Obama declares that “The debate about repealing Obamacare is over.”

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Obama declares that “The debate about repealing Obamacare is over.”

Why does the left always want to shut down debate (“The science is settled!” “The debate is over.” “Deniers should be put in prison!”)?

Meanwhile, there is this story: Obamacare takes a life.

The story is heart-rending, and describes how the regulations imposed by Obamacare literally caused this man’s death. As his doctor said, “You can thank Mr. Obama for this.”

But the debates over! What business is it of this doctor or this dead man’s children to complain? The President has spoken. The discussion must now end!



  • Edward

    Wait a minute. This doesn’t make sense. 7.1 million people signed up, the president says, but a few years ago he was telling us that 45 million were without insurance. If this law were so wonderful, why didn’t the other 38 million sign up, too?

    He says 7 million was the goal, but that was a pretty low hurdle, considering the size of the problem to solve. If a 16% success rate is considered good in politics then I think we need better quality control in government. (And the article suggests that not many actually paid for their insurance or that many are not newly insured, which would bring the success rate farther down.)

    He thinks 16% is good enough to declare the law “good?” Is he still smoking that stuff from high school?

    Oh, I get it. I fell for an April Fools! Silly me. Of course we can still debate this heinous law and the hideous side effects that have hobbled us.

  • Pithole Hermit

    It’s worse. Actually those 7.1 million aren’t even from the 45 million uninsured he claimed. They are people who had other insurance, lost it and had to sign up for ObamaCare. As usual, the crime of ObamaCare isn’t the worst part. The cover-up is.

  • Publius 2

    Excellent points, Edward. A shame that the media will not bother to ask the same questions. We now live in a country where press freedom has been voluntarily surrendered by an incompetent, ignorant, diffident media. All of it must be defeated, of course, and perhaps the best way is for a candidate to campaign on a platform of forcing everyone — without exception and without subsidy — to live under the regulations promulgated by this bunch. When they discover what a miserable healthcare system they have wrought, perhaps they will accept alternatives. At the least, they will be forced to sleep in the beds they made.

  • Edward

    I would agree with you whole heartedly if it weren’t for the damage that is being done. Bob pointed to just one example in his commentary, one man died *because* of a silly rule that Obamacare has, supposedly to prevent abuse of the system. Instead of preventing abuse, it prevented life-saving care.

    Canada and Great Britain are examples of how difficult it is to correct a dystopian healthcare system. There is a reason that the British joke about their bad teeth, and Canada is starting to let free-market medical centers back into the country. Unfortunately, most people unwisely choose the life-threatening government system because it is “free” (read: pre-paid), rather than choose the more expensive life-saving health care, so correcting the dysfunctional system takes decades, if it ever occurs.

    I propose a different, unconstitutional (Fourteenth Amendment) option: require those who support this deadly, tyrannical, economy-killing healthcare law to follow its mandates and otherwise abide by all its requirements. Those who don’t support it can live under the previous healthcare system. We can delineate between the two groups by declaring that registered Democrats are the former group, and all others are the latter (after all, it was passed by only Democratic votes and enacted by a Democratic presidential signature). Of course, the work-rules would also have to be different for the different groups, so companies that donate to Democrats would be required to follow the law and its associated rules, but companies that don’t would not.

    I suspect that Democrat registration and donations would decline precipitously. The only people who seem to like this law are the ones who get something for nothing — er — get something at the expense of everyone else (including the late Frank Alfisi, it cost him his life).

  • Edward

    Are you suggesting that we screwed up our high-quality healthcare system, our economy and jobs, our rule of law, and lost our freedoms for absolutely nothing!?!

    Oops. Sorry. I fell for yet another April Fools. (I am *SO* gullible.) Of course no president or Congress would do that to us. That would be Un-American. That would be tyrannical. That would be evil. Sheesh. Only evil, anti-American tyrants would do that to us. Or Democrats (a subset of the former).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *