Posts Tagged ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’

History check on see-saw Politifact

December 14, 2013

GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE

They said Obamacare was not a “government takeover of health care”. To defend this preposterous claim the point to the “overwhelming reliance” on the “free market“, they had to compare it to total federal government ownership of all medical facilities.

Which of course NOBODY meant when they said it was a government takeover.

First, let us get this straight, that this is NOT any “free market” AT ALL. In fact, the reason for the controversy is precisely because it relies overwhelmingly on a massive regulatory regime. Government intervention on steroids. And built into the design, even if you want to call it intentional, is failure, presumably to get it replaced with another overwhelming government intervention.

A reliance on the free market would kill the already massive burden of government interventions in the medical markets, a removal of the barriers to interstate commerce in medical insurance, treating individuals on an equal level with businesses with respect to the tax deductions, and even getting out of the massive distortions caused already by massive government intervention that caused the problems in the first place.

This is why great numbers of institutions, doctors, and individuals are “opting out”.

NO JAIL FOR REFUSING TO BUY, YET

..But it might come to that to make it work, if they don’t desist. We’ll see, they may have other tricks.

RATIONING CARE AND DENYING TREATMENTS.

Oh gosh, Politi-lies keeps on getting hit my the truth! Even the hottest defenders have to admit now that they have to ration care to make it work. The kicker is that it is “only” when spending reaches certain levels. As if it will never. Ha.

And the law only introduced these panels that vote up or down on care, they said, “to control costs for Medicare“. That means, more of the elderly now have the option of denial of care.

Sorry, Virginia, it’s true, there are indeedy “death panels’

DEATH PANELS

So in the very next paragraph after where they admit the death panels (by any other name), they say that the Death Panels are a falsehood!

Well, Politi-maybe was right on one thing. An overturning of this abominable law would not be an unprecedented and extraordinary overturning of a law passed by Congress, another of Obama’s lies.

Lord help us and keep us in these times coming upon us… “God is not a man, that he should lie”.

//

Advertisement

The Republic strikes back against The Empire…

December 10, 2013
A CNN poll conducted in March of 2010Citation ...

A CNN poll conducted in March of 2010, days after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law found nearly 3 in 5 Americans were opposed to the legislation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) (Trutherator notes: Most polls at the time said 70% opposed)

LibertyNEWS.com – BREAKING: South Carolina Declares War On Obamacare, Will Vote To Ban State Involvement In Implementation
http://www.libertynews.com/2013/12/breaking-south-carolina-declares-war-on-obamacare-will-vote-to-ban-state-involvement-in-implementation/

The most important provision in this law, in my opinion for now anyway, is the one that gives tax deductions to individuals to the amount of the tax penalties that are in the federal law.

Finally, a state that is willing to give up money and budget dollars to push back against nationalization. Federalism is better than nationalization. Freedom is better than serfdom.

 

//

Massachusetts Governor Slams People Who Want to Keep Their Insurance Plans | Free Enterprise

December 8, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/jvrw4t6

So now, the Democrats are the ones who are complaining about “free-loaders”? What a change of heart! So all you other guys, you can now stop calling them “bleeding-heart”! Call them stone-cold hearted!

First a few links that provide some reality perspective on the latest noise.

For example, Peggy Noonan points out that the attention is now starting to turn away from the obvious incompetence of government shown in the non-performance of the Obamacare web site, bad as it is, and is turning toward the actual Unaffordable Sick Care Act itself. (aka Obamacare). People are beginning to understand this reality, which I set apart for emphasis:

Obamacare is going to make a lot of people literally a lot more sick than they were.

Why? Because we are the subjects of this new kingdom where the monarch class (legislators, executives, and certain privileged parties) lives by its own privileged rules and gives us serfs a different set of rules.

Here’s another couple of truths most of us are aware of, and talk around it a lot, but here it is, telling it like it is:

Almost all congresspeople today do NOT believe in “equal treatment under the law”, because their actions speak louder than their words.

Most United States presidents in our lifetimes (I personally would say all of them) do NOT believe in “equal treatment under the law”, because their actions speak louder than their words.

Most United States Supreme Court judges (and most federal judges) in our lifetimes (I would say all of them) do NOT believe in “equal treatment under the law”, because their actions speak louder than their words.

See “Breaking: Harry Reid Exempts His Staff From Obamacare:
http://www.randpaulreview.com/2013/12/breaking-harry-reid-exempts-his-staff-from-obamacare/

I’VE BEEN PUNKED!

(And it isn’t even satire!)

Even the ones that loved Obama and rallied around the Obamacare flag, (well, almost none of us) really bothered to read the bill but just believed the promises, or the detractors, depending on which team in the perennial political popularity contest you preferred. (Never mind it did not even get the five days review time on a publicly available web site like Obama promised all legislation would get before it was passed or signed.)

But now it’s past the time to read the bill, and though some few hardy souls did read the bill early on, and even fewer hardy and brainier souls understood the bill, now the rubber hits the road and we see its damage up front and close.

Everybody is talking about it. Even the diehard reality-defying defenders of the bill admit the most acerbic and bitter criticisms.

They admit that the language of the promises was designed to deceive. The biggest and fastest lie was uncovered after getting past the attempt of a few mavericks and “young Turks” in Congress to signal their attempt to prevent the damage to the little guy from this “train wreck”.

The lie: “If you like it you can keep it”, the “it” being your insurance plan, your doctor, fill in the blanks. Never mind nobody who thought logically (who does?) should have believed it, because the other parts of the sales pitch made keeping that one impossible, like the detractors said.

In other words, without knowing it, right now, all kinds of media personalities that helped sell this, and are now shocked at the bills coming in from the Progressive Piper, well, in their own way, they are saying that the most “outrageous” voices against passage of Obamacare, were right.

Oh yeah.

GREAT LEADER (BIG BROTHER?) IS ALWAYS RIGHT?

Even the stalwart defenders are going down with the Fort like it was Alamo, convinced that their Great Leader is always right, just like in the Orwell novel, no matter what he says.

WHAT IS A LIE?

Oh, that’s okay, they say, that Obama lied so he could “Shanghai” us into his plans for central control dictates. And it’s better for you. (Later for that.) Even when they try to say it’s the insurance companies’ fault you had substandard plans or that you didn’t understand that her really meant the “grandfathered” plans you had before the passage of the bill.

Never mind he had to know that anybody listening in good faith (the listener not the propagandist) would take that to include the tweaks that come with all plans, or would take it as a stand-alone statement.

Sorry, the “mental reservation” excuse does not apply. Here’s a dictionary definition of a “lie”. The definition meets the reality:

 

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Sum it up

November 17, 2013

Obamacare’s worst case scenarios, considered:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/11/time-to-start-considering-obamacares-wor

Or was it meant to fail?

 

//

The World’s Fastest Failure – (Built to fail?)

November 3, 2013
Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The World’s Fastest Failure – Liberty Crier:
http://libertycrier.com/the-worlds-fastest-failure/

by Jeffrey Tucker
Obamacare certainly has made history. It has set the record for the fastest-failing Big Government program in world history. This isn’t only about a website flop; it is about the failure of government to accomplish the aims of Obamacare in general, and in a way that has profoundly touched millions of individual lives.

“Train wreck” is a good term here. You know it is coming. You can see the maps. You can predict the timing and the damage. But there is still something stunning about seeing the spectacular explosion actually happen in real life. For students of shoddy government attempts to mimic the market, it’s been a beautiful confirmation of everything we know.

Back to the speed of the disaster. It took decades for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and all the rest to enter into the unsustainable, unintended-consequences phase. It was a generation before the costs blew up and the service dwindled. Most welfare programs begin with at least the appearance of a net win.

Not this one. It took only a few days after Obamacare was released for it to enter the archetype phase into which all forms of compulsory government systems eventually collapse. Never have the rotten tomatoes flown so fast and so furiously.

The ridiculous cost overruns were, of course, there from the beginning. The website alone: $600 million. More striking has been the astonishing fact that that program designed to give more people access to health care has already resulted in the exact opposite. More people have been kicked out of their existing service than have successfully signed up for a new one. The intended beneficiaries — the uninsured — have little or no interest in it, while the already insured are more scared about the future than ever.

The American health care system has been a mess for a long time, but this much can be said about it: It has been somewhat stable. The costs have been high and rising, but not completely unaffordable. And because of the genuine market-based elements remaining in the existing system, American health care has at least been innovative with lifesaving technologies. Doctors got paid and medical services were profitable.

Suddenly, the future seems uncertain and even scary for nearly everyone. If one day you can get a letter from a provider that doubles premiums and makes them equal to the full wages of a salaried employee, there is a serious problem. Not even the worst predictions about Obamacare imagined such a thing.

All the more maddening has been the way the president himself seems hopelessly confused about the nature of the technological failure of the main delivery system. He seems to be living in the past, in which a website was nothing but a billboard or a static information provider.

That’s not the way websites are today. Websites are both portals to and extensions of the real world. They must mirror and even drive thinking and behavior of all users. And contrary to what people believe, they are not easy to build. A great website is every bit as complex as an elaborate good in the material world.

To build one requires a blithering array of decisions among trade-offs. Most people see only the user interface, but this is like paint on a car. The engine itself can be enormously complex and subject to infinite bugs. You can write code or go with existing structures. You can choose among thousands of possible languages and management systems or build your own. Database structures are a science unto themselves.

It is a challenge enough in the private sector. To build a website for something like The New York Times or Twitter is a monumental task that never ends. This is one reason that startups are better at building websites than large corporations. Large corporations have to cut through their own bureaucratic apparatus to get it done right, whereas startups are fortunate to have a clean slate from which to build code.

For government, it is far more difficult, if not impossible. Governments are not used to having customers in a traditional sense. They have consumers of their products, but their profitability does not fundamentally depend on them. The government way is to extract revenue by force and spend it according to political priorities. Profit and loss do not matter and, in fact, can’t even be calculated. That’s because government is not a wealth producer. It is a wealth consumer.

There is a reason that governments can’t build websites. A website is like the market itself. It is always in development. For a site to be useful, it must always be adapting to change. There is no final release that is also not a tombstone. Governments are horrible at this task. Governments want to freeze time and enforce compliance with the plan, users be damned. So the failure of HealthCare.gov is not an accident; it is a reflection of the failure of government itself to be a productive, efficient, and useful part of the social order.

This is why a website fix seem so untenable. Note from the congressional hearing that politicians doing the grilling do not understand the first thing about computer code. They can’t understand the language. They can’t understand the functionality. What’s more, it is not clear that Republicans have any real incentive to intervene in the meltdown. This is the first time in perhaps six years that the Republicans have a chance to ride high.

The prospect of how Obamacare can permanently wreck the legacy of this administration is tantalizing, indeed!

What lessons can we learn here? This is about the failure of one type of socialism, but it is a different type from nationalization. Obama and his friends never attempted to end the market. They attempted to set up a market that operates like a real one, but with politically expedient results. In other words, they are attempting to “play market” while subverting crucial market institutions like fees, private property, freedom of choice, authentic competition between providers, and experimental entrepreneurship.

The idea that government could “play market” was the fallback position of post-socialist planners of the 1940s and 1950s. Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises predicted that this would never work. You can assemble the world’s smartest people, give them maximum power, throw massive resources at the problem, and still end up with what Mises called “planned chaos.” That’s the best description of the health care world since Obamacare was unleashed on the world.

Some predictions for the future of Obamacare: It will not be repealed. It will be intolerably tightened. More physicians will leave the system. More of the uninsured will choose fines over premiums. The market will continue to provide ever more options outside the system. Leaving the country for surgery and other services will become more common. Buying prescriptions from emerging markets will become mainstream.

Through fits and starts — and with many victims along the way — a market for health care will emerge, but it will be outside the official channels. Eventually, Obamacare will collapse of its own weight.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Tucker

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Busted, exposed. Will people accept another lie to cover the other one?

November 2, 2013
A CNN poll conducted in March of 2010Citation ...

A CNN poll conducted in March of 2010Citation needed, days after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law found nearly 3 in 5 Americans were opposed to the legislationClarify. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

At least 15 million, per Jay Carney, speaking on behalf of Obama, quoted at Forbes (and we all know, as MANY Democrat Party shills admit now, it’s much more than the group he said):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney attempted to minimize the disruption issue, arguing that it only affected people who buy insurance on their own. “That’s the universe we’re talking about, 5 percent of the population,” said Carney. “In some of the coverage of this issue in the last several days, you would think that you were talking about 75 percent or 80 percent or 60 percent of the American population.” (5 percent of the population happens to be 15 million people, no small number, but let’s leave that aside.)

The Forbes article explains a bit more:

By “coverage of this issue,” Carney was referring to two articles. The first, by Chad Terhune of the Los Angeles Times, described a number of Californians who are seeing their existing plans terminated and replaced with much more expensive ones. “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,” said one.

The second article, by Lisa Myers and Hanna Rappleye of NBC News, unearthed the aforementioned commentary in the Federal Register, and cited “four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act” as saying that “50 to 75 percent” of people who buy coverage on their own are likely to receive cancellation notices due to Obamacare.

Note that the Los Angeles Times, and NBC, have editorial policies polar opposite to what is besmirched as “right-wing”, and they were both major boosters. Because even after the bill was passed, apparently nobody still knew what was in it.

More:

But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

And now for the “get a better one” lie, just another “oh how tangled a web we weave, when we first practice to deceive”. We get another lie to cover the other one:

Now, supporters of the law are offering a different argument. “We didn’t really mean it when we said you could keep your plan,” they say, “but it doesn’t matter, because the coverage you’re going to get under Obamacare will be better than the coverage you had before.”

But that’s not true. Obamacare forces insurers to offer services that most Americans don’t need, don’t want, and won’t use, for a higher price. Bob Laszewski, in a revealing blog post, wrote about the cancellation of his own health coverage. “Right now,” he wrote, “I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance. I can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network—about every doc and hospital in America—without a referral and without higher deductibles and co-pays.”

//

The Internet and the Obamacare and a Controlled Net?

October 27, 2013
The bitcoin logo

The bitcoin logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Daily Bell covers another phenomenon with another way of looking at things:

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/34692/Facebook-Changing-the-Face-of-Mercantilism/

Events are tending to consolidating into a setup for the infamous Mark of the Beast government. Everybody is using plastic, they’ve nationalized the ID already (done long ago almost everywhere outside the USA), and the Internet is a perfect vehicle for a buy and sell medium. IP6 Internet, I believe, they say anyway that it’s “more secure” than IP4. Don’t know enough about it yet to say, but “more secure” can mean anybody you transact with could identify you positively (as much as is possible).

Bitcoin can get traction in the stealth side of the Internet, somewhat, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be an attempt to use it to control the entire world’s economic activity. They could even let go of the current dollar disaster, no problem, they’ve already got some of these international units in place, euro-units, whatnot.

In fact, they could just criminalize all transactions done outside their scope.

Lots of readers are jumping in on this and thinking there are too many problems for this to make it work. Obamacare is a good warning on that, as central planning is always eventually doomed anyway. No matter with all that stuff they’re feeding the popular mind to scare them (us) with what their secret agents will do to bad guys (“Oh, and he owns an anti-government web site”).

No man shall buy or sell save he that hath “the mark”. But eventually, it all crumbles on the head of the dictator and dictators who get this thing going. During the plagues, a “grievous sore” falls on those who do have “the mark”, and eventually, “he [The Beast] shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

Ron Paul’s endorsement of Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor

October 13, 2013
Ken Cuccinelli (R)

Ken Cuccinelli (R) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

In a moment of “wow”, Ron Paul has endorsed Republican Party candidate Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor, according to Politico.

 

to the surprise of some people, because there is a candidate from the Libertarian Party (Robert Starvis) who has been creeping up in the polls.

 

Politico plays up the surprise element in the article, but does allow through the reasons Ron Paul made this announcement:

 

“Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government,” writes Paul. “He has consistently and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up to Washington’s continued abuses on our individual liberties.”

He quotes his friend Donna Holt, a libertarian activist, calling Cuccinelli “the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General we have ever had in Virginia.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ron-paul-endorses-ken-cuccinelli-virginia-governor-2013-elections-98208.html#ixzz2hc4Egb62

 

In another paragraph find the reason Politico and some third-party boosters may have thought Sarvis would be the better liberty-supporting candidate, and some self-identified libertarians might get confused as to why. Note the transparent spin in the choice by Politico’s writers in deciding to use the expression “should be” and “concerned”:

 

Libertarian Robert Sarvis could be a spoiler in next month’s off-year election, attracting what should be Republican voters concerned about the nominee’s strong opposition to gay marriage and abortion.

 

For one thing, that statement shows the Politico, like almost all of statist media, is clueless about who libertarians are in general, and how libertarians think on many specifics.

 

The two issues they mention are telling.

 

ABORTION VS HUMAN LIFE

 

On the first one, apparently a growing percentage of libertarians are strongly opposed to killing a baby in the womb as much as outside the womb, on libertarian grounds. The reasoning is the same for every pro-lifer and pro-life organization mission statement that I know of, and that is that a new human life begins at conception. There are atheists that despise this brutal practice as well. The pro-abortion organizations and the groups that make lots of money in the abortion industry (including the profitable government-supported “non-profits”), they use the false claim that it is a religious idea.

 

But the truth is that opposition to killing babies inside the womb is the same thing as killing babies outside the womb. This is the motivator. And libertarians claim the idea that all aggression against individuals is wrong, that all uses of force is illegitimate except for defense against aggression. Apply this to babies inside a mother’s womb and you can only be pro-life.

 

GAY MARRIAGE” AND RENT-SEEKING

 

Here is another one that confuses some of the younger libertarians, who think supporting a candidate who favors “gay marriage” is the same as supporting freedom.

 

But it’s not like they are supporting freedom. For one thing, the libertarian view is that nobody and no government has any right to force you to associate with any other person or group, and that liberty is defined in terms of individual rights to be free from aggression and force by others.

 

That means discrimination for any reason is a universal right. It is an illegitimate use of force to apply it in favor of one group (as the current U.S. federal government does for homosexuals) while denying it to another (like they have done against Christians often, for example). Government discrimination is always and forever wrong; individual discrimination is a right. Banning individual discrimination is impossible anyway, without telepathy, but they do it anyway.

 

That said, seeking government marriage privileges, or forcing you to do it, is wrong. I had to marry legally to arrange my wife’s visa. Before anybody says hypocrite, say first whether you use federal reserve notes to pay for things in the store, or whether some of your tax-and-inflation-taxes go to things you despise.

 

Seeking to get the government to approve same-sex marriage, though, is not not not a stance consistent with libertarian philosophy. It is creating additional government benefits for a boiler-plate contract and the subjection to obligations on the part of the “engaged” couple, answerable to government control.

 

In other words, the proper stance would be to seek ways to get government out of controlling marriage and its supposed definition, even though “same-sex marriage” has always been an oxymoron in the English language.

 

There are other extra-governmental reasons not to “oppose gay marriage”, but to bring open discussion to the merits of same-sex pairings, free of coercion. That is a different topic. Government has no business deciding who should have what, do what, or do without what….

 

 

Government has a slow-down, Wall Street rejoices

October 3, 2013

After all, can’t let the peasants find out that stopping runaway debt is a good thing!

In typical government-shill propaganda mode, ABC reporter said (or read) that “anger is growing across the nation” over the government slowdown. They then put on two sound bites from interviews supposedly with “the man on the street” (really?), that didn’t like it.

That was the morning. On the way home, there were so many callers on local talk shows that blasted the Obamacare law and cheered the cutting of funds that these local yokels (here on a couple of Miami, Florida stations) started begging people to call that actually liked it. Right after that, on the show where this gal who usually just reads the news, a guy called in who had lost his job because of Obamacare, along with nine other guys. Bet you everybody who isn’t a D.C. insider has a family member who’s been forced down to part-time jobs, too.

Of course there are lots more people who are mad about them forcing nationalized control of medicine against the will of the American people and who are angry at the ones who did it –and changed the rules to do it—and angry at what it’s doing. And THAT is the big news for two years now.

Lots of people are also mad at the Big Corporate news media for acting as government propaganda organs. And at local media guys who are saying they don’t like it either but “it’s the law” blah blah, as if the House has never defunded anything before.

Not for nothing the engineers of the US Constitution gave the House the responsibility of originating funding legislation. That’s because it most directly represents the people in local districts, and therefore are closest to the taxpayers.

The longer this goes on, the more that Americans will see that life goes on, and life goes on maybe even better, the world did not end, the economy did not crash.. And what’s better, Clapper is complaining that the NSA can’t spy on us like it wants to. Some IRS auditors have had to stop working (for the time being).

The big news of the day was that a bunch of WW2 veterans broke through a line of yellow tape to view their monument. So they don’t have enough money to keep this open-air monument “open”, but they have enough to send a bunch of cops to keep people out. Right.

By the way, the narrative that the Republicans are “holding the government hostage” is such a laugh riot. Anyway, they’re funding all kinds of stuff and sending the bills to the Senate, but IT IS HARRY REID who is refusing to let any of them through for a Senate vote. So who’s holding who hostage?

And Wall Street rejoiced with a rally! Hope that this train wreck might be stopped! People in the financial world maybe figure that this kibosh on runaway spending and this blocking move against dollar dilution is good! That this forcing on the emergency brake is good!

Maybe these RINO’s are just doing theater, though. The longer this slowdown keeps going, this time, Americans are going to blame the Democrat Party and Obamacare. It is an attack on the economy that al Qaeda could only dream of, that will do a million times more damage in infrastructure and lives than even crashing the towers.

No wonder Morsi and other dictators figure he’s on their side.

English: Crude drawing of the "No RINO&qu...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Next stop: End the Fed.

 

Ted Cruz is right — Refuse to fund Obamacare! Nobody likes it!

August 24, 2013

My response to the blast at Ted Cruz‘s strategy for stopping Obamacare:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-ted-cruz-cant-win-a-government-shutdown/

“Obamacare will fail” refers to the fact that as marketed, even written, it will fail, and to fix it, the oligarchs will demand more steps toward overt nationalization, like Obama promised back before he was a candidate, when he said they would have to do it by steps

Ted Cruz is the only way to stop runaway government. The sequester agreement may yet still be known to savvy historians as the one chance the Republican Party blew to stop the tyrannical government before it got its legs.

If not now, when? If not here, then where?

People are SICK TO DEATH of so-called conservative “strategists” who keep demanding compromise for the sake of winning later, hoping we will forget that TODAY IS YESTERDAY’S “LATER”, and they were ALWAYS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and wrong again!

To hell with the media scare tactics! Have these clueless “conservatives” learned nothing from the sequester scare? It came and went and the Slasher-in-Chief exposed himself as willing to cut first where it affects Americans in the street.

But the Republican Party bosses have already engineered its catastrophe. Throwaway candidate Bob Dole, for the election they obviously wanted to lose for some reason, because they’re so scared of the media I guess, instead of being scared of losing sight of principle. Then the George W Bush, who outspent Democrat Party hacks. Then they engineered the loss in 2008 with the candidate most likely to lose, John McCain. Some of their supporters began to wake up. Obama scared more of them awake, but then four freshman Republicans in Congress, elected on the tea party wave, turned tail or traitor and failed to stop runaway debt.

Since when is the government-media complex ever going to demand shrinkage of government?