AUSTIN, February 19 — With the Affordable Care Act collapsing piece by piece, it seems that the only financial beneficiaries of this law are liberal talking heads and other highly compensated Democratic marketing and political consultants.
Liberals cite stories of people who have been helped by Obamacare. They mention a significant number of people enrolled, although the Obama White House and its paid supporters define enrollment as filling out the application. When one uses a stricter standard of enrollment to include actual people who have paid premiums and received enforceable policies, enrollment numbers plummet.
Conservatives cite stories of people who have been hurt by Obamacare. These stories are not sugarcoated. Cancer victims and others with severe illnesses are being denied coverage that they previously had before Obamacare became law.
The people adversely affected by Obamacare have stories that are tangible and quantifiable. They dwarf the number of people who have been helped, especially when many of those receiving help find that assistance theoretical.
To separate liberal hired guns from those altruistically supporting Obamacare, only one question needs to be asked of all Obamacare defenders.
“Are you personally subjected to the law?”
Members of Congress are exempt from Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and other liberals exempted themselves from the law. They get congressional Cadillac care.
President Obama and Vice President Biden are exempt from the law. As Commander in Chief, the United States Armed Forces provides Obama’s healthcare coverage.
Wealthy liberal Hollywood celebrities and political consultants are the 1% they rail against. They can afford the finest coverage their money can buy.
When a liberal actually becomes subjected to the law, interesting observations tend to take place. Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers saw her policy that she liked get cancelled.
She recently stated that she was tired of defending the law. It is difficult to claim that the government should regulate water when your own house is facing a three-alarm fire.
Democrats will try to turn the tables and claim that Republicans are mercenaries working to defeat the law despite their not being hurt by it. That the racist joy of defeating a black president trumps sound policy.
This argument, in addition to being vile and unworthy of response, is also based on a flawed premise. It is not the job of people to prove a negative. It is up to those proposing a law to explain why it will work and then justify why their predictions were right. Those favoring the law have the burden of proof because they are the ones advocating for changing existing law.Liberal Democrats determined to defend the law lack credibility unless they are personally subjected to and affected by it.
Liberals would never tolerate or accept a study that promotes oil, guns or cigarettes if executives of those companies who are paid to promote their products wrote the impact reports. Stock analysts and talking heads are required to disclose if they are personally invested in the companies they promote.
Conversely, those promoting Obamacare should let us know if they earn their living promoting liberal causes. The New York Times and MSNBC are advocacy organizations providing generous healthcare benefits to their top employees. Times columnists Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman are not subjected to Obamacare.
Neither are MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz, no matter how loudly they scream. Schultz has come under fire for allegedly accepting money from unions he promotes.
Yelling does not make a person correct or mitigate ethical conflicts. It just makes the person insufferable.
Wealthy liberal advocacy groups, many of whom are funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, have every right to claim that they believe Obamacare is working.
The rest of mainstream America has a right to point out raging conflicts of interest by people who laugh all the way to the bank no matter how many people are hurt by destructive liberal policies such as Obamacare.