Obamacare and Malice

Hanlon’s Razor says: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Many people believed that Obamacare was the result of stupidity, but it was far from it. It was in every instance pure political malice.


“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”

The architect of the Affordable Care Act worked in concert with members of the Obama administration and the democrats in Congress to forge a bill deliberately designed to take control of one sixth of the economy and place the healthcare of the American people under the control of the central government.

In an article, “Health Care: 100 Years of Creeping Government Control” the symptom of outrageous prices as a function of too much government is examined as the underlying cause. It speculates that  A police state is a “state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population.”  The micromanagement and control over entire industries — such as health care — is categorically part of the development of a police state.  The ongoing market manipulations and monopolistic regulations have had a variety of consequences on economic and social freedoms. Given what we have seen in the behaviors and attitudes that have accompanied the last six years of the Obama Presidency, we can see that there have been efforts on many fronts to take over many aspects of the lives of our citizens. This has been their major effort thus far.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
This validates much of what critics have said about the health care law, and the tactics used to pass it, for years.

In the late summer of 2010, after ObamaCare was signed into law, the IRS assembled a working group, made up of career IRS and Treasury employees, to develop regulations around the ACA subsidies. The working group initially decided to follow the text of the law so an early draft of the rule on subsidies stated that they were for “Exchanges established by the State.”
In March 2011, Emily McMahon, acting assistant secretary for tax policy at Treasury (a political hire), saw a news article noting a growing legal focus on the meaning of that text. She forwarded it to the working group, which decided to elevate the issue, according to Congress’s report to “senior IRS and Treasury officials.” The office of the IRS chief counsel, one of two positions appointed by the president, drafted a memo telling the group that it should read the text to mean that everyone, in every exchange, got subsidies. At some point between March 10 and March 15, 2011, the reference to “Exchanges established by the State” disappeared from the draft rule.

Emails viewed by congressional investigators nonetheless showed that Treasury and the IRS remained worried they were breaking the law. An email exchange between Treasury employees in the spring of 2011 expressed concern that they had no statutory authority to deem a federally run exchange the equivalent of a state-run exchange.

Judge Andrew Napolitano addressing the vagueness of the law said, “There’s a principle of law that the Supreme Court is certainly familiar with, and that is when a statute is vague, it is interpreted with presumptions against the drafter.”

The trajectory of the subsidy design lay in the certain knowledge because of the way the ACA was designed that premiums would of a necessity be high and would increase at a higher rate than they had previously despite the claims of the President and members of his administration. This was because everyone was being forced to pay for medical care that was being used by everyone though not necessarily by they themselves. So the citizenry was placed in the position by the manner of the laws writing of being dependent on the state to provide subsidies in order to be able to afford the healthcare premiums, and that “by not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars. That is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that. If your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.” In essence it becomes a form of blackmail by the government toward the states with the citizens as the victims.

What’s become self evident however is that because of the flawed design of this healthcare bill and the deeply flawed implementation, it was doomed to fail from the beginning. The assertion that it could only pass because the American people were stupid is also flawed because the bill has never had a majority of support and has only ever been supported and voted for by the left. What’s more, it’s continued to demonstrate it’s failures and been an Albatross around the neck of democrats consistently helping to bring them down and destroy their hold not only on the body politic, but on their constituencies as well.

At the end of the day there is only one of two conclusions to be drawn and either leaves democrats in a very bad light. Either democrats knew this was a lir from the beginning and voted for it as a matter of loyalty and knowingly against the interests of the American people, and therefore demonstrating malice toward them and seeking to corrupt the body politic and corrupt the state, or they are so stupid that they simply did the bidding of their leaders without question and showed they are little more than Lemming. Either way they have been shown to be little more than fools who have no loyalty to their country or their people, but are malicious little cronies who are corrupt and set on the acquisition of power and money for their own benefit. Indeed, what a corrupt little den of vipers.

Comments are closed.