OBAMACARE LOSES A ROUND

...and Kathleen Sebelius Channels Lewis Carroll & George Orwell

by: brian watt | published: 12 14, 2010

As the great Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over” but kudos are in order to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for delivering a solid punch to the solar plexus of Obamacare (which may call for a trip to the legal emergency room) thanks to the decision of District Court Judge Henry Hudson who has ruled today that the new healthcare law is unconstitutional in three areas including on the individual mandate that’s part of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision. In his summary judgment of Virginia v. Sebelius, the honorable Henry Hudson agrees with the Commonwealth of Virginia that Obamacare does indeed exceed the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and conflicts with Virginia’s Health Care Freedom Act putting it in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

One of my favorite excerpts from Judge Hudson’s ruling is this (emphasis mine):

"Critical to the Secretary's argument is the notion that an individual's decision not to purchase health insurance is in effect "economic activity”...The Secretary (Kathleen Sebelius, Health & Human Services) rejects the Commonwealth's implied premise that a person can simply elect to avoid participation in the healthcare market. It is inevitable, in her view, that every individual - today or in the future - healthy or otherwise - will require medical care."

We're now in Lewis Carroll's and George Orwell's realm. Non-activity is really activity. A penalty for not participating in healthcare is not really a tax. 2 + 2 often equals 4 but occasionally does not – and contrary-wise.

“I've had nothing yet,” Alice replied in an offended tone: “so I can't take more.” “You mean you can't take less,” said the Hatter: “it's very easy to take more than nothing." — Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Kathleen Sebelius’ logic (and more than likely the Obama administration’s attorneys’ logic who prepared the defense of the suit) essentially says that my decision not to buy ice cream (substitute your own product or service) does have an impact on the greater ice cream market as a whole because it results in a percentage of ice cream NOT being purchased and because of this I’m actually engaging in the ice cream market even when I’m not buying ice cream. You see how this works?

Further, that those people also choosing not to purchase ice cream are essentially keeping the price high because demand is not driving the cost of ice cream down. Therefore, the federal government (Michelle Obama notwithstanding) should have the right to penalize me and those other non-ice-cream buyers for our non-participation in the ice cream market because we’re keeping it at a prohibitive cost for those who want to buy it but simply can't afford it and are forced to mooch off the rest of those Americans who do buy ice cream even actually stealing several licks or bites when nobody is looking. And we all know that sooner or later I and my fellow non-buyers of ice cream are eventually going to give into our cravings and break down and buy ice cream – so, who are we trying to kid?

This notion of “non-participation” really being “participation” is wonderful example of Orwellian newspeak (emphasismine again):

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy” – George Orwell, 1984

So, we all need to close our eyes and keep our fingers crossed – don’t try this while driving; you don’t want to end up in the hospital – and hope that Supreme Court upholds Judge Hudson’s ruling because if they don’t then we are looking at an out-of-control centrally-controlled economy where individual freedoms will continue to be trampled upon by the federal government and where we could anticipate that the federal government can then require Americans to purchase Chevy Volts...whether you want one or not and whether you are licensed to drive or not…or whether you need one or not because you’ve been reading this on your smart phone while driving on the freeway.

add a comment