This is the first of a series on the history of Progressive’s greatest triumph - Obamacare
Its very name, whichever version you choose, belies the corrupt nature of big government. Its given name is pure propaganda because it is neither affordable nor does it improve care for the majority of Americans. Even if its convoluted unsustainable subsidy system provides more affordable care to a small part of the citizenry, it does so by being unaffordable for the nation as a whole. Ironically, like much of the left’s applied ideology, it actually undermines one of the tenants of collectivism by hurting the many for the few.
If you choose the more popular “Obamacare” nameplate, that too is a lie. Obama neither drafted the law or for that matter ran for president by endorsing its key components. In fact, during his hope and change campaign he was extremely critical of what became Obamacare’s most contentious component: the mandate.
Obama said, “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance.” Instead of going that route, his plan, he said, “emphasizes lowering costs.”
Obama held that position throughout the campaign. Elect Hillary, he said, and the government will compel you to buy health insurance. Elect me, and I’ll give you lower costs and let you keep your freedom.
One Obama TV ad drove the point home: “Hillary Clinton’s attacking, but what’s she not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”
How could Obama so forcefully take one position on an issue to be elected; then as president, use all of his political power to advocate for that position which just months before he had so adamantly opposed? For this president, as an arch-progressive politician, that is just how you play the game. A lie to “progress” your agenda is all that matters; as that is what progressivism is, progressing the agenda regardless of the methods used.
Every step of the way, Obamacare was and remains a textbook example of progressivism’s lies and manipulation. It is both fitting and ironic that Obamacare is officially entitled an “Act” and not a law. Just as King George and his parliament passed acts which imposed duties upon the reviled colonists, Obama and his congress passed an “Act” upon the American people despite persistent and continued opposition. As opposition to Obamacare continues, it might be beneficial to recall how progressives imposed this “Act” on Americans and how their strategies corrupted – and continues to corrupt – our constitutional form of government.
The tax that is not, then is
In 2009 the House of Representatives unanimously passed the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” and sent it over to the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) used this uncontroversial and totally unrelated House Bill as a vehicle for the Senate Healthcare Bill by attaching the Finance committee’s bill to it as a 3,000 page amendment.
The ramification of this parliamentary shenanigans is still being played out in the courts. Chief Justice Roberts in his infamous ruling declared Obamacare constitutional as tax legislation rather than the regulatory legislation it was sold and passed as being under the Commerce Clause. Due to this particular deception it is still being contested in courts as a violation of the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
Anyone who followed the debate at the time is fully aware that what we know as Obamacare came directly out of the Senate first and then went to the House. The famous “Cornhusker Kickback” the “Louisiana Purchase” and a host of other deals which Reid used to get sixty votes all occurred before Nancy Pelosi got her hands on the bill – so obviously the bill “originated” in the Senate.
In what is one of the greatest examples of public deception and parliamentary terrorism, the Democrats and Obama vehemently denied that Obamacare was a tax, both to keep Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class and to keep up the charade of adhering to constitutional constraints. ....