Free Markets, Free People


House repeals ObamaCare and Democrats are, well, acting like Democrats

The Republican controlled House kept its promise and repealed ObamaCare with a large majority. As I’ve said in the past, symbolic or not, these types of votes must be made. Republicans must raise the issue in the House, vote on it and make the Democratic controlled Senate kill it or, if it happens to somehow slip through the Senate, make Obama veto it. Again, it’s about the record – and for once in his life, Obama is actually going to have to run on one in 2012.

That said, it was incredible to listen to Democrats attempt to justify Obamacare yesterday. They are our lawmakers. Yet it became apparent yesterday, at least listening to a few of them, that they simply don’t know their business or what they’re talking about.

Take Shelia Jackson Lee for instance:

"Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs," Jackson Lee said. "But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, ‘job-killing’ — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill."

So, Republicans are "killing Americans" with repeal. There’s that civil discourse right when it is necessary, no?

But that wasn’t the worst of her mutterings:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas, said on Tuesday afternoon that repealing the national health care law would violate the Constitution.

Arguing that the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional basis for ObamaCare, Jackson Lee said repealing the law by passing Republicans’ H.R. 2 violates both the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Say what?  Frankly, anyone with a elementary school civics class under their belt could see thorough this convoluted and daft bit of nonsense. The ignorance in that “argument” (not to mention the logic) is appalling.  But it seemed to be a sort of desperation talking point that some Democrats adopted as their “defense” of the law.  John Lewis also invoked the 14th Amendment as a reason for keeping ObamaCare – oh, and the Declaration of Independence thinking he was quoting the preamble to the Constitution:

“Well, when you start off with the Preamble of the Constitution, you talk about the pursuit of happiness," said Lewis. "You go to the 14th Amendment–it’s equal protection under the law and we have not repealed the 14th Amendment. People have a right to have health care. It’s not a privilege but a right."

Of course it’s not the Preamble to the Constitution that talks about the “pursuit of happiness” at all, it’s the Declaration of Independence.  You’d think a lawmaker would know that.  But then you’d also think he’d know what constitutes a “right” and what doesn’t wouldn’t you?  Obviously though, that’s hoping for too much.

Some Democrats insisted on civil discourse to broadcast their unhappiness with the Republican effort to repeal ObamaCare.  Like Rep. Steve Cohen:

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it.  Like blood libel.  That’s the same kind of thing. “

[…]

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust.  We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care.  Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,"

Yup … Democrats can jam something through that the American people were clear they didn’t want using every Parliamentary trick in the book, but when the GOP steps up to repeal it, they’re Nazis.  Nice Steve – really nice.  You sound like Alan Grayson.

Speaking of Alan Grayson, he’s still puking up nonsense.  Apparently he didn’t get the memo that the “blame Sarah Palin for Tucson” narrative is a big FAIL.  You remember Mr. Civil Discourse, don’t you?  The guy who said “"If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly?"  Yeah, him:

"As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats," Grayson wrote in the email. "Gabby warned against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist,” he wrote."

And as most of us observed while you were in Congress, to include the voters in your former district, you’re a loon, Mr. Grayson.  However he’s a loon who somehow found his way to Congress for a while.  Says something about our low standards, doesn’t it?  And it also points to how seriously Democrats are about embracing “civil discourse”, wouldn’t you say?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

42 Responses to House repeals ObamaCare and Democrats are, well, acting like Democrats

  • As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats,”

    >>> Yet this clown, who should be a prine target, has been incident free?   LOL meme self-fail

  • So – we’re killing Americans in the future right?  Because most of the provisions don’t start taking effect until after Obobo is out of office (I hope).

     

    • A case I’ve been making for the longest–
      Obama told us 30,000 Americans would die each year for lack of ObamaCare…
      yet he crassly had it only kick in years from NOW.
      So, he either 1) lied about the deaths of Americans as a cynical manipulation of the people, or 2) he’s willing to see 150,000+ die for a purely political calculation.
      Not pretty, any which way.

  • As a Texan, I apologize for Sheila Jackson-Lee.  Again.  Some more.
    Put it down to our effort to “Hire The Handicapped”…and the sad racial voting of some of my fellow Texans.
    You got the part where she is carrying around her own props for on-camera interviews, right?

  • Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Enron) is just the latest Congresscritter to make ridiclous statements.
    She joins Hank “Guam capsizing” Johnson in an effort to wear the House “Dunce” hat.

  • The Best and the Brightest!

    Jeebus…

    “Well, when you start off with the Preamble of the Constitution, you talk about the pursuit of happiness,” said Lewis. “You go to the 14th Amendment–it’s equal protection under the law and we have not repealed the 14th Amendment. People have a right to have health care. It’s not a privilege but a right.”

    OK, Dopey.  What if I told you that my “pursuit of happiness” (how have I missed THAT in the Constitution all these years???) depended on being taxed less and having my health care choices left SOLEY to me, without any federal government interference or regulation at all?

    OBAMACARE IS ROBBING ME OF MY GOD-GIVEN PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!!!

    And what if I said that I believe that the tax code totally violates the equal protection clause because I am taxed at a higher rate than other people?

    OBAMACARE IS DEPRIVING ME OF MY EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!

    Say… There’s something in these arguments!

    “As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats,” Grayson wrote in the email. “Gabby warned against it, and then became a terrible victim of it.”

    Would it be too much to ask this a**-clown for actual evidence?  Aside from the testimony of the voices in his head, that is.

    But what am I saying?  liberals don’t need no stinkin’ EVIDENCE!

  • Republicans must raise the issue in the House, vote on it and make the Democratic controlled Senate kill it or, if it happens to somehow slip through the Senate, make Obama veto it.

    I assume that it is the former.  Force the issue so that House and Senate voters must take a clear and final stand on the issue prior to the 2012 elections.  If the Senate votes for repeal, it will seem as if Obama’s own party has abandoned him and placed the issue into his hands.  I can’t imagine that he’d survive the 2012 primaries if Democrats left him hanging like that on health care reform.

    • Watch for parliamentary shenanigans on the part of Harry Reid.

      • Yeah, that whole “It’s wrong not to have a vote!” meme the left was flogging a few months ago will last about as long as a hotdog around a hungry Michael Moore.

        Really, this bugs me: politicians are just SOOOO hypocritical and SOOOO dishonest.  The rest of us Most of us would never consider changing positions so quickly and transparently, but it’s apparently par for the course in DC.  Today it’s undemocratic and just plain wrong not to bring an issue to a vote; tomorrow it’s unconstitutional and a waste of time to vote on something that “can’t possible pass”.  Today the fillibuster is an outdated and undemocratic brake on progress; tomorrow, it’s a sacred institution and a necessary protection of the rights of the minority (and, yes, I’m VERY aware that the GOP does the same thing).

        Sheesh.

        • I disagree that the GOP “does the same thing”. Certainly some in the GOP have tried to have it both ways, but not to the same extent, not so blantently, and many in the GOP remained firm on principle. IIRC, the “Contract with America” included provisions that gave power to the minority, and the GOP followed through with it, as one example.
          The Dems are all about winning, all of the time, with VERY FEW exceptions (I’m thinking Liberman, Zed Miller, and . . . uh, maybe I’ll think of another . . .). GOP isn’t perfect, but still stands in stark contrast.

          • While I definitely prefer the GOP over the democrats, I say in response simply:

            “Nuclear Option”

    • If I were a Democrat up for re-election in anything other than the “bluest of blue” states, I would let it go to Obama to veto.
      Triangulation is a three way street.

  • So is Cohen admitting that Palin’s use of “blood libel” is OK?

  • And now 26 states have officially joined the law suit against it’s Constitutionality in Florida (even though the ‘States have no standing’  guffaw guffaw guffaw)

  • Two things are relevant about this. First, while the Supreme Court is not required to look at the will of the people, they have before and they are allowed to. This may factor into their decision on the Constitutionality of the health insurance fee. We the People is actually in the actual-factual Constitution, after all. Secondly, the threshold for a purely-State driven constitutional convention is 34. If 34 states join the suit, it is more efficient to simply call a convention and make the provision unconstitutional, unambiguously. However much Democrats may whistle in the dark, this is a big problem for them, and, again, this fact may also not escape the notice of the Court.

    • Oh, also, historically the credible threat of a Convention has tended to make Congress do things it would otherwise not. However much the Democrats in the Senate may not want to repeal Obamacare and however much the President may not want to let that go without a veto, they want to avoid a Constitutional Convention with the current political environment (and probably an even worse climate for them by the time this happened) about three to four times more! This isn’t over. It may politically suit the Democrats to claim that it is, but it’s a smokescreen, not an accurate call.

  • The worst part about Representative Lee is she’s a god damn lawyer.
    I mean, she got a JD from a real law school (Virgina, ranked #10 by USNews).
    How do you do that and still make that argument about the 14th Amendment?
    Does she actually not know how wrong it is? And if not, how the hell did she manage to get a law degree?
    Or, does she know she’s full of it, and she’s just willing to lie, hoping it works?
    (I assume incompetence for now, because it’s more charitable than wickedness.)

    • Civility forfends an answer…
      And it is REALLY hurting me…

    • can you say, affirmative action?

    • Well, perhaps her area of expertise is NOT the Constitution.  I happen to know some lawyers (I’m not saying I hang out with them, you understand; just pass the time of day and so forth when I can’t avoid them!), and I get the impression that lawyers are like many other professionals: experts in a narrow area of their broader profession, but not so hot in areas that they don’t have to deal with on a daily basis.  For example, I might want John Edwards working for me if I wanted to file a medical malpractice suit but I’m not so sure that he’d be the right guy to handle things if I had a problem with my taxes or wanted to buy a piece of commercial real estate.

      That being said, what’s the Constitution to a democrat?  As we saw when the House actually read it, it’s just an old document written by a bunch of slave owners that really has no bearing on the problems facing our country today.  Kind of like the Bible is to them, really: something you keep around to show that you are good folks, but not something to be taken seriously.

  • “Well, when you start off with the Preamble of the Constitution, you talk about the pursuit of happiness”

    This is the heart of one of those “sucker” questions about civics that Leno would use.

  • Can any of you explain to me what is so bad about the following provision: Policyholders cannot be charged extra for seeking urgent care at an emergency room that is not in the insurance company’s approved network of providers? Or the one stating that no child can be denied insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition? I think these parts are beneficial to ordinary people and should be preserved. That’s why I think that the repeal of the whole bill is simply wrong.

    • A) So the insurance companies have to play by a set of rules but the insured don’t? Hey, if the insurance company can charge the person who goes to the unapproved emergency room the difference, I have no problem with it. I object when the insurance company spreads the cost over it’s pool of insured by way of higher premiums because some chose to ignore the conditions under which they accepted the insurance.

      B) None of the government’s business. Had government stayed out of wage and price freezes in WWII which led to employer based insurance (as a means of enticing employees) the health insurance industry would most likely have evolved as a national business (like other insurance products) w/large pools of insured making the risk of taking those with pre-existing conditions minimal. That said, since we have to live with a government distorted industry, how about high-risk pools and have those who need such insurance pay for it? Is that too much to ask? Because you see, health care isn’t a right – not when others have to pay for it and/or provide it.

      • I agree.

        Without the government tax rules, likely ordinary care would all be paid out of pocket, since insurance for such a thing makes no sense. In a properly operating market, the only health insurance would be for high cost but uncommon conditions: long term care, expensive emergency care, etc.

    • Jay,

      McQ nailed it, bu keep in mind what you are asking is for the government to mandate free benifits for someone or other (sympathetic someones no doubt). Even minor free benifits are . . . free benifits. But someone has to pay . . .

      • Free….there is NO free.  Everything costs something, whether it’s YOUR time/effort, or someone else’s time/effort,  your money, or someone else’s money.  Nothing is free, except perhaps the air we breath (which we’re working on handing over to the government under Cap & Trade).

    • You’re being played. They’re waving candy in front of your face while inviting you to get in the van. Yes, the candy is appealing. It would definitely be great if you could just take the candy, then not have to deal with the consequences. Not an option.

    • “Or the one stating that no child can be denied insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition?”
      Because that is not insurance. Insurance is based on probabilities and statistics. Selling a health insurance policy that covers a pre-existing condition is like selling a life insurance policy to a dead person.

      Be honest. Call it welfare or charity, not insurance.

      • BINGO!  Excellent point.

        At any rate, I’m sure that the insurance companies would be willing to sell health insurance to people with preexisting conditions albeit at higher rates (perhaps MUCH higher).  After all, people with diabetes, heart disease, etc. get health insurance all the time, though it may cost them more than it does for the 25 year-old in the pink of physical condition.

      • Furthermore – denial of health INSURANCE is NOT the same as denial of HEALTH CARE.

        People keep making statements which clearly indicate they think the two ARE THE SAME.
         

  • Don’t let the left dictate to us that the House repeal vote was a waste of time, folks:
    http://reformaliberal.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/an-invitation-to-debate-the-obamacare-repeal-efforts/