Sunday, October 13, 2013

Ed Schultz Calls Mandated Obamacare Enrollment "the Free Market Working"

On his radio show, Schultz refers to government mandated Obamacare as the "free market", which is the complete antithesis of a free market

by Larry Simons
October 12, 2013

Recently, on Ed Schultz's radio show, the MSNBC host of The Ed Show addressed his viewers about the reported glitches and computer problems associated with the recent start of enrollment for Obamacare.

Schultz said (listen to the audio clip here):

"Now, the fact is, there isn't a business on the face of the earth that doesn't start without a glitch [I will assume he meant "...that starts without a glitch"]. What is a glitch? What do you consider a glitch? The biggest glitch would be people would be denied. I don't consider a 1-800 number you're not being able to get through a glitch. I would call that success. Because there's six months to do this. If I were calling 1-800 today, 1-800-318-2596, and if I had to wait on the line for half an hour I'd probably say, well I got other things I gotta do with my time, I got six more months to figure this thing out, I'll get back to 'em. And I would pay attention to just the phone traffic and I would try from time to time to get on. Eventually I know, I'd have confidence that I would get on. Is that a glitch? No! That's the free market working is what that is! A jammed phone line, holy smokes, we're got all these millions of Americans out there!"

Obviously, Schultz has no clue what the meaning of a "free market" is. The very textbook definition of "free market" is a "market structure in which a government has virtually no control in the buying and selling of goods and the setting of prices." It is based on supply and demand and the government or any designated body has no control over it.

Unfortunately, Obamacare does not fall under the category of a free market since it is completely regulated by the government. The government is overseeing its entire structure and they have hired over 16,000 additional IRS agents to implement it [that's right, the IRS is overseeing Obamacare, in order to financially penalize anyone who chooses to opt out of purchasing it]. The government sets the prices. The government will provide recipients with the choices of health care providers. The government also is mandating all uninsured people to purchase Obamacare, despite the fact that a free market is the choice not to purchase goods as well as to purchase them. The government couldn't be more involved in this.

Schultz laughingly calls enrollment in Obamacare a "success" because apparently enrollment is so high that it is making websites crash and causing long delays during enrollment over the phone. In what universe would anyone call any program that is mandated a "success"? That would be like calling everyone paying their taxes a "success" story, or anyone getting their drivers license to drive a car. Was Hitler's liquidation of the Jews a "success" to Schultz as well, since they were all forced at gunpoint to leave their homes, give up their guns and personal possessions?

What socialists like Ed Schultz will never tell his shrinking audience is just how unconstitutional Obamacare is.

For one, it violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and that Congress does not have the authority to require citizens to purchase healthcare [I will assume because the Commerce Clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, not among individual citizens]. The Supreme Court, however, still upheld the individual mandate under Congress' taxing authority. In other words, if the government deems Obamacare as a "tax", they can require citizens to pay. In my personal opinion, someone or even several people [among the Supreme Court justices] were bought off concerning Obamacare. They ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional originally, but then turned right around and called it constitutional by calling the refusal to purchase it a "tax".

I can't even begin to tell you how unconstitutional it is for the Supreme Court to give Congress this much power. As Judge Andrew Napolitano puts it, "Congress cannot say to anyone 'you cannot wear a blue tie', but Congress can fine you for not wearing the blue tie as long as it refers to the fine as a 'tax'. That is a power without limitation. Congress can now regulate any private behavior it wants as long as the penalty for not complying with Congress' regulation is a financial penalty and as long as you call that financial penalty a 'tax'".

Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling that the penalty for not enrolling in Obamacare will now be called a "tax", no one, and I mean no one involved in the origin and passage of this health care law called this a "tax". Not Obama himself, not Harry Reid, not one Democrat who voted for this law to pass called this a tax. ONLY the Supreme Court did. This is a major assault on States' rights and personal freedom, as socialists everywhere let out a collective yawn.

I am confident that, like Schultz's liberal counterparts Jon Stewart and Bill Maher who cry out "Obamacare is law! What part of this do Republicans [who they claim are responsible for the government shutdown] not understand?", Schultz also feels that, since Obamacare is law, it should automatically be accepted and funded. The unfortunate news for Democrats is that it is completely constitutional for Congress to not fund a law, no matter how old or new a law is.

Congress does not have to fund any law it feels it cannot pay for. So in my view, the Republicans who are fighting for a delay in the individual mandate are completely justified constitutionally for not wanting Obamacare funded. This very simple concept eludes just about every Democrat in Washington and every left-wing talk show host and political commentator in the media.

In September of 2009, Judge Andrew Napolitano interviewed South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn and asked, "Can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare?" He said, "Judge, most of what we do down here [referring to Washington] is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we’re prohibited from regulating healthcare?"

Napolitano said that is a total misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is. He told Clyburn that Congress is not a general was not created in order to right every wrong. Clyburn is saying that if an issue is not specifically laid out in the Constitution as something Congress cannot legislate, then it has the liberty to legislate it, which is complete bullshit.

This would be like a baseball manager telling baseball owners that because it does not specifically state in the rules of baseball that chimpanzees cannot be used as substitute players when the human players get tired, they can be used. Congress has specific powers laid out in the Constitution. Congress only exists to legislate 18 specific areas where the Constitution has given it power. All remaining powers are reserved for the states.

These powers are:

1.  The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

2.  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States

3.  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

4.  To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

5.  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

6.  To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States

7.  To establish Post Offices and post Roads

8.  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

9.  To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court

10.  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

11.  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

12.  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

13.  To provide and maintain a Navy

14.  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

15.  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

16.  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

17.  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

18.  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Anything outside of this list is reserved for the states. This would include Obamacare. But explaining something like this to the likes of Ed Schultz is futile since he has no clue what a free market is.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

this guy needs to pickle the dickle.