Calling John Galt

Whitehouse.gov has “pulled” its effort to get neighbors to snitch on each other for sharing “misinformation” about healthcare reform. From a post called “An Update on Reality Check“:

Since the White House’s Reality Check site launched, we’ve seen incredible response from individuals eager to get the facts about health insurance reform and pass them along to family and friends.

An ironic development is that the launch of an online program meant to provide facts about health insurance reform has itself become the target of fear-mongering and online rumors that are the tactics of choice for the defenders of the status quo.

So let’s clear up two issues that have come to our attention.

I would hope that those two issues might include the notion of asking people to turn in American citizens who have done nothing but exercise their freedom of speech. I would pray that complaining about the collection of data that could be construed as an “enemies list” (and certainly would be if the previous administration was still in place) would be called something other than fear-mongering.

I was wrong. The apologies are for:

1. Inadvertently adding people to the President’s e-mail blast list, and
2. .

Oh, wait. There was no second issue!

Seriously, read the post in its entirety, and tell me what the two issues were. It seems to be clear that one had to do with the integrity and security of the e-mail blast list. But was there an apology for making it “appear” as though they were asking for “dirt” on others? Nada.

In fact, the first apology also shifts blame! Look at this:

It has come to our attention that some people may have been subscribed to our email lists without their knowledge –- likely as a result of efforts by outside groups of all political stripes

What the hell? Apparently, it was the Astroturf lobbyists for the insurance industry who are to blame, for putting themselves on the list and being too dumb to realize they might get emails from the White House Reality Check Team!

Instead, here are some self-serving back-slaps about just how awesome this whole administration-led community organizing effort truly is:

• we’ve seen incredible response from individuals eager to get the facts about health insurance reform
• However, it’s clear that a lot of Americans appreciate getting updates from the White House and that number continues to grow.
• Despite reports by some bloggers and others in the media that have invoked a variety of sinister conspiracy theories, more people signed up for updates last week than during the entire month of July.
• we’ve seen incredible response from website visitors who are using the tools provided on the site to share videos and other content with friends and family.
• The Reality Check website exists to inform public debate about health insurance reform – not stifle it.

The last one is rather funny, because the site is not about hosting or fostering a debate. Those running the site made up their minds a long time ago, and have no interest in other opinions.

The one about “more people signed up for updates last week than in the month of July” is hilarious, because the infamous flag@whitehouse.gov email address was launched August 4.

Hey… what about that email address? If you send anything to it now, it will bounce back to you. However, there is now this nifty contact form on the page, which is the same sort of webform that one would use to create a back-end email, but legally it is not an email.

So, what was missing?

• An acknowledgment that it was an abuse of power to ask citizens to report each others’ activities to the Oval Office
• An apology for same
• A pledge to find some means of discarding that data, within the law
• Any culpability whatsoever.

Arrogance?

Even if it were to pass, is Obamacare constitutional?

Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories.

To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go.

More at the link >>

Canadians themselves are starting to doubt their own system and know something needs to be done.

This piece ran in The Independent from London:

They came in their thousands, queuing through the night to secure one of the coveted wristbands offering entry into a strange parallel universe where medical care is a free and basic right and not an expensive luxury. Some of these Americans had walked miles simply to have their blood pressure checked, some had slept in their cars in the hope of getting an eye-test or a mammogram, others had brought their children for immunisations that could end up saving their life.

In the week that Britain’s National Health Service was held aloft by Republicans as an “evil and Orwellian” example of everything that is wrong with free healthcare, these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood, California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

So, the mere fact that people will line up for something that is free is somehow proof that it ought to be publicly paid for?

Let’s think about this for a second.

If I set up shop in the LA Forum for a week offering free automobiles, how many people would come from hours away? Would the teeming throngs constitute “proof” that we should socialize transportation?

If I set up in the LA Forum for a week offering free steaks and beer, how many people would show up? Would the numbers arriving be prima facie evidence that the government ought to pay for everyone’s lunch?

If there were a gun show in the LA Forum sometime in the near future, and vendors started offering free ammunition, I wonder what Guy Adams would write…

A government that promises free lollipops will fulfill that pledge by stealing candy from babies.

Ed Koch has some issues with Obamacare:

In order to keep costs from rising, most people acknowledge the need for some kind of limitations on spending. Rationing of public monies makes sense, e.g., should public monies be used to give a kidney or heart transplant to a 90-year-old patient, when it is necessary to reduce the costs of Medicaid and Medicare to keep them solvent? Both programs are totally government funded and operated. I would say no.Then the question becomes what about private funds being used by an individual willing to buy gold-plated insurance to provide unlimited medical expenditures for their health and survival? Should the government be able to limit such expenditures? My answer would be no.

Of course, I have some issues with Ed Koch’s approach as well, but it is interesting how the loss of support for Obamacare is becoming much more bipartisan. He did say that he would bring everyone together, though I am sure this isn’t exactly what he meant.

Get your anti-Obama button here.

Some “fishy” comments on Healthcare.

Congress may scrap the extra Gulfstreams…

Thanks to Don Surber >>