Friday, February 14, 2014

Obamacare is a Marketplace in the Same Way the Knockout Game is a Game

By Ilana Mercer

Kirsten Powers awoke from a deep, Obamacare-induced coma. The Obama TV shill lost her health-care plan.

Eager to validate her undying loyalty to The Plan and The Planner, the fashionable blond visited the “exchange” to “shop.”

Dubbed a “marketplace” by media, left and right, Obama’s hydra-headed, state-created “exchange” is a monster of the federal government’s creation.

Obamacare is a marketplace in the same way the Knockout game is a game.

The exchanges are serviced by a shrinking pool of co-opted insurance providers, who are subject to rigid regulations, and are proscribed from performing the essential function of insurance: pricing coverage commensurate with the financial risk imposed on the risk-taker, the insurer.

Indeed, healthcare.CON offered to double Blondie’s premiums for the same “sub-standard” package she had previously enjoyed. (NHAHAHAHAHAHA! At this juncture in our narrative, the gentle reader is urged to emit maniacal, villainous laughter, or else our blond “boffin” might not suspect that in Mephisto’s Medicare, enrolling does not necessarily make one a policy holder. )

While the stage today belongs to Fox News’ imbecilic friends on the left, it must be said that, in the peanut gallery of pundits, minor are the substantive differences between “conservatives” and “liberals.” All are second-handers. Not one has anything philosophically predictive to say about the issues, other than to parrot their respective party’s talking points.

Moreover, they may pose as adversaries on TV, but they all hang together: Conservatives love the banal Powers, Juan Williams; the boorish Bob Beckel (Sean Hannity even advertised that Beckel holds the keys to the Hannity household) and the weak-minded, agreeable Lanny Davis.

The wellspring of popularity enjoyed by this last uncharismatic Democrat stems from his geniality, which is a function of his unbearable intellectual lightness.

How else would chattering-class detritus such as Davis get away with twice admitting on Fox News—and with no intelligent cross examination—that he supported Zero Care, because he and his Democratic ilk did not grasp that the price of healthcare premiums would rise [because of new expansive coverage mandates], and that policy holders would lose coverage [because their "sub-standard" policies would be outlawed].

The only point anchor Megyn Kelly should have made during the Davis segment is this: So you’re an imbecile, Lanny (what sort of name is that for a grown man?). You can’t see a few moves ahead. Fine. We get it. But there were legions of people who spoke authoritatively and tirelessly about the outcomes of Zero Care central-planning for your countrymen.

These “despicable human scum,” the words of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un for his executed uncle, are guilty of peddling their influence in promoting a wrecking ball of a law without heeding the life-threatening contraindications issued by the clever people in the room.

They refused to first do no harm.

Such failed “experts” for whom public goodwill runs eternal are a feature of discourse in this country. Be it on the “merits” of pulverizing a foreign country or their own country, they dispense dollops of disinformation without denting their status as philosopher-kings.

As crucial as the pundits who bestow them with the “non-partisan” adjectival are the CBOafs (The Congressional Budget Oafs). They too protect the status-quo.

This federal agency is as “independent” as the country’s columnists, who might as well register as lobbyists for the RNC or DNC respectively.

Typically, the CBO will first confirm government predictions of the great savings that will accrue due to this or the other wastrel, welfare program. Later, when it’s safer, they adjust their statistical sleight of hand.

Yes, getting reliable data out of the CBO is like frisking a wet seal. Consistent with the agency’s drive to preserve its prized position, one finds older CBO-generated news headlines heralding the following healthcare breakthroughs:

“CBO Confirms Families Will Save Money Under Health Reform.”

“CBO Update Shows Lower Costs for the New Health Care Law.”

“CBO Confirms: The Health Care Law Reduces the Deficit.”

As if the above assurances are mathematically possible, given the $1 trillion in tax increases and $2 trillion in subsidies that Zero Care imposes.

Lately, as even an Obamahead at the Washington Post deigned to report, “The CBO [has] predicted that the law would have a ‘substantially larger’ impact on the labor market than it had previously expected: The law would reduce the workforce in 2021 by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers … This will inevitably be a drag on economic growth, as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.”

The White House quickly countered its bean-counters by releasing the news that, to date, 3.3 million people had signed up on, and that enrollment was proceeding apace.

The swirl of new statistics is bound to disorient the ditz aforementioned. Before she forgets, let us remind Kirsten Powers of two small things. The latest sample generated by Health and Human Services is heavily weighted by:

1. People who’ve clicked on a plan but have not paid for it.
2. People like Powers who previously had insurance. First to be expunged from the individual health-care market, they have now been corralled into Obamacare.


ILANA Mercer is a classical liberal writer, based in the United States. She pens WND's longest-standing paleolibertarian column.  ILANA is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is the author of "Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa."  ILANA's website is . She blogs at

Copyright 2014 Ilana Mercer


  1. That headline is f***in' good.

  2. Lol, I like Ilana's article, but what it is about Jews and blonde hair jealousy.