In today’s American Spectator I discuss the continuing depredations of the ironically titled “Affordable Care Act” as well as our President’s pathetic delusions about its permanence and efficacy:

Saturday morning, fresh from his latest victory over the rule of law, President Obama delivered his weekly address to the bored technicians and sycophantic aides who make up most of the audience for this anachronistic performance. His theme was as predictable as it was Orwellian: ‘The Affordable Care Act is working, and it is here to stay.’

The first claim fails to pass the laugh test. And, if you believe Supreme Court rulings are permanent, refer to another SCOTUS ruling much celebrated by Democrats—Plessy v. Ferguson. But Obamacare isn’t harmless:

That it is a failure by every standard set forth by its apologists is of no importance to the President or his fellow Democrats. They never cared what effect the law would have on the cost, quality, or availability of American medicine. It was never really about health care … What they wanted was power over our daily lives, and they knew that gaining control over our medical system was the fastest route to that destination.

It was easy to sell as a human right and offered a handy pretext for trampling genuine rights. And the President’s minions are making full use of that pretext. To read the rest of the column, click here.


For anyone interested in some actual facts about King v. Burwell (as opposed to the BS that you’ve been getting from the “news” media):

Via Cato


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the absurdity of the President’s claim that Obamacare is permanently woven into the nation’s social and medical fabric:

Obamacare’s apologists, tired of being laughed at for claiming “it’s working,” have adopted a new talking point that they hope will produce less mirth. They now claim the law is such an integral part of our health care system that it is no longer susceptible to repeal or even revision. As President Obama recently put it, “This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another … This is health care in America.”

This is a perfectly absurd claim to make about a law that has been in effect for only a year and a half. The President’s assertion is particularly ridiculous considering that Obamacare isn’t yet fully in force.

Some of its major provisions, the employer mandate for instance, have only been partially implemented. Others, like the “Cadillac tax, won’t go into effect until the President is conveniently out of office. These facts have not, of course, prevented Obama’s media sycophants from parroting the party line. The New York Times chimes in thus: “The Affordable Care Act … is now fully woven into the nation’s social fabric.”

A medical metaphor involving “metastasis” would be more accurate. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss an under-reported potential benefit of a SCOTUS ruling against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell:

The Democrats and their media allies have predicted wrack and ruin if the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, a decision that would stop the IRS from issuing Obamacare subsidies through federal insurance exchanges in three-dozen states. They have wildly exaggerated the inconvenience that such a ruling would cause a tiny percentage of the population and ignored the benefits that it would provide tens of millions of Americans.

One of these benefits would be the removal of PPACA’s dead weight from an economy whose first quarter performance suggests that the anemic Obama recovery may be stalling.

During the first 3 months of 2015, Gross Domestic Product contracted at an annual rate of 0.7 percent. And, euphoric “news” stories about the government’s May jobs report notwithstanding, this year’s monthly job gains remain well below last year’s average … Even if “reform,” isn’t solely to blame, there can be little doubt that removing its mandates from the backs of employers and workers in three-quarters of the states would stimulate the national economy.

And a SCOTUS ruling against the Obama administration would eliminate those job-killing mandates. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I point out that the much-publicized Obamacare overhead story was done by a couple of single-payer zealots famous for their phony studies:

During the past few days the legacy media and the internet have been flooded with news articles, editorials and blog posts with titles like “Overhead costs exploding under ObamaCare.” Sadly, when liberal and conservative publications are equally enthusiastic about breaking a story, it usually means the latter have been duped into promoting progressive propaganda. This case is no exception. The basis for these reports is a “study” produced by a couple of notorious lefty data diddlers.

The con artists in question are single-payer zealots David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler.

This pair co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), whose mission is to get the U.S. on a single-payer health care system, and their research is uniformly biased against the free market. The purpose of their Health Affairs post is to pitch a single-payer program based on the Medicare model as a replacement for Obamacare when it finally collapses. The overhead angle is just a Trojan horse used to sneak their statist infomercial into the editorial offices of conservative news outlets.

Beware of single-payer shills bearing gifts. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss how the price of “free health care” is about to go up … again:

In July of 2009, as the Obamacare debate was heating up, Gallup published a survey indicating that 83% of Americans wanted health care reform to make their health insurance more affordable. Now, more than five years after the President’s “signature domestic achievement” was passed, health insurance premiums are higher than ever. And it’s obvious that Obamacare is a major driver of the increase. The Wall Street Journal reports that insurers are proposing rate increases ranging from 25 to 51 percent for 2016. Why? ‘All of them cite high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act.’

Obamacare apologists suggest different causes, of course.

Jonathan Cohn writes, “One reason could be the normal and predictable competition among insurance plans jostling for market share.” Cohn’s grasp of economics is so tenuous that he doesn’t know insurers compete for market share by reducing premiums. He also connects the increases to anxiety about that bête noir of Obamacarians everywhere, King v. Burwell: “If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs … millions will drop their coverage because they will no longer be able to afford it.” Cohn evidently thinks insurers will respond by making insurance even less affordable.

The real reason for the proposed increases is that insurers now have real data on real Obamacare enrollees rather than implausible projections from the Obama administration.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I wonder if Rep. Tom Price can coax congressional Republicans out from under the bed with his eminently sensible plan to replace Obamacare:

The Supreme Court is probably about to hand congressional Republicans a once-in-a-lifetime chance to eradicate the Obamacare contagion from the body politic, but the GOP has been typically timorous concerning whether to take advantage of this opportunity. A refreshing exception to this poltroonery has been Tom Price, Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Price, who practiced medicine in Atlanta for twenty years before coming to Congress, has not only introduced an eminently viable replacement for the imploding health care “reform” law, but has also said he won’t support proposed legislation that would temporarily extend Obamacare subsidies that SCOTUS deems illegal.

The Democrats and their allies in the media have waged a vigorous propaganda campaign designed to convince Republicans that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs will put them in dire political jeopardy.

A number of GOP “leaders” have bought this balderdash. Senator Ron Johnson, for example, has introduced legislation to perpetuate the controversial Obamacare subsidies through 2017. Price has more intestinal fortitude. When questioned about his view of that option late last week, he replied thus: ‘I don’t think that I would be supportive of continuing the subsidies beyond what the Court would allow.’ Oddly enough, this puts him on the same page as the Republican base. As Greg Sargent reports, ‘A new poll finds that a solid majority of GOP respondents want the Court to nix subsidies … an even larger majority of Republicans want Congress not to update the law if the Court rules that way.’

If the Supreme Court rules that the IRS can’t funnel subsidies through federal exchanges, Price wants to pull the plug on Obamacare and replace it with his own alternative, the Empowering Patients First Act.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss Rand Paul’s complicity in covering up the brazen fraud that permits the congressional exemption from Obamacare to continue:

In every speech he has made since announcing his presidential bid, Rand Paul has vowed to repeal Obamacare. At a Las Vegas rally he put it thus: ‘I will make it my mission to heal this nation … and to repeal every last bit of Obamacare!’ But if Paul’s behavior in the Senate is any guide, this is empty rhetoric. Shortly after his Vegas speech, he aided the Democrats in obstructing an investigation into falsified documents submitted to the D.C. Small Business Exchange so that members of Congress and their staffers could receive subsidies to which they aren’t legally entitled.

That’s right. The great healer who pledges to cure the Obamacare contagion voted to protect the perpetrators of the scam. What a phony this guy is. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the ACTUAL record of the GOP on race as opposed to the propaganda put out by the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself):

Let’s begin at the beginning: The first Democrat president was Andrew Jackson, who was not merely pro-slavery. He personally owned 150 African-American slaves who worked his 1,000 acre cotton plantation. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. In addition to issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, he persuaded Congress to pass the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery throughout the U.S.

Sadly, Lincoln didn’t live to see the amendment become part of the Constitution because he was murdered by a Democrat before it was ratified by the requisite number of states.

After the failure of their attempt to preserve slavery by seceding from the Union, the Democrats … embarked on a campaign of domestic terror … Historian Eric Foner debunks a considerable amount of historical revisionism in A Short History of Reconstruction. For example, despite attempts by modern Democrats to associate the Republican Party with the KKK, Foner’s book contains this inconvenient fact: ‘The Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.’

And, so it went until Brown v. Board of Education, a ruling by SCOTUS when it was led by a Republican named Earl Warren. At this point in any comparison of the two parties, Democrats usually try to prevent further embarrassing revelations.

They claim that such contrasts are unfair because the two parties have somehow reversed their positions, leaving Democrats in possession of the moral high ground. According to this tale, all the racist Democrats defected to the GOP during the late 1960s. This is revisionist nonsense. In reality, virtually all of them remained Democrats, including those named above and other racist luminaries such as Russell Long, John Stennis, Herman Talmadge, Richard Russell, and Al Gore, Sr.

The best hope for African-Americans in Baltimore and other dysfunctional cities is to dump the Dems and put Republicans in charge of their local governments.To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the GOP’s dumb plan to let the Obama administration off the hook if SCOTUS rules that PPACA subsidies cannot be funneled through federal exchanges:

The GOP seems determined to reinforce its reputation as “the stupid party.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans plan to co-sponsor a piece of legislation introduced by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson that, as he recently admitted in the Wall Street Journal, would allow Obamacare subsidies issued through federal exchanges to continue for two more years—even if the Supreme Court declares them illegal.

This will not only mask the ill effects of the sloppily-written law, it will antagonize the voters who reinstated the GOP congressional majority last November, and provide yet more time for Obamacare to metastasize.

Senator Johnson and his co-sponsors have evidently fallen for the counterintuitive Democrat talking point, relentlessly repeated in the media, that a Supreme Court ruling against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell will harm the GOP … This problem was created by incompetent Democrat lawmakers, compounded by the illegal distribution of subsidies by an out-of-control IRS, and complicated even further by the refusal of the Obama administration to warn vulnerable enrollees of their peril.

Republicans should not be so anxious to rush in and prevent the victims of this Democrat skulduggery from feeling the resultant pain. To read the rest of the column, click here.