The Orwellian World of the Affordable Care Act
From Daniel Henninger, read it and weep:
The ACA calls the act of purchasing insurance a “required contribution.” Naturally, many will wonder if they can get out of this. That depends on the meaning of “required contribution,” as defined in “Chapter 48—Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage, (e) Exemptions, (B) Required contributions:
“For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘required contribution’ means . . .: (ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to purchase minimum essential coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange in the State in the rating area in which the individual resides (without regard to whether the individual purchased a qualified health plan though the Exchange), reduced by the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered by a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange for the entire taxable year).”
We had to pass the 2,700 page law in order to find out what is in it. ^^ That ^^ kind of crap is in it. “Required” contribution?
Remember when Obama acted as a uniter? A new type of politician? Yea, me neither. It’s been a tough week for those of us living in reality:
What the president said, then, was so ill-informed, so ignorant, that people assumed he must know better. There’s no way we can know. But whatever the case, this has been quite a bad stretch for the president. His comments about the Supreme Court, when combined with his astonishingly dishonest attack on the House GOP budget (see here for more), portray a president who is living in a fantasy world — a place where facts and history are inverted, lies become truth, where everything is subordinated to ambition and you simply make things up as you go along. Nietzsche referred to this mindset as the “will to power.” In American politics it’s known as The Chicago Way.
I don’t know what the political effect of all this will be. But intellectually, this is the week where Barack Obama jumped the shark. In a deep, fundamental way, he is no longer a serious man. Nor an honest one. His public words are now purposefully bleached of truth. And that is a painful thing to have to say about an American president.
So, WHAT is he doing? This inflammatory, ridiculous rhetoric? Idiotic statements attacking the Supreme Court? Is he appealing to his base? Although they are content with him strong they could turn on a dime should the ACA go down.
As we noted in our August essay, “Everyone loves a winner, and progressives are angry and disconsolate with Mr. Obama because they increasingly see him as a loser.” If the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, Obama will be a loser again. If he shows what normal people regard as due deference to a coequal branch of government, the Angry Left will see him as a weak loser and may turn their anger against him.
And think of how furious they’ll be if the entire law–which is really the only major progressive “accomplishment” of Obama’s presidency–is struck down because the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The left doesn’t even like the individual mandate. They had to swallow an idea that came from the Heritage Foundation and that enriches the hated insurance companies, as the price for “health care reform,” and now they’re not even getting that. Such indignity!
If this theory is right, then Obama is attacking the Supreme Court in order to deflect the rage of his own followers. He has a problem with his base, all right, and he wants to turn it into someone else’s problem.
Which means he’s going to continue on this vein until November.