Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

On June 25, 2015, from the article, ‘Words no longer have meaning’: U.S. justice Scalia apoplectic on ‘pure applesauce’ Obamacare ruling, I pointed out Justice Scalia’s Obamacare wording hypocrisy, where he said that “words no longer have meaning” in reference to the majority 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether “the State” referred only to the 13 U.S. States that have set up health care exchanges, or whether it also includes the U.S. federal government.

Scalia’s hypocrisy relates to him saying that the Second Amendment pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms allows for reasonable restrictions when it clearly says that right “shall not be infringed.”

So who is he to claim that “words no longer have meaning” in the context of this case, and given the scathing nature of his dissenting opinion, I find it appropriate to call him out on his hypocrisy in this regard.

From an intensive layman’s study of the U.S. Constitution over the years, I tend to suspect he’s right with his decision in this case, as the words “the United States” is used in both the Constitution and the United States Code to refer to the U.S. federal government, whereas “States” are used to the several states.

Check out the comments section for my various comments and responses, including from someone who chastised me for allegedly using hyperbole in saying:

Scalia has no credibility in taking exception with the Court’s interpretation of words, since he misinterprets the Second Amendment, which clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” in saying that reasonable gun control limits are allowed.

For more on Justice Scalia, see my article, Charlie Rose’s interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Read Full Post »

United StatesFor four consecutive years since 2010, Canada has been ranked more economically free than the United States.

As of 2013, Canada was ranked as the 6th most economically free country in the world, with a freedom index of 79.4, with the U.S. ranking in 10th place, with a freedom index of 76.0.

Embarrassingly for the U.S., “socialist” Denmark and “third world” Chile outranked it.

I thought that the U.S. might have slipped off the Top 10 list in 2013, thanks to the upholding of Obamacare, but the big drop in Ireland’s freedom let the U.S. stay there another year. With 11th place finisher, Ireland, just 0.3 points below the U.S., and its increasing government regulation, it would be difficult for it to supplant the U.S., unless the increasing government intrusion into the private sector has fully seen its effects in the U.S. economy.

On two occasions now, I have appeared as a guest on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith, making the case for Canada’s relatively freer economy being due to its increasing adherence to the founding principles of American government, and its increasing deviation away from the founding principles of Canadian government.

In mid-January 2014, we will see their latest rankings.

In the meantime, there are still “alternative” voices making unsupported claims, like Canada being more “socialist” than the United States, as guest Brad Thor did on “America’s most listened-to late night talk show”, Coast to Coast AM, which I have documented is a gatekeeping operation.

Read Full Post »

Uncle Sam with empty treasury, 1920, by James ...

In their 2012 Index of Economic Freedom, Canada was ranked in 6th place, and the United States was ranked in 10th place.

With the upholding of Obamacare by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2012, I think it’s a very distinct possibility that the United States will fall off the Heritage Foundation’s 2013 Index of Economic Freedom Top 10 list, and that will be almost certain if the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012.

Previously, I wrote the article, Canada more economically free than the United States for the third year in a row: Heritage Foundation.

Read Full Post »

StethoscopeIf you think Obamacare is a great idea, consider the Medicare bill for a simple procedure. Stephen Lendman revealed how a simple 15 to 20-minute ultrasound procedure cost Medicare $1875.

Meanwhile, for a 10-minute ultrasound procedure that I recently had at a private clinic in Ontario, Canada, it only cost around $100, and was paid for by the provincial government.

Someone told me that if it wasn’t for Medicare, seniors could scarcely afford treatment. Yet, in my view, Medicare is exactly part of the problem.

Medicare, like the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, is a single payer system, yet Medicare has the entire U.S. tax base of over 313 million residents, whereas OHIP only has a tax base of nearly 13 million residents.

The fact that Medicare is a national, centralized system is part of the reason why it’s so costly and inefficient.

Since the federal program of Medicare is so expensive, what would make anyone think that Obamacare will be so much more efficient, when former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said: “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Previously, I wrote the article, Medicare cost 744% more than forecasted in 1990 — 25 years after its inception in 1965.

Read Full Post »

Image representing Research In Motion as depic...

If the January 2012 departure of RIM’s founder, Mike Lazaridis, wasn’t enough of an indication that RIM was dead, RIM’s first quarter 2012 results announcement sealed it by yet again missing expectations, reporting a huge loss, and most importantly, announcing that Blackberry 10 would be delayed yet again — this time to Q1 of 2013.

The comments on thestar.com and theglobeandmail.com were overwhelmingly negative, saying that it’s over for RIM.

Once RIM revised their forecast just weeks after their rapid and massive decline began in March 2011, I reflected on what was a fatal flaw with their business model. Being smaller than Apple and Google, their whole advantage was that they were theoretically capable of being more nimble in innovating and getting new products to market. They are also highly centralized, with around half of their employees in Waterloo, which also served to their unused advantage.

Once it was announced that their PlayBook tablet — originally scheduled to be released before the iPad 2 — would be released a month after the iPad 2, that sealed its fate in that they had absolutely no hope of being a serious challenger in the tablet market. Apple already had a dominating position in the marketplace, and to be beaten to market by a second version of Apple’s highly successful tablet put the nail in the coffin of RIM’s PlayBook.

There was word in May that RIM would be laying off between 2000 to 6000 employees, when they were already in mortal danger. The fact that it took until June 28 for them to officially announce 5000 layoffs is a further indication of how out-of-touch RIM’s upper management is as to the gravity of the situation.

Previously, on September 18, 2011, I wrote the article, RIM as a metaphor for U.S. decline.

I find it a fitting parallel that on the day RIM made their catastrophic announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court found Obamacare constitutional, further strengthening my metaphor.

Read Full Post »

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection an...

William Federer, author of many books including What Every American Needs to Know about the Qur’an, was on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith on September 27, 2011, and claimed that there is a health insurance exemption for Muslims under Obamacare. (starting at 28:34)

I looked at the actual legislation, and it’s an exemption that applies to designated religious sects, which have yet to be identified.

RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION — Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

Certainly they can’t explicitly say outright that it only applies to particular religious groups, though Federer is right that Muslims, if they sought and received an exemption, would be far bigger recipients than the Amish.

As Dr. Stan rightfully said, the Act is unconstitutional to begin with (because the federal government has no enumerated power to compel residents to buy a private product as a condition of residence), and I think that should be the focus, instead of playing into the hands of those who seek to divide Americans as was no doubt intended by some who conceived that exemption.

Federer mentioned that Muslims only tax non-Muslims, but he really should know about the zakat tax, which is a 2.5% tax on all net assets that only Muslims are required to pay.

Read Full Post »


On June 28, 2011, Mises Institute VP Jeffrey Tucker extolled McDonald’s success in the challenging economic times since 2008 in his article, McDonald’s as the Paradigm of Progress.

He points out that McDonald’s appears to be responsible for more than half the new jobs being created in the U.S. recently, while managing to pay more than 30% of its income in annual taxes. However, he does recognize some libertarian criticisms of McDonald’s.

It’s true that McDonald’s is not entirely sustained by the market alone, and even overly scrupulous libertarians have jumped on the attack. It’s true that it has been reported that some of its business loans were backed by TARP money after the crisis of 2008, and, of course, it benefits indirectly from subsidies on corn and the like.

I do appreciate his indirect compliment of being an “overly scrupulous libertarian,” though I don’t think it’s being overly scrupulous to point out McDonald’s feeding at the public trough, including in a big way that Tucker doesn’t even mention — namely, their government-granted Obamacare private health insurance exemption.

While your average mom-and-pop restaurant has to pay the unconstitutional tax, McDonald’s doesn’t, since they have full-time Washington lobbyists.

Despite my view that the private health insurance mandate is unconstitutional, according to an originalist interpretation of the commerce clause, and even according to a post-Roosevelt interpretation of the commerce clause, I don’t think that an exemption for a big multinational is to be overlooked or justified at the expense of the unfair advantage it grants over smaller businesses.

For my critical analysis of the Mises Institute, see how they hate monetary inflation so much, they owned $4 million in U.S. Treasury Bonds in 2007, and how they hate government so much, they’re a government-sanctioned and regulated tax-exempt organization.

Read Full Post »