of governments
to force human beings into becoming pinned up sheep, against their will. Already far too many cowardly citizens are eager
to comply with the next dictate of a tyrannical regime. Subsequently, when the death panels summon you into their diagnostic
pool of drugs, why would you want to accept the pharmaceutical prescription for a controlled and managed demise?
Obamacare
is unmistakably a tax. If government levees a tariff on a taxpayer, that is not news. However, when inclusion into a collectivist
system of government medicine becomes mandatory, the life essence of individual will is sucked out of the body of an immortal
spirit.
The legality of the mandates is up for grabs by a tribunal of Star Chamber jurists. The sideshow about recusal,
rivals reality TV programming and confuses the constitutional illiterates. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, in all her glory,
conveyed her delight. "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," Kagan said to Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe in one of the emails.
"The
March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging
cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving
as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes.
According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from "any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has "expressed
an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy" while he "served in governmental employment."
The argument made by the Nation that Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from any ruling on the
Affordable Care Act, because of his wife’s work as a conservative activist and lobbyist, where she specifically agitated
for the repeal of "Obamacare", conveniently ignores reality. Kagan was the person appointed to represent the federal
government before the Supreme Court of the United States. Thomas was not a lobbyist. The difference should be self-evident
for any objective observer.
The essential question never asked
is how a nation of inherent autonomous individuals, would allow a politicized court to rule on natural human right authority.
Your right to refuse inclusion into a medical insurance scheme, designed for gently leading you down death’s road, is
inalienable. Obamacare is a question of exercising the right NOT to participate, much less about forced tribute to pay for
the costs of hypochondriacs, who believe physicians are gracious drug pushers.
The electorate made their voice heard
in the 2010 elections. The Tea Party eruption was largely a spontaneous repudiation of Obamacare. Criticism of the 112th Congress
should be directed against the House for not having the guts to issue and vote upon articles of impeachment against the pretender
president, who is bent on destroying the civil rights of mentally healthy citizens.
So why is the nation suffering from
the tyranny of the inflicted? Wendell Potter, a former CIGNA executive-turned-whistleblower, lays out the reason in plain simple language.
"Opponents of the Affordable Care Act who believe the
Supreme Court will declare the law unconstitutional are going to be disappointed next year when a majority of the nine justices
vote to uphold it. It will likely be a 5-4 decision, but moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy will, I’m confident,
recognize that without the law, the free-market system of health insurance, so highly valued by conservatives, will implode,
sooner rather than later.
Here’s the reality. The provision of
Obamacare at the heart of the constitutional challenge — the requirement that all Americans will have to buy health
insurance if they’re not eligible for a public plan like Medicare or Medicaid — is a "must have" for
the nation’s health insurance industry."
If conservatives
really value a free-market health insurance system, by what claim of legitimacy can court dictums be imposed, upon individuals
who rationally and willfully refuse to be part of that medical injection revolving door treatment? A free-market business,
especially the medicine cartel, needs to re-invent itself, not seek government imposed guaranteed funding subsidies.
In the NBC video report, the prospects that some conservative justices may well uphold this
new expansion of government fiat into the lives of Americans is chilling. Jay Sekulow on MSNBC Discussing ObamaCare at the
Supreme Court asks the question: Where will it stop? Expanding brand new federal powers is not an authentic conservative viewpoint.
The supreme decree for
public enslavement that Obamacare represents, does not originate with the decision from the Supreme Court. It comes from the
pathological sickness of the Nanny State, accepted by millions of intellectual cripples and self-absorbed government syncopates,
looking for a bigger welfare check. Just maybe self-reliant folks, who go to great pains to live a healthy lifestyle, just
do not want to be part of the medical meat grinder.
"Democrats found a way
to achieve their goal by way of regulation instead, introduced by Obama Medicare chief Dr. Donald Berwick. A new Medicare
regulation implemented on January 1, 2011 pays doctors to advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which includes
advanced directives to forego aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
In addition to the end-of-life Medicare rule, state governments are implementing
"death panels" of sorts to help handle their budget woes."
Now view contracting positions on the impact of
this reality in the video, Obamacare Death Panels Are Back!!! Even if you dismiss the prediction that Obamacare makes a concerted effort
to rush your demise and hasten your mortality, prospects of arbitrary rationing are inevitable.
"With Medicare’s
trustees predicting the Medicare program will go bankrupt in 2024 - five years earlier than was projected before the passage
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - even Americans who strongly supported Obamacare have little choice but
to acknowledge that Medicare must be reformed - and soon. While lawmakers continue to argue about the
best way to protect this vital program for the seniors it serves and those who it has yet to serve, there is a growing bipartisan
consensus that the Independent Payment Advisory
Board (IPAB) is one provision of the new health law that will do more to undermine
the program than save it.
Unfortunately,
most people in the country, including seniors relying on Medicare, have no idea what IPAB is or how it will affect their lives
if it ever becomes operational. More concerning, President Obama decided to make the board the centerpiece of his efforts
to reduce the deficit by calling for it to be strengthened - not eliminated. Starting in 2015, the IPAB will give 15 unelected
bureaucrats unprecedented power to slash billions of dollars from Medicare when spending exceeds targeted growth rates. The
cuts made by the board will come on top of the $500 billion that was transferred from Medicare to a new entitlement program
as a result of the new health care law."
Add
to this discretionary allocation, the revolting practice of exceptions. The issuance of waivers from the law to political
favorites or "too big to fail" conglomerates, is blatantly a violation of equal protection. Yet, in the hologram
construct that passes for lawful government, the whims of class warfare, becomes the standard for this abhorrent Obama administration.
The favoritism of the corporate/state economy at the expense of main street free enterprise is as vivid as it has even been.
The working poor and the self-employed can kiss their economic future goodbye. Obama wants the middle class to suck it up
and become dependent parasites, in the brave new world of coerced medical experimentation.
The social fascists that bleed for universal health care, provided by a single payer bureaucracy are fundamentally
statists. Strategies for repeal are weak and remote. Nina Owcharenko in Repealing Obamacare and Getting
Health Care Right, describes accurately the problem but is unrealistic for a political
solution.
"Congress
must repeal the new law. Congress cannot build sound market-based health care reform on the PPACA foundation, which is utterly
incompatible with a health care system based on consumer choice and free markets.
Beyond the unprecedented mandates, new taxes, massive entitlement expansion, unworkable and costly insurance provisions,
and its failure to control costs, the new law concentrates enormous power in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). It creates a giant network for the federal micromanagement of health plans, benefits, insurance markets, and unprecedented
intervention into the details of health care financing and the delivery of medical care."
Repeal of Obamacare is justified. However, the supreme decree that enacted the original legislation comes from an
inept and illicit political class. They will resist to the death, retracting their handy work. Even with new replacement legislators,
the executive administration envisions a new cash cow for milking. If the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare,
your duty is to opt out of the government medial payment system. Encourage the implosion, or resign to total enslavement.
This is your terminal and only existential choice.
"Both
referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as 'Obamacare.' That is a
disparaging reference to the President of the United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the
United States." Debbie Wasserman Schultz
