ObamaCare Is Not a Covenant - It's a Law, and It Can Be Repealed

Rick Newman of Yahoo! Finance offers his solutions to "fix" ObamaCare in his November 6 column.  In his opening statement, you will find all you need to know about how the media perceive its immovable status as law:

As clumsy as the launch of the Affordable Care Act has been, the law is here to stay.  But its numerous provisions aren't written in stone and President Obama himself has said he's willing to change the law in the future in order to make it work better.

"Clumsy" doesn't quite capture what the ObamaCare rollout has been, but this is what passes for harsh criticism among mainstream pundits.  More correctly, the launch has been an incompetent and hopeless failure, and that fact is so obvious that Barack Obama, who is not known for his humility, has no other choice beyond admitting that he's open and willing to make changes in his flagship legislation for it to "work better."  Which is akin to me saying that I'd be willing to have a mechanic look at my car and make some changes because it hasn't started in weeks, the brakes and steering column don't appear operative, and I can expect that what I'll be paying in gas if it does crank up will cripple me financially due to its bulky engine design, which obviously wasn't thought out very well.   

In both cases, a resolution to make "changes" to improve functionality is less a sign of humility and level-headedness and more a sign of, and natural reaction to, poor decision-making.  And sometimes, when a poor decision is made in selecting vehicles, it's smarter and less costly to buy a new car than rebuild a lemon.  At the very least, it should be an option taken into consideration.

But that's not how it works with legislation, particularly when Democrats and their media support are pot-committed to see that the lemon will one day work just like they promised -- even if it takes every dime of your money to do it.  The above quote perfectly exemplifies what I mean.  ObamaCare's "numerous provisions" (countless for mere mortals, and apparently unreadable by legislators) are "not written in stone," but ObamaCare itself is now as much a fixture in American law as the stars are fixtures in the sky.  It's "here to stay," Rick Newman proclaims, parroting the mantra that opponents of ObamaCare have endured these past years when we've presented the reasons for our opposition.

"It's the law" and "it's here to stay" are statements presented as legitimate arguments, but in reality, they are nothing more than assumptions founded in ignorance, predicated on magnificent and malignant fallacy.

If laws passed by one Congress, or signed by one president, or upheld by one Court were actually meant to be eternal fixtures binding future congresses, presidents, and courts, one might wonder why our Founders didn't chisel the laws they created on a stone beneath a giant statue of Washington, or why the Founders wouldn't prohibit any future provision to amend those laws via constitutional protocol.

We should be eternally grateful that they didn't, shouldn't we?  For example, many laws allowing or broadening the institution of slavery were passed by Congress in the 19th century; presidents signed them into law, and the Court of 1857 deemed slavery a constitutional right in the Dred Scott ruling.  Should those laws and that ruling have bound American officials in future legislation barring slavery?  Prohibition was so clearly understood to be a mistake that required repealing that future lawmakers took it upon themselves to do so, feeling unbound to somehow "make it work" because "it's the law."  Should they have done so, or should they have felt bound by previous lawmakers?

Ironically, this is not a concept lost on modern leftists.  The Defense of Marriage Act was indeed "the law," passed by Congress and signed by Democrat demigod Bill Clinton, yet they didn't at all see it as an enduring and timeless covenant with the American people in 2013, and they celebrated the judicial activism which heralded its end.

Ah, but the Voting Rights Act was indeed "the law," immovable and unamendable, and so they became enraged at the judicial activism which lifted certain penalizing provisions upon individual states deemed to have a history of "prejudice." 

Leftists' selectivity about which laws can and can't be changed is among the most marvelous of hypocrisies.  My guess is that had Justice Roberts not concocted the unique appraisal that a penalty for not purchasing insurance is somehow a "tax," and had the individual mandate been deemed unconstitutional, leftists would be similarly enraged. 

To be fair, we are all drawn by our ideologies to have an affinity for this law or that one.  But the law is meant to be a counterbalance to our passions and a means of correcting mistakes, aware as our Founders were that men are not infallible.  And if we still deem ObamaCare a mistake and an overreach of federal authority into state jurisdiction, as millions upon millions of us have concluded, we still have the absolute right to exercise our liberty by repealing it.  The squawking voices in the media and among Democrats will continue to appraise it as an eternal covenant that can never be broken, hoping that Americans will one day just wake up and buy into that lie as easily as they had once bought into Barack Obama's lie that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted. 

But when the 27-year-old young professional has his federal tax return significantly diminished because he doesn't want to pay an exorbitant price on the ObamaCare exchanges to finance someone else's risk, he needs to know that he can have it better, and that ObamaCare can be repealed.  When a 40-year-old father of four has his spousal insurance coverage dropped and his wife goes on those exchanges because his company either cannot provide or refuses to provide her coverage in accordance with the law, he needs to know that it can be repealed.  When a 60-year-old woman sees her premiums increase because she now has to pay for maternity services she'll never use, or abortion services and contraceptives not only that she will never use, but that she disagrees with in principle, she has to know that ObamaCare can still be repealed. 

But here's the catch: it has to be repealed soon.  A decade will be far too long, because as I've argued before, and as history clearly shows, once entitlement services or payments become expectations, it will not matter how broken the system is in the future, or who has to pay, or how much has to be paid to keep the system in place.  The system will indeed become a fixture, however malignant, just as federal welfare infrastructure is today.  More people than ever before will be receiving these and other entitlements, and they will be entirely dependent upon the government to secure their benefits by any means necessary, including the forceful extraction from the government's taxpaying benefactors -- which could ultimately prove to be a recipe for civil chaos, if not eventual civil war.

We still have time to undo this madness.  But not much.

William Sullivan blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com and can be followed on Twitter.

Rick Newman of Yahoo! Finance offers his solutions to "fix" ObamaCare in his November 6 column.  In his opening statement, you will find all you need to know about how the media perceive its immovable status as law:

As clumsy as the launch of the Affordable Care Act has been, the law is here to stay.  But its numerous provisions aren't written in stone and President Obama himself has said he's willing to change the law in the future in order to make it work better.

"Clumsy" doesn't quite capture what the ObamaCare rollout has been, but this is what passes for harsh criticism among mainstream pundits.  More correctly, the launch has been an incompetent and hopeless failure, and that fact is so obvious that Barack Obama, who is not known for his humility, has no other choice beyond admitting that he's open and willing to make changes in his flagship legislation for it to "work better."  Which is akin to me saying that I'd be willing to have a mechanic look at my car and make some changes because it hasn't started in weeks, the brakes and steering column don't appear operative, and I can expect that what I'll be paying in gas if it does crank up will cripple me financially due to its bulky engine design, which obviously wasn't thought out very well.   

In both cases, a resolution to make "changes" to improve functionality is less a sign of humility and level-headedness and more a sign of, and natural reaction to, poor decision-making.  And sometimes, when a poor decision is made in selecting vehicles, it's smarter and less costly to buy a new car than rebuild a lemon.  At the very least, it should be an option taken into consideration.

But that's not how it works with legislation, particularly when Democrats and their media support are pot-committed to see that the lemon will one day work just like they promised -- even if it takes every dime of your money to do it.  The above quote perfectly exemplifies what I mean.  ObamaCare's "numerous provisions" (countless for mere mortals, and apparently unreadable by legislators) are "not written in stone," but ObamaCare itself is now as much a fixture in American law as the stars are fixtures in the sky.  It's "here to stay," Rick Newman proclaims, parroting the mantra that opponents of ObamaCare have endured these past years when we've presented the reasons for our opposition.

"It's the law" and "it's here to stay" are statements presented as legitimate arguments, but in reality, they are nothing more than assumptions founded in ignorance, predicated on magnificent and malignant fallacy.

If laws passed by one Congress, or signed by one president, or upheld by one Court were actually meant to be eternal fixtures binding future congresses, presidents, and courts, one might wonder why our Founders didn't chisel the laws they created on a stone beneath a giant statue of Washington, or why the Founders wouldn't prohibit any future provision to amend those laws via constitutional protocol.

We should be eternally grateful that they didn't, shouldn't we?  For example, many laws allowing or broadening the institution of slavery were passed by Congress in the 19th century; presidents signed them into law, and the Court of 1857 deemed slavery a constitutional right in the Dred Scott ruling.  Should those laws and that ruling have bound American officials in future legislation barring slavery?  Prohibition was so clearly understood to be a mistake that required repealing that future lawmakers took it upon themselves to do so, feeling unbound to somehow "make it work" because "it's the law."  Should they have done so, or should they have felt bound by previous lawmakers?

Ironically, this is not a concept lost on modern leftists.  The Defense of Marriage Act was indeed "the law," passed by Congress and signed by Democrat demigod Bill Clinton, yet they didn't at all see it as an enduring and timeless covenant with the American people in 2013, and they celebrated the judicial activism which heralded its end.

Ah, but the Voting Rights Act was indeed "the law," immovable and unamendable, and so they became enraged at the judicial activism which lifted certain penalizing provisions upon individual states deemed to have a history of "prejudice." 

Leftists' selectivity about which laws can and can't be changed is among the most marvelous of hypocrisies.  My guess is that had Justice Roberts not concocted the unique appraisal that a penalty for not purchasing insurance is somehow a "tax," and had the individual mandate been deemed unconstitutional, leftists would be similarly enraged. 

To be fair, we are all drawn by our ideologies to have an affinity for this law or that one.  But the law is meant to be a counterbalance to our passions and a means of correcting mistakes, aware as our Founders were that men are not infallible.  And if we still deem ObamaCare a mistake and an overreach of federal authority into state jurisdiction, as millions upon millions of us have concluded, we still have the absolute right to exercise our liberty by repealing it.  The squawking voices in the media and among Democrats will continue to appraise it as an eternal covenant that can never be broken, hoping that Americans will one day just wake up and buy into that lie as easily as they had once bought into Barack Obama's lie that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted. 

But when the 27-year-old young professional has his federal tax return significantly diminished because he doesn't want to pay an exorbitant price on the ObamaCare exchanges to finance someone else's risk, he needs to know that he can have it better, and that ObamaCare can be repealed.  When a 40-year-old father of four has his spousal insurance coverage dropped and his wife goes on those exchanges because his company either cannot provide or refuses to provide her coverage in accordance with the law, he needs to know that it can be repealed.  When a 60-year-old woman sees her premiums increase because she now has to pay for maternity services she'll never use, or abortion services and contraceptives not only that she will never use, but that she disagrees with in principle, she has to know that ObamaCare can still be repealed. 

But here's the catch: it has to be repealed soon.  A decade will be far too long, because as I've argued before, and as history clearly shows, once entitlement services or payments become expectations, it will not matter how broken the system is in the future, or who has to pay, or how much has to be paid to keep the system in place.  The system will indeed become a fixture, however malignant, just as federal welfare infrastructure is today.  More people than ever before will be receiving these and other entitlements, and they will be entirely dependent upon the government to secure their benefits by any means necessary, including the forceful extraction from the government's taxpaying benefactors -- which could ultimately prove to be a recipe for civil chaos, if not eventual civil war.

We still have time to undo this madness.  But not much.

William Sullivan blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com and can be followed on Twitter.

RECENT VIDEOS