Pre-SOTU Ponderings

Tonight the big 0 will be delivering yet another State of the Union address.  Sigh.  When at all possible, I avoid listening to this man.  He’s a despicable, horrible, tiny little person in whom I vest no admiration and for whom I have even less respect.  Despite this, I do have a morbid curiosity about what he’ll say this year.  This curiosity is rooted in the strange and troubling transformation he’s undergone since his reelection; the real him is becoming more and more clear to everyone but his most die-hard salivating Obots.  And it’s not pretty.

Besides, I’ve posted on each of his previous SOTU’s (he didn’t deliver one in ’09):

2010: POS BO’s SOTU: WTH?

2011: The SOTU In A Nutshell

2012: BO’s Subterfuge of the Union Address

What do I expect from tonight?  I’m not entirely sure because I’m not sure how much of his hand he’s confident enough to reveal, but based on his inauguration speech, I do expect it to be even more transparently leftist than any previous such speech.  And I expect it to be loaded with buzz words that are designed to unruffle the feathers of center-right Americans.

He loves to toss out things that sound like he “gets” America but that actually have nothing to do with true American sentiment or our foundational beliefs.  So he’ll talk about guns as if they are only for sport hunting or shooting skeet in mom jeans, saying things like hunting is an American tradition or some such nonsense.  And he’ll talk about rugged individualism . . . in the context of the “federal family” he seeks to impose (it’s very like Hilary’s “village,” by the way, as you’d expect from a collectivist loon).  He’ll talk about “who we are as a people,” and most of us won’t have any idea what he’s talking about because he not only has no idea who we, the people, are, but he doesn’t even understand that he doesn’t understand.

His speech will cover a laundry list of things that are anathema to the majority of American people:

Amnesty, gay marriage, forcing religious institutions and individuals to act against their conscience, global warming (or climate change, whatever the newest catch phrase is for this hoax), raising taxes, fair shares, infrastructure, teachers, guns, and our individual responsibility . . . to the government (i.e. 0 himself) and to a lesser degree to the collective.

Things he won’t mention:

His kill list, his drone attacks on American citizens, Benghazi and our raped and murdered ambassador, the fact that there has not been a federal budget during his entire presidency, the fact that war deaths have sharply increased under his “leadership,” the amassing of ammo by his administration, the numerous unConstitutional executive orders he’s signed and intends to sign, drone activity in the U. S., the fraud that it took to “win” the election, the fact that death panels are indeed a prominent feature of “cost-savings” in the 0CareTax, or the fact that Gitmo is still open and that he not only extended President Bush’s warrantless wiretaps but added to their scope and intrusiveness.

Things he may mention but shouldn’t:  his new healthy housing initiative whereby the federal government imposes requirements on homeowners to meet as yet unclear “healthy” standards (this is in compliance with, added to, and/or justified by the 0CareTax monstrosity), his nuclear disarmament plans (whereby the only country who currently has nukes and won’t in the near future is the United States; all other countries, of course, will keep theirs), the fiscal benefits of the 0CareTax (there are none, so far it’s a complete failure in every way–“not one dime” was a lie; “illegal immigrants won’t be covered” was a lie; “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” was a lie; “abortion won’t be covered” was a lie; and on and on) except that it does seem it will fulfill its goal of shutting down private health insurers), and his “cyber-security” plans (i.e. a kill switch).

But who knows, maybe he’ll surprise us all and actually tell us the real state of the union:  we’re broke, divided, pissed off (on both sides of the aisle), and teetering on the brink of at least two (more) wars.  Three if you count the civil war he seems intent on creating.  Naw, he’s not got an honest bone in his body.  Add that to the fact that he’s a coward, and we can expect more happy BS that sounds right but isn’t.


Fuzzy Shorthand: The Supremes’ Decision

Okay, like everyone else I was and am intensely disappointed that the Supremes didn’t strike down the individual mandate and–due to the regressive commies’ intentional removal of the severability clause–strike down the entire 0Care travesty.

I had intended to write a long, probably rambling and riddled with curse words, post about the decision, but I’ve found that everything I have to say about it, I’ve been saying on various blog posts.  So lazy Fuzzy has decided to shorthand the post and link to a few of those posts and to copy and paste (the horror!) my comments.  Thus, through this patchwork, will you know what I think (if you care), and we can discuss the ramifications of Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion . . . and more importantly how we can win war.

So let’s start where I start most of my reading, commenting, and general daily reading joy: Legal Insurrection, presided over by the inimitable Professor Jacobson.

In his “Stop the self-delusion” post, he reminds us (quite rightly) that we freaking lost:

We live to fight another day, but don’t tell me we won because someday possibly in the future in some other case with some other set of Justices we maybe might achieve some doctrinal benefit from the Commerce Clause ruling.

So please don’t delude yourselves.  Today was a bitter loss because it was one we should have won.

Aye, no arguments here.  Well, you know, much.  Here’s my comment there:

You’re right about the takeover of 1/6 of our economy, the incredible growth of government, and the death panels, all of it. But if, as many thought would happen, only the mandate were struck down, we’d still have all of that and still need to work our cute little butts off to hold the House, and win both the Senate and the WH in November.

Without the mandate, the hope (I guess) was the dems would just give in and redo it. What a joke, you don’t think for a minute that would have happened; we’d still have the bulk of the badness that is the ObamaCare monstrosity (including the student loan takeover, the long list of new agencies and new powers to existing agencies, the death panels, the other zillion taxes built into it, all the assorted horrors and affronts to limited government and liberty), and we’d still have to insist on full repeal.

The next post that I found compelling was over at the fabulous Just A Conservative Girl‘s place.  She wrote, in part:

Our job now is to educate the people in this country to what their choices mean.  When we go to the ballot box we are not voting for prom king/queen.  We are voting for people who will be handling very serious issues that do effect our everyday lives.  Obamacare may seem good to some on the surface.  After all they are getting all kinds of “free stuff”.  But all these free things have a cost.  These costs will be seen in higher premiums, and entire new class of the uninsured.


Chief Justice Roberts clearly states in his majority (ack!) ruling that the Court is not in place to protect the American people from themselves.  We elected those idiots, we have to deal with what they did.  It’s true.  No deus ex machina will be employed, no plot device will swoop in and exonerate the people from bad electoral decisions or from decades of voter apathy and disengagement.

My comment:

Like you, I have mixed feelings about the ruling but accept it. I’m VERY pleased that Chief Justice Roberts reigned in the Commerce Clause, and even okay with the whole “tax” thing because this will force pols to say what their “mandates” actually are, and to explain to the American people that their newest stroke of socialist genius is going to actually TAX us for NOT buying something.

It’s unclear to me, from what I’ve read, if we even have to pay the tax at all. It sounds rather like we cannot be fined, jailed, etc. for refusing to comply. But I wouldn’t push that one 🙂

Anyway, raging against the Supremes is useless. Most people agreed the most likely thing would be the mandate being struck down, and as onerous and horrible as the mandate is, it’s nowhere near as truly tyrannical as the rest of the bill. We’d be in the same place . . . we HAVE to win in November. There are no two ways about that.

And last but by no means least is the fun (and civil!) discussion over at Sentry Journal.  The ever thoughtful and thought-provoking John wrote:

Below are five reason why I think this ruling empowered the states, shackled the government, will not only bring an end to Obamacare, but will ensure Obama is a one term President.

  1. President Obama promised not to raise taxes on the American people making under $250,000.  Democratic leaders promised that the individual mandate was not a tax.  Well because of Justice Roberts and the court’s decision that’s exactly what the individual mandate is…a tax.  Congratulation President Obama, your lawyers made their case!  It’s a tax.  Not only is it a tax, it’s the largest tax in American history.  And for those who are worried this opens up a whole new way for the government to control our behavior through a “penalty” well it’s nothing new.  They’ve been doing it for years with “sin taxes” on tobacco and other undesirable products.   The only difference now, the SCOTUS has clarified that anything congress attaches as a penalty to can be viewed as a tax and it’s much more difficult to push bills through congress as a tax increase than bills that hide behind the commerce clause.  Additionally because the individual mandate has now been ruled a tax Republicans can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal the mandate with a simple majority.
  2. Judge Roberts’s argument against using the commerce clause not only brought more clarity to it, he greatly reduced the ability of congress to use this line of reasoning again to force us to engage in any activity they may be view as commerce.  His opinion reflected the following:  “People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.  That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its author­ity, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Feder­alist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do.  Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”  This line of reasoning in essence shackles congress and expands liberty.
  3. Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer all agreed that it was unconstitutional for the government to deprive a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion.  Roberts wrote the following.  “As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Af­fordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Af­fordable Care Act.”   So as you can see the states now have a choice.  This conclusion blazes the trail to limit the expansion of other federal programs imposed by the government on the states.  This was clearly a win for the states and states’ rights.
  4. Obamacare still remains a very unpopular law.  In fact those who oppose it still hover over the 50 percentile mark.  Mitt Romney raised more than $4 million within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare and we have Justice Roberts to thank for this.  While the Kool-Aid drinking liberals celebrate the Tea Party movement is charging up.  Once again average Americans are waking up and they are rallying around the battle cry to repeal Obamacare.  I personally received 10 emails from Tea Party Patriots; welcome back to the summers of 2009 and 2010.  This is the last thing President Obama and Democrats wanted to see four months out from a major election.  They wanted Obamacare to quietly fade into obscurity and be a nonfactor in 2012.  John Roberts threw a wrench into that machine and now once again it’s hanging around their necks going into November.  And you can’t tell me that Justice Roberts doesn’t read the polls.
  5. The last thing to mention is that the left is so caught up in the moment they didn’t even see this coming.  They didn’t even see how masterfully Justice Roberts played them.  And by the time they do Obama will be a one term President, Republicans will control the Senate and House, and 2016 will seem like a million years away.  Bub bye Obamacare and President Obama.

Mr. President…you’ve been punk’d and you don’t even realize it yet.

Ah, yes, such goodness!  There’s some back and forth in the comments (always such wonderful fun to bat around ideas with fellow conservative patriots!), but here’s what I wrote (for context, hop over and read the whole article and all comments):

I have to agree with your excellent assessment, John. Not only is it really not the Supremes’ job to save us from our apathy and bad choices, but it’s really put the onus on we, the people. The very thing we claim we want. Well, we got it. Let’s roll!

Oh, and I think it’s worth pointing out that from most commentary from legal observers, the only (pre-ruling) likely outcome was that the mandate was struck down while the rest of the monstrous power grab remained in place.

I’m rather shocked that so many conservatives seem to think that would be preferable (especially with the gifts Roberts gave us in his opinion). The mandate is totally unacceptable, don’t get me wrong, but there are over a dozen OTHER taxes, death panels, dozens of new government agencies, the student loan takeover, illegals covered (including abortion), the religious freedoms HHS mandate (that’s the first of many this law will spawn), and literally thousands of other liberty-stealing, power-grabbing nightmares written into 0Care. There are mandated “nutrition” courses in schools, mandatory abortion advice services in schools, really, if you can think of something that’s a regressive commie’s wet dream, it’s in that nightmare of a bill. Striking down the mandate wouldn’t have destroyed that, and anyone who thinks that the dems would suddenly want to redo health care without the mandate is truly delusional and/or hasn’t been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything that’s gone in the last 3 and half years.

NOW, at least, we have a chance to get rid of not only BO but the entire law by holding the House and taking the Senate. It must be repealed–that’s always been the only way to get rid of it (Michele Bachmann was right on that–and woe-betide any GOP, RINO, or TEA Party “republican” who defies the will of the people on that. They’ll have the shortest political careers in history as they get voted out in the next election. Honestly, I think that the GOP would die as a party if they don’t repeal immediately. A third, truly Constitutional party will rise, and I’ll be on board with it. Fast.


[quote]It’s definitely a tough call, John, but to me if your thesis is correct, this is a short term gain for a long term agony of never ending behavioral control via taxation that the American people may never be able to rectify and I differ in that it wasn’t worth it.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, Michigan, but keep in mind that a LOT (if not all) of taxes are behavior modification through taxation, so let’s not fool ourselves. And I don’t just mean the cigarette taxes that Chief Justice Roberts cited in his ruling, either, but everything from tax credits for home ownership (the government wants you to buy a home) and over-taxing the rich (to discourage success and the American Dream, a key commie goal) to BO’s tax structure built to discourage marriage (individuals as $200.000, couples at $250,000–so two people making $200k are actually better off NOT getting married, from a taxation perspective). What better way to undermine our culture, society, and religion? So yeah, it’s “behavioral control” or ”social engineering,” but all existing laws, at rock bottom are, including tax laws. [insert: I’ve written at more length about this previously.]


Very true, Michigan. The difference here is that without the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses to hide behind, regressive commies will have a much harder time selling their tyranny-by-taxation BEFORE acts pass Congress, and long before they hit the president’s desk. Again, the onus is on the people, where, arguably, it belongs.

Do we stay awake and perform the civic duty our Founders envisioned or do we slouch back on the couch while the Republic burns and tyranny takes hold? I think we agree on the answer to that one :)


In some ways, Jim, the Citizens United case is a perfect representation of what we can now expect. The lawsuits brought by the states against 0Care focused on the Medicaid funding and the mandate. Because of this narrow challenge, there are still many many things that can and will be litigated about 0Care (should it survive, which I hope to God it does not).

With Citizens United, originally upheld under one lawsuit, we saw the Supremes actually overturn their earlier ruling. This will happen with 0Care now that the Chief Justice Roberts has stripped the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of their 100 years of muscle.

In short, we’d have been screwed if only the mandate had been struck down and the rest of the law upheld.  The only real win for us was the Supremes throwing out the entire law, and very few believed that possible, much less likely.

Chief Justice Roberts, through whatever wily and illogical means, has thrown the ball back into our court.  And yes, it belongs there.

Let’s roll!

Death Panels, Single-Payer Healthcare, and a Couple of Solutions

Our healthcare system is broken. There is little doubt about that, and most people want some kind of reform. What many people don’t seem to want is the government running our healthcare system. They can’t run the mail system efficiently (even BO admits this), and getting a driver’s license is a nightmare, not to mention that the Cash for Clunkers government program went bankrupt in a matter of days. The government does not have a good track record in running anything from veteran’s care to Medicare to social security, so why on earth would we trust them with our health, our lives?

Death Panels: From BO’s Own Mouth

There is, as usual, a lot of hysteria out there, particularly on the topic of “death panels.” The democrats would have us believe that this is a vast right-wing conspiracy that has no basis in truth. But the actual truth of this matter is that BO himself opened that door in an interview with New York Times Magazine (they just love him over there, too, and are certainly not right wing).

Following his bizarre “red pill/blue pill” discussion in which he revealed his plan to have the government enforce generic choices on patients (this is already done by some insurance companies, by the way), he mentions end of life care. To this vague and unfinished thought, the reporter said, “Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.” To this prompt, BO launched into a rambling story about his grandmother’s final days (weeks, months, whatever). He ended this disjointed blather by saying:

So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But
that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

Okay, so what’s unclear about this, People? He’s saying that people cost too much money when they become too old or are terminally or chronically ill (note this is NOT just grandma–the elderly), and that the government should decide, based on cost, what happens to them.

It’s right there in black and white. From the man’s own mouth. You’re sick, you’re going to die anyway, why hang around sucking the money from people who are younger, fitter, and may not die immediately? If the government makes this “difficult moral” decision based on cost, what do you have? You have a panel of government officials deciding who lives and who dies based on a cost / benefit analysis that does not take anything but cost into account, the benefit being saved public monies. “Death panel” is an alarmist term for it, sure, but ultimately, that’s what we’d have.

One of the responses to this from the Left is that this is what we have already with private insurance. And that’s true. The solution, however, is not to shift the “are you worth keeping around or are you going to cost us too much money?” decision from one group (insurance companies, that are businesses) to another, even less-qualified group (the federal government, also a business).

Paying for It

Another thing that people are upset about (and it really IS okay for people to be upset and to vocally express this upset despite the denigrating remarks about American citizens coming from the White House, the Left, and the media) is the cost of all this. Not the cost of procedures for the elderly near end of life or for the terminally ill of any age, but for the whole implementation of this health care plan. Trillions more dollars, on top of the bailouts, takeovers, Cash for Clunkers, and other useless and ineffective spending that this administration has engaged in over the past seven or eight months. Where is all this money coming from?

Mr. If You Make Less Than $250,000 You Will Not See Increased Taxes has played semantics with us yet again. Sure, he’s not (yet) touched income tax, but there are other ways to get money from tax payers. Like the cigarette tax that he signed; the majority of smokers in this country earn less (often FAR less) than $250k. Likewise, the money for all of his health care reforms are going to come in the form of taxes on people making less than $250k, but they’ll be attached to businesses and other backhanded ways that I’m guessing he thinks that anyone making less than $250k is too stupid to figure out. And that’s where he’s wrong. People are figuring it out (granted about 10 months too late, but hey! it’s at least happening), and they are not happy about it. Businesses will have a choice of paying a tiny tax to the public option for not providing better coverage to their employees and paying larger costs for offering better coverage. Gee, I wonder which “option” they’ll take?

First Step to Single-Payer Healthcare (AKA Socialized Medicine): Change You (Actually) Can Believe In

Obama has made clear all along that he supports a single-payer healthcare system (i.e. socialized medicine run by the government). He used to be very clear about it, enunciating each word with pride at his vision for a government that makes all healthcare decisions for all citizens (um, except members of Congress, the President, and I’m guessing, former presidents).

He is being disingenuous when he tells you that he wants you to have a choice. There will be no “choice” that is left up to you. At first, while there are still other health insurance option (for up to the next 20 years, according to BO himself), you’ll still be restricted by state laws limiting your choices, you’ll still be at the mercy of your employer (who will get nice incentives for pushing you into a public option), and you’ll still find COBRA, etc. exorbitant.

He’s lying to us all. This farce he’s putting forward now, this phony claim that you’ll still be able to maintain your private insurance is nothing but bait and switch. It’s the first step, he’s said this, to single-payer, government-run healthcare. Period.

Obama’s Approval Ratings Drop

His approval rating is dropping like a brick. Look at Rasmussen, look at Gallup; they clearly show that BO is losing ground fast. Personally, I don’t think this is related strictly to healthcare reform; it seems to me that he’s been losing ground since the take over of GM and the banking centralization. The man’s got the government involved in banking, the auto industry, real estate, and now healthcare? Too much, too soon, too fast. He’s like a kid in a candy store, but the owners are finally on to him.

So they (being the BO White House, the Left, and the media) demonize the people, everyday people–some of whom are independents or conservative democrats, who dare to voice their disapproval, calling them the “lunatic fringe” and the “far right loons.” Well, okay, but the bottom line is that people are angry, they are frightened, and THEY VOTE. Dismissing his falling approval ratings, attacking Americans who have the right to protest and express dissent peaceably, and basically plowing ahead blind and deaf to all criticism reminds me of someone else, actually. What other stubborn, narrow-visioned president have we had recently?

Government-Rationed Health Care Inevitable

While Obama’s heart may be in the right place (not that I think he has a heart, but assuming he did and assuming we buy his rhetoric), the ramifications of a government-run, single-payer healthcare system are truly frightening. They’ll have “x” number of dollars budgeted for healthcare (if it gets passed, it will be allocated funds, of course), and with that money (whatever amount it is), they will need to cover all the medical needs of all the people in this country. And though few are saying it, keep in mind that illegal immigrants will NOT be covered, so we’re still going to be footing the bill for their ER visits, etc.
HOW can the government do this? Well, the only way is to ration healthcare; there are not unlimited funds, and that can only mean that someone or someones has to decide who deserves what treatments and for how long. There is no other logical way for this “reform” to work. This is not utopia, we don’t have money growing on trees (though we are printing it so fast you’d think we did!), we don’t have a way to ensure the health and well-being of every American. Someone will decide this, and it won’t be you (though you’ll be paying for it).
It will be the government, that same government who currently decides which states get money for bridges, education, etc., that same government who makes these decisions based on back room dealings, PACs, and via other seedy and questionable means. And you want them deciding whether granny is “worth” life? Come on! This is much like what happened in the South with regard to the 15th Amendment. Sure, we’ll let blacks vote IF they pass a literacy test and jump through these ten hoops to prove they are worthy.
They will establish a set of guidelines (just the insurance companies have) that dictate what is acceptable health expense and what is not; the trouble with the single-payer system is that no one can bypass it. Currently, if your insurance company won’t cover a medical procedure, you at least have the option of getting it anyway, by paying for it yourself. That will not be an option once healthcare is centralized and controlled by the government. It’s bizarre to imagine that you might have to get a “back alley” hip replacement for grandma because according to government standards, she’s too old, frail, or terminally ill to be worth the expense, but hey, stranger things have happened.
“You Should Have the Same Healthcare Available to Members of Congress.” Not!
And keep in mind that NOT ONE member of Congress will be forced into this public, single-payer option. Not one. They will retain their excellent coverage. Let’s not point out that BO ran on the promise that every American should have access to that same coverage afforded to members of Congress. But that’s just a right wing conspiracy to use his own words and broken promises against him. Hmph!

Other Options for Healthcare Reform

BO acts like there are two choices for healthcare reform: the status quo or his plan. That’s just silly.

The primary problem with healthcare today is exorbitant costs. This creates a “trickle down” effect that ultimately results in many many Americans being un- or under-insured. What can we do that doesn’t put all the power of life and death into the hands of the government? Well, for a start, we can take a look at what we have. Currently, you can only purchase within your state, and taxes and costs make individual health insurance out of reach for the majority of the population not covered by their employer footing part of the bill and being able to get cheaper group rates for their employees. This is not true of homeowner’s insurance, renter’s insurance, auto insurance, pet insurance, or any other kind of insurance. I can call a number of insurers and get quotes on all of these and select an affordable policy that meets my needs, but I can’t for my health insurance.

So how do we drive down costs in other areas of our lives? By opening the field to competition, that’s how (and it’s mighty American to boot). Lift the restrictions on who can purchase what insurance, and you’ll see rates plummet. That’s what happened in Massachusetts when they lifted their state mandated “single-price” policy on automobile insurance. Suddenly, auto insurers had to compete for our policies, and wonder of wonders, the prices dropped (my personal auto insurance was reduced to nearly half of what it had been for the same coverage!).

Another thing that we can do is to let the states make their own decisions (gasp!) regarding their uninsured. Radical that I am, I think that this is the best way to help people who are un- or under-insured. These are mostly people who are either un- or under-employed, so rolling some kind of state health insurance into other state benefits (unemployment, food stamps, welfare, etc.) would make more sense than forcing everyone who is not receiving these benefits into a government-run “public option.”

Granted, this would involve both increased taxes and federal involvement (they fork out some of–and in some states most of–the funds for these programs), but it wouldn’t be a wholesale turning over to the federal government all matters of personal healthcare. Personally, I don’t understand why more states don’t offer some kind of health insurance policy for its citizens on these programs (Massachusetts does because of its screwed up mandatory health insurance policies, but that is one aspect that seems worth the expense).

These are relatively low-cost (compared to BO’s through the roof spending proposals on healthcare), non-intrusive solutions that can be implemented quickly. But as usual, our government doesn’t want low-cost, non-intrusive programs. That should tell you something, right?