From today’s WSJ: “I learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy as opposed to intentions."~ Walter Williams, black economist whose new autobiography “Up from the Projects” is featured in an op-ed: 'The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family.' by Jason L. Riley. Ah, thinking about policy vs. intentions..the perfect segue way into Repealing ObamaCare.
The Left is freaking out at the possibility that ObamaCare will be repealed—not yet, but come 2012. In the meantime funding is in danger and they know both of these things might undo the biggest expansion of government ever seen in the U.S. history. FemiSex has been harping on the vast expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare as a ruse used by Obama to accomplish his ultimate goal of having government-run health care for all. Ultimately Barack Hussein Obama wants to change the very fabric of America; rather than a land of golden opportunity for those willing to work hard, BHO wants to make this a land of entitlements, where you are raised on the assumption that you deserve to be cared for from cradle to grave. Rather than a land of temporary safety nets, Barack Obama wants to transition American into a land of permanent entitlement and where incomes of individuals should be flattened by large tax burdens into a Soviet style community of equality. Doubtless Obama is and was a fan of the very entitlements that have desecrated the black community.

Let’s look at the reality of ObamaCare. Obama has rigged a health care reform bill that will inevitably cost the country far more that it can sustain.
Here are some interesting outtakes to bolster this fact:
From Investor’s Business Daily:

Massachusetts, where a similar health care bill was enacted in April 2006. It is already imploding.
The only measure by which Massachusetts can be judged a success is the number of people enrolled in Medicaid and other government-subsidized insurance plans. Of the 410,000 newly insured in Massachusetts, three in four are either paying nothing or very little for their insurance. They've also been successful in continuing to pull down massive subsidies from Washington to support the overhaul.
Spending has exploded. Medicaid, a problem in every state, is destroying Massachusetts. The health overhaul was really Medicaid expansion, and with the rolls up nearly 25% since 2006, Massachusetts is struggling to pay the bills.
The other promises turned out to be bogus as well. Despite the near-universal insurance, the state still spends $414 million on uncompensated care, an expense that Romney and his architects promised would disappear. Emergency-room use has not dropped as predicted. From 2006 to 2008, emergency room use under Mass Care increased by 9%. And private employer insurance costs, far from dropping, have continued to increase.
A 2010 study published in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts, prior to its overhaul, increased at a rate 3.7% slower than the national average. Post-overhaul, they are increasing 5.8% faster.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/559597/201101121838/Has...

From Real Clear Markets on the absurd lie that ObamaCare is a money saver:

The problem is that the projected [CBO} savings and the tax revenues [of Obamacare] in all likelihood will not occur if the act stays on the books as it reads now. Few believe that that Congress will cut $500 billion from Medicare outlays over the next decade and apply the funds to tax credits to help the uninsured buy an expensive government-mandated health plan.
There is history to support this skepticism. Just last year, Congress was scheduled to cut physician reimbursement rates for Medicare by 21% in June. The cuts were postponed until November, and in December Congress voted to delay a 25% cut until the end of 2011.
Now, the 25% cut is due to take effect in January 2012, to be followed by a further cut in 2014. This scaling back of physicians' reimbursements would save the government $65 billion over the next three and a half years--$65 billion to be dedicated to the new health care entitlement. Congress has repeatedly delayed these cuts because of a well-founded fear that they would lead to more doctors refusing to see Medicare patients.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/01/13/extreme_budget_illog...

More from The Oklahoman on the absurd lie that ObamaCare is not a massive sinkhole for your tax dollars:

There's nothing wrong with your eyes: Dems claim that retracting Obamacare, which will spend about $1 trillion over the next decade, will add $230 billion to the deficit between by 2021. They cite a Congressional Budget Office analysis, but it's an inside-the-Beltway shell game. Watch closely.

proponents omitted $115 billion in implementation costs, counted $70 billion in premiums for long-term care insurance while ignoring the benefits it will pay out, and pretended that more than $450 billion in reimbursement cuts to Medicare providers will occur when everyone in Washington knows they won't.
Only through such budgetary gimmicks does Obamacare look like it would save money
Medicare providers will have to be fairly paid or they'll abandon those patients. Benefits under long-term care insurance will be claimed. Projected revenues from a tax on high-end health care, the kind some unions offer their members, are unlikely to be realized because the unions won't stand for it.
Democrats' attempts to tar Republicans as budget busters for trying to repeal this behemoth are silly, disingenuous.
Read more: http://newsok.com/repealing-obamacare-will-increase-deficit-please/artic...

And from the horses mouth itself:

“…in their franker moments, the bill's [ObamaCare’s] authors admit that "reform" could be something of a time bomb that will cause exploding health care costs down the line. One top Senate aide plainly stated last summer, "This is a coverage bill, not a cost reduction bill." The time-bomb nature of Obamacare was presaged by Mitt Romney's health care bill in Massachusetts, which also expanded health insurance coverage by mandating that all individuals buy insurance, prohibiting insurers from dropping customers, and subsidizing the insurance of those with difficulty affording it.
In Massachusetts, these subsidies, mandates and regulations quickly caused health insurance and health care costs to spike, compelling the governor and state legislature to impose cost controls on insurers and providers while raising taxes on the state's residents and businesses.
David Bowen, former health staff director of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is one of the Obamacare authors to admit the bill could be a time-bomb.

Three months after the bill passed, and after Bowen had left Capitol Hill, he gave a briefing at the K Street offices of the lobbying firm Sidley Austin -- an event the firm billed as a "unique behind the scenes look at the development of this landmark legislation and [an opportunity] to hear an insider's view about issues that the legislation left unresolved."
Bowen compared the federal legislation to the Massachusetts legislation on the score of costs. "In Mass., there was a very conscious decision to do coverage first, knowing that that would bring on a cost battle second," the former Ted Kennedy aide explained. "We certainly made the same decision. This is a coverage bill, not a cost reduction bill. There is stuff here that will begin to address the issue of cost, but this is not a cost reduction bill with a bit of coverage on it -- it is really trying to get coverage first."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/tick-tick-tick-cost-obama...

Paul Krugman could be one of the most vicious people alive today when he writes that those against ObamaCare are against it “because it would cover the uninsured—and that’s something they just don’t want to do.” Ever the partisan pothole, and liar, Krugman pretends that ONLY the GOP opposes ObamaCare when in fact, a large swath of Democrats and most Independents oppose the legislation.

This brings me back to the powerful words by Walter Williams: that you can’t fall in love with a policy because it seems like a good and fair idea—so did collective farming under Mao, but ….not so much, actually.
You have to be smart enough to know that at its core ObamaCare is a rotten tomato that will do massive harm to the 85% of those who already do have insurance while only doing minimal good to those without insurance. Trust me, you DON'T want Medicaid! I'll say it again:
Trust me, you don’t want Medicaid. None of do and that is NOT good policy and neither is asking the private sector workers to support Medicaid, Medicare, Government pensions and retirement healthcare, subsidies for those who buy insurance on their own, high risk pools, coverage for illegal immigrants, long-term care, and pay for our own health care expenses as well. If you want to break the back of those who don’t work for the government, then.... ObamaCare is what you do. If you want to get us into something that we can’t get out of and will also tremendously weaken America, ObamaCare is what you do. Of course, that would be breaking the back of America and what makes it work.

Americans are good people and we do want to cover everyone with healthcare, but in a way that makes sense. If you slam America into an iceberg it will, like the Titanic, sink. If you deftly find a way to move more Americans into health care coverage without destroying the mothership, that is the “good” and smart policy way to go. Medicare is for people who don't work, ObamaCare is telling American's you don't have to work. And look what that did to the black community. We must keep our eyes on the prize: fully repeal ObamaCare and replace it with workable and sustainable health insurance solutions. We need to focus attention on those who need to buy insurance outside of the workplace and only that population. That is what American can and and should do. Shoving them into Medicaid is NOT a solution, Barack!

I hope you end this with a read of the WSJ op-ed mentioned above. Good intentions can destroy a people. The “good” idea to give unlimited welfare to blacks in the 60s effectively destroyed the black family and has led to a titanic sinking of the black community. “Good” intentions to bankrupt America so she can claim the greater good, mean a lot of bad for a LOT of people.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870488130457609422105006159...