Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Obama Creates Another Massive Lie, That Obamacare Was Meant for ALL, Not Just the Uninsured to Cover Up His Other Massive Lie, That Insured Americans Would Get to Keep Their Health Care Plan


Far worse than anything Bush ever said, one of the biggest lies uttered by a President in my lifetime...Obama Lies AGAIN and claims that the Affordable Care Act was not just for the uninsured, but also for the "under-insured"

by Larry Simons
October 30, 2013

Today in Massachusetts, President Obama held a rally in support of his unconstitutional health care law when he addressed a crowd over the massive trainwreck that is his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

On the heels of millions of Americans losing their health care plans faster than you can count Obama's lies, the president mustered the nerve to not only give a speech in public, but to come up with an even bigger lie than the one he's been feeding to Americans for the past four years, that the new health care law was not only created for the uninsured, but for the insured who have "substandard" health care plans.

Obama said:

“One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured".

This is 100% complete, bona fide and certified BULLSHIT. On numerous occasions, as RTO has already reported, Obama made it crystal clear that if all 250 million insured Americans liked their doctors and their health care plans, they could keep them and they would not have to do anything.

Obama continued:

"And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5% of Americans who've got cut rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident. Remember, before the Affordable Care Act these bad apple insurers had free reign, every single year to limit the care that you received, or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage and it turned out not to be so good".

So fucking what?? These are people who liked their health care plans. They wanted to keep them. You said they could, Mr. Obama, on countless occasions. It matters not that you think their plan was "cut rate". It matters not that you think their plans didn't offer "real financial protection". It matters not that you think these insurers are "bad apples". None of this matters, because you told all 250 million insured Americans they can keep their fucking health care plans! You are a fucking liar, Mr. Obama, and now you're resorting to an even bigger lie to cover up for telling everyone they could keep their plans!



The lies continue...

"Before the Affordable Care Act, the worst of these plans routinely dropped thousands of Americans every single year".

So fucking what...you said people could keep their plans.

...and continue...

"..and on average, premiums for folks who stayed in their plans for more than a year shot up about 15% a year."

So what? You said people could keep their plans. And by the way, one of the major complaints from the ones in whom their insurance policies are being canceled is that these new premiums under Obamacare are skyrocketing too----way higher than 15%!

...and continue...

“If you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law, and you really liked that plan, you are able to keep it, that’s what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said, under the law, is you gotta replace them with quality comprehensive coverage...because, that, too, was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”

You are a fucking liar. That is not what you said, Mr. Obama. You never said "If you have a 'substandard' plan before the bill became law, they could keep their plans", you clearly stated on many occasions that under the law [if/when passed] the American people will be able to keep their plans! The president is clearly playing word games here. Nothing in the president's speech before or after the ACA became law even remotely suggested to anyone that things would change for the insured after the bill became law.

"Ever since the law was passed?" "Ever since?" Nothing was supposed to change when the bill became law. That was the entire point of Obama promising people nothing would change with anyone's health care plans. Does he really expect anyone that uses more than 1% of their brain to believe that he was only referring to the time frame between before the ACA became law and the day it did?

"If insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans"????? What the fuck does this mean? The reason the insurance companies are canceling policies is because they do not meet the new ACA provisions!! Is Obama fucking high?

First of all, Obama making the promise that people could keep their doctors and health care plans would only have meaning unless he was referring to AFTER the bill became law. If the bill never became law, no one would have had to worry about losing it. They would have just continued with their same doctors and health plans, business as usual. Secondly, Obama kept repeating that insurers would have their same health care plans and doctors after the bill was passed. So, it's a bald-faced lie that things would "change" after the bill became law.

Here is Obama saying Americans will keep their plans after Obamacare became law:

June 28, 2012 [The Affordable Care Act became law on March 23, 2010]:

"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."

watch the clip


That clip was two years and three months after the bill became law. Did he tell the insured that things will change if their plan was "substandard"? Did it sound like he was telling the insured their time ran out twenty-seven months prior? Was he "running for office" in that clip, or had he already been elected to his second term and was six months into it?

Obama told Americans nothing in the Affordable Care Act required them to change what they had. He lied then, and he's lying now. You're a sack of shit, Mr. Obama. And it has nothing to do with you being black [or half black]. It has to do with you lying to cover up previous lies.

These are Obama's exact words on September 9, 2009:

"If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

Let me repeat your words, Mr. Obama: "NOTHING IN OUR PLAN REQUIRES YOU TO CHANGE WHAT YOU HAVE".

I will repeat it again:

"NOTHING IN OUR PLAN REQUIRES YOU TO CHANGE WHAT YOU HAVE".

That doesn't tell me that I can only keep my health care plan and doctor if or when the bill becomes law. It tells me that even after it is made law, I will still keep my health care plan and doctor.

Another lie: Obama didn't just say it when he was "running for office". Every single time he told the 250,000 million insured American people they could keep their doctors and health care plans, he was already president. And he said it many times after the bill became law in 2010!

Obama continues:

“So, if you’re getting one of these letters, just shop around on the new marketplace, that’s what it’s for.”

Ahhh, yes, you mean the letters that none of the already insured should have never received, because you told them you health care bill included no requirement for them to change anything in their plans?

Mr. Obama, you should be removed from office and your law repealed for these massive, blatant lies to the American people. And before the White House door hits you in the ass on the way out, grab Kathleen Sebelius and take her with you.

Bill Maher: 'Once A Bill Becomes A Law, You Don't Argue About It'


Oh yes you do Bill, especially when that law is unconstitutional and violates human freedom

by Larry Simons
October 30, 2013

Tuesday night on Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan invited on Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss a number of issues, one in which was the massive failure of the Obamacare website and Obama's clear lie that the 250 million insured Americans would be able to keep their doctors and health care plans under Obamacare.

After Morgan tells Maher that he understands both sides of the fence on Obamacare [the Republican criticism and the Democratic/Obama-supporting camp that is admitting it's been a failure but assures us all it will get better], Maher says this:

"It's not a bill, it's a law. I think the T people [tea party] think they know the Constitution. I don't think they've even read it. A bill becomes a law. Once it does, you don't argue about it."



Maher is definitely correct in saying that the bill became a law, but could not be more wrong when he suggests "you don't argue about it". Well, Bill, yes you do, especially if that law is unconstitutional. Many will argue that Obamacare is constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was. Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate to enroll into Obamacare was constitutional under their taxing powers. The Supreme Court never ruled Obamacare itself was constitutional.

Obviously, there would be no use for the Affordable Care Act law if there didn't exist an individual mandate to follow that law [or else, why would anyone purchase it? This is one of the main reasons why even Congress knows the law is bad. They need it to be mandated]. Likewise, there would be no use for an individual mandate unless Congress found a constitutional way to enforce it. Hence, their taxing powers.

The Supreme Court simply used a constitutional measure in order to mandate the American people to submit to an unconstitutional law. This is a very dangerous precedent in American history. Now, with this ruling, they can use taxing powers to regulate any behavior they wish under the guise that it's "protecting" you or "good" for you: Buying a certain car, buying certain foods or certain clothes. The Supreme Court gave Congress unlimited power with this ruling.

The law itself is unconstitutional because the federal government does not, nor did they ever have the authority, per the Constitution [the document Maher claims the tea party has never read] to regulate the behavior of any individual [i.e. to do a particular act, to buy something, etc.]. The federal government is very limited in its powers per the Constitution. The federal government is given only 18 enumerated powers. Anything outside of these 18 are reserved for the states. And the powers that have been delegated to the federal government by states can be taken back.

Quite frequently, federal laws have been nullified by states in the past. One of the most notable examples of state nullification was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This was a part of the Compromise of 1850 which President Millard Fillmore signed into law. The Fugitive Slave Law basically stated that all runaway slaves, upon their capture, were to be returned to their masters. Many Northern states nullified the Fugitive Slave Law.

Other examples include the Embargo Act of 1807. The New England states nullified these acts in 1808-09 and also nullified the War of 1812 and the draft and refused to participate. A more modern example of nullification is President Bush's REAL ID Act. A federal law signed into law in 2005, but only 19 states participate in.

The likes of Maher believe that the federal government rules the states. The truth is, the states created the federal government and to suggest that the federal government rules the states is to suggest that employees rule their bosses. The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government. It was not to limit state power. James Madison said in his Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 was the first to introduce the word "nullification" into the political vernacular. His follow up resolutions of 1799 included the idea that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. Maher believes that the federal government has a monopoly on the extent of their own powers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the very scary thing about this ruling [not just about the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act being made into law, but the Supreme Court giving Congress unlimited power to now regulate the behavior of the American people by taxing us on non-action] is that through the annuls of history, any time the federal government has usurped the power from the American people, we, the people have never got that power back.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

The BIG Lie: You Will Be Able to Keep Your Health Care Plan Under Obamacare


Obama repeatedly promised to all insured Americans "If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance". This is turning out to be one of the biggest lies ever told to the American people

by Larry Simons
October 29, 2013

One of President Obama's crystal clear promises to the majority of the American people concerning Obamacare was his repetitious solemn commitment to those already insured under their own health care plans that they would be grandfathered into the Obamacare law and its provisions.

On at least six different occasions [and there were probably many more] captured in the single clip below alone, Obama promised to all 250 million insured Americans, they would be able to keep their doctors and health care plans.

watch the clip


Obama said this on June 15, 2009:

"We will keep this promise, to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period."  

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

On July 16, 2009, Obama said this:

"If you got health insurance and you like your doctor, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."

August 15, 2009:

"No matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it."

August 22, 2009:

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."

September 9, 2009:

"If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

January 27, 2010:

"Our approach would reserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

June 28, 2012:

""If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."

We are quickly finding out that the already insured are canceling their insurance plans in the hundreds of thousands as a result of their own plans not meeting new Obamacare provisions. Right in the midst of the Obamacare website being a massive failure, with many reporting glitches and being locked out during their enrolling process, now we have the insured [who were promised their health care plans would not change] jumping ship and completely dropping their plans.

CBS This Morning ran a story yesterday reporting that Kaiser Permanente terminated 160,000 insurance policies in California and in Florida they terminated 300,000. Many people are dropping their existing health care insurance for a plethora of reasons, from not being able to afford the new premiums, higher deductibles under the Obamacare law and simply because under new Obamacare provisions, people are being forced to pay for services they don't need, like pre-natal care [for those who do not want more children].



Here is a clip of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney telling journalist Ed Henry that many will not be able to keep their health care plan under Obamacare


Carney tells Henry that the President had said all along that there would be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act that had to meet "minimum standards". In other words, if someone's current insurance policy does not include pre-natal care [even if they don't want it because they can't have kids, or don't want any more kids], tough shit, it has to be included [and they have to pay extra for it] and thus their policy has to be changed----thus eliminating their grandfather status.

The truth is, Obama has not said all along that any changes would come about to those who are already insured. He said "If you like your doctor and like your policy, you will keep it. PERIOD." Funny, but I have always thought the word "period" at the end of any sentence meant that what was just said is without exceptions.

FOX News' Megyn Kelly reported last night on her show The Kelly File that the Obama Administration has known since 2010 that many policy holders were going to lose their insurance policies due to the Affordable Care Act [ACA]. Kelly reported that the document titled "Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2010-29", issued on July 19, 2010, states: [Kelly only quotes a small portion of the below text, but RTO has the full paragraph]

"Using these turnover estimates, a reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate, and therefore relinquish their grandfather status, is 40 percent to 67 percent. These estimates assume that the policies that terminate are replaced by new individual policies, and that these new policies are not, by definition, grandfathered. In addition, the coverage that some individuals maintain for long periods might lose its grandfather status because the cost-sharing parameters in policies change by more than the limits specified in these interim final regulations. The frequency of this outcome cannot be gauged due to lack of data, but as a result of it, the Departments estimate that the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 percent to 67 percent range that is estimated based on the fraction of individual policies that turn over from one year to the next."

In clear English, it does state that many policies would lose their grandfather status. 40 to 67% of policies would give up their grandfather status under Obamacare, completely contradicting Obama's words that those who choose to keep their policies will be able to keep them.

On February 25, 2010, Obama said this:

"Actually any insurance that you already have would be grandfathered in so you could keep it. Um, so you could decide not to get in the exchange the better plan, I-I could keep my acme insurance, just a high deductible, catastrophic plan. Uh, I would not be required to get the better one.."

Five months later, the IRS releases this bulletin that basically says up to 70% of policies will lose grandfather status. Now Obama supporters are arguing that Obama never lied at all. They support his lie [that the insured will be grandfathered in] by claiming that people are only grandfathered into Obamacare only if Obamacare did not change any part of the policy.

The fact is, the Department of Health and Human Services wrote regulations for Obamacare that heavily narrowed the grandfather provision, saying that if any part of a policy was changed since that date [July 2010], the "grandfathering" provision would be obliterated. This is why hundreds of thousands of already insured people are canceling their policies. What Obama was really saying when he made all those speeches about the insured getting to "keep their doctors and health care plans" is "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan-----but only if it meets the new Obamacare standards [and none will]...........Period."

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Life and Times of ObamaBush: Remember Obama's Promise to Not Raise Any Tax On Those Making Under $250,000? Well....


Obama simply lied. He has already broken that promise three times so far

by Larry Simons
October 23, 2013

Remember the speech President Obama gave in Dover, New Hampshire on September 12, 2008 when he told us all that he will never raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000? Incase you forgot, this is what he said:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes. Not any of your taxes."

Here is the clip of him saying it [you can find it at the 1:20 mark in the clip]



With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 [and now with it being launched on October 1], this now marks the third time in Obama's presidency that his promise to not raise taxes on those making under $250,000 has been broken.

Although the law [PPACA] was passed in 2010, it will be officially implemented January 1, 2014. After this date, tax increases for middle-class families commence. In fact, of the 20 new tax increases Obamacare ushers in, 12 of them affect the middle-class. Twelve.

In fact, the most ironic thing about the posted clip [above] of Obama's 2008 speech is that after he states that he will not tax anyone making over $250,000 ["wink", "wink"], he criticizes John McCain for wanting to tax health care premiums. He tells the crowd that McCain's plan would increase taxes by 3.6 trillion. Obama's answer to this?: Forcing 30 million Americans to purchase healthcare, even if they do not want it, while driving up the cost of premiums of those who already have it.

The first of the tax increases came early, in February of 2009, when Obama more than doubled the taxes of tobacco products. This affected roughly 60 million Americans. Cigarette taxes jumped from $3.90 to more than $10 per carton, while cigar taxes increased by over 4,000%. These tax increases mostly harmed those making less that $250,000 and living at or below poverty level.

While it is true that one can argue that these people could have avoided the taxes simply by quitting smoking, liberty lovers can also argue that although smoking is unhealthy, it is also legal and within everyone's rights to engage in. After all, many of these people may have trusted Obama when he said he would not raise their taxes.

The second time Obama raised taxes on under-$250,000 wage earners was January of this year, when he failed to extend the Bush tax cuts in the fiscal cliff dilemma. Obama hit all Americans by allowing the Bush tax cuts to end, sending the social security portion of payroll taxes back to 6.2% [from 4.2%].

Obama supporters can argue all they want to that Obama didn't actually raise taxes by simply letting Bush tax cuts to expire, but they would be blowing hot air. Whether you raise taxes by the stroke of a pen or simply allow your predecessor's tax cuts to expire, you are still raising taxes.

This should easily go down in history as a George H.W. Bush "read my lips, no new taxes" moment, but in reality it doesn't compare, because what Obama did in raising taxes is much worse than what daddy Bush did. Obama named a particular demographic of people that he would not tax, then turned right around and taxed them.

To tell you the complete truth, I enjoy seeing gullible Americans trust in a politician when they make a bold promise [like not raising taxes on a colossal amount of people....those making under $250,000] and then that politician turns right around and hits those very same supporters in their wallets with the very tax he promised he would not raise. A part of me thinks, "Maybe they will learn next time" [not to trust a politician], but most of me knows they won't.

Friday, October 18, 2013

10 Ways the Obamacare Train Wreck is Screwing the American People


Soaring costs, assaults on privacy, and a nanny state gone wild

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 18, 2013

Obamacare is a big government boondoggle that will empower the nanny state to extort, intimidate, harass and surveil Americans like never before. Here are ten ways in which the Obamacare train wreck is screwing the American people.

1) Research by the Manhattan Institute documents how average insurance rate premiums will rise 99 per cent for men and 62 per cent for women under Obamacare. In states like North Carolina, men face a whopping 305 per cent average rate hike, whereas women in Nebraska will be paying on average 237 per cent more. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office found that some Americans will face premium increases of 203% under Obamacare. The new law will increase health care spending by over $7000 for a typical family of four. When we asked Americans on Facebook and Twitter if their costs would be higher or lower under Obamacare, virtually all said they would be paying significantly more.

2) The Obama administration claims that federal subsidies will counteract these rate hikes, but according to health care expert Avik Roy that’s simply not true. “You hear all these excuses from the [Obama] administration — that people are exaggerating the effect of the law,” Roy told CBS News. “But real people are getting notices from their insurers now. My blog is flooded with comments from people saying that they just got a huge premium hike,”

3) The Obama administration lied to the American people when it claimed that existing health insurance plans could be kept. Obama’s promise that, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what,” was complete baloney. Americans across the country are being informed that their existing health care plans are being canceled because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).” “The promise that you could keep your old policy, if you liked it, has proved illusory, writes Kathy Kristof. “My insurer, Kaiser Permanente, informed me in a glossy booklet that “At midnight on December 31, we will discontinue your current plan because it will not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.” My premium, the letter added, would go from $209 a month to $348, a 66.5 percent increase that will cost $1,668 annually.”

4) Numerous analysts have concluded that the complete train wreck that was the launch of Healthcare.gov was in fact designed to fail in order to avoid a sudden backlash from Americans irate at the massive premium increases. Online database experts say the system wasn’t even tested before it was launched. “So far, the Affordable Care Act’s launch has been a failure. Not “troubled.” Not “glitchy.” A failure,” wrote the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. Even CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said it should be delayed for a year. Only about 1 out of every 100 people who have attempted to enroll for a health care plan (if they could even access the website in the first place) have been successful.

5) For those Americans who are able to enroll in Obamacare, they are putting their private information at the mercy of hackers and NSA spies. IP addresses, social security numbers, private bank account details, employer details, email addresses and passwords are all being uploaded to a shoddily designed database that is wide open to penetration, and the record can never be deleted. “Obamacare is the meta-level con of tricking Americans into thinking they’re signing up for free health insurance when, in reality, the website primarily exists to scrape personal financial details, passwords, emails and social security numbers from Americans who will later be targeted by the government itself,” writes Mike Adams.

6) As a result of Obamacare, the general precedent has now been set, thanks to last year’s Supreme Court ruling, that the federal government has the power to force Americans to purchase private goods and services. What’s next? Will the government force Americans to buy a certain brand of “eco-friendly” vehicle only? Will the feds force Americans to buy “licenses” to watch television, as happens in the UK? The door has now been opened with potentially disastrous consequences for financial freedom and the cancerous growth of big government.

7) Obamacare provides the IRS with a new justification to hunt down Americans deemed to be evading the new system. While claiming that the IRS will not target Americans who don’t sign up, the administration last year directed $500 million to the IRS “to help implement the president’s healthcare law.” With the IRS already claiming the power to prevent Americans who are merely under investigation from leaving the country, a House Ways and Means Committee study last year concluded that 16,500 new IRS agents would be hired to oversee the nearly two dozen tax levies imposed by Obamacare.

8) Many small businesses are firing workers and scaling back working hours in a desperate effort to avoid exorbitant Obamacare costs. Whereas giant companies like McDonalds have received waivers, almost half of small businesses said they froze hiring as a result of the Affordable Care Act and one fifth said they had been forced to fire workers. Numerous companies announced last year that they would be laying off hundreds of employees. Many businesses are also reducing the number of hours their employees work in order to avoid Obamacare mandates. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Obamacare will be a disaster for the US economy, expanding the deficit by billions of dollars every year and “further spiraling America into an uncontrollable debt.”

9) Other small businesses have chosen to close down entirely. A chiropractic clinic in Pennsylvania was forced to close down as a result of receiving reduced payments from insurance companies thanks to Obamacare. CiCi’s Pizza franchise owner Bob Westford pointed out that the additional $221,000 in taxes as a result of Obamacare was $78,000 more than the combined profit of his three restaurants, making the decision to shut up shop a no brainer.

10) The only entities that seem to be benefiting from Obamacare are giant insurance companies, who have all seen their stock prices soar over the last three years. That’s unsurprising given that it was the insurance companies who wrote the foundational document for Obamacare in the first place.

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 legislature...it 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.