Some conservative commentator (can’t remember which) once remarked that any organization that isn’t founded by conservatives specifically to promote a conservative agenda will eventually be hijacked by liberals and end up promoting a liberal agenda — organizations that were originally intended to be non-partisan.

The official mission of the American Bar Association, for example, is to “serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession.”  Why, that sounds just peachy.  Unfortunately, the ABA has decided “serving the public” means lobbying for liberal causes and giving conservative judicial nominees lower ratings than liberal nominees with similar resumes.  If you don’t suffer hallucinations while reading the Constitution, the ABA is likely to consider you unqualified to sit on a federal bench.

As an actor who appeared in a few commercials, I was required to join the Screen Actors Guild, which is nominally non-partisan.  Imagine how overjoyed I was to learn that my dues were supporting an organization whose bulletins read like position papers from the Young Marxists of America.  SAG doesn’t even deny leaning left.  The official timeline on the SAG website says this about 1973:

In an event unprecedented in the Guild’s 40-year history, John Gavin becomes the first-ever incumbent Guild president to be defeated by a challenger, Dennis Weaver, and six other candidates are defeated by independents as well, which will mark a turn from the Guild’s traditionally conservative leadership to a more liberal, activist one.

That’s how we ended up with a SAG president (Ed Asner) giving man-hugs to Fidel Castro.  I’m not sure how supporting Castro benefited actors, but apparently Asner knew something I didn’t.

And then, of course, there’s the American Association of Retired Persons, which has been trying to recruit me ever since I turned 50.  I will never, ever join AARP, because I don’t give money to organizations pushing socialism.  In the past several years AARP has:

  • Opposed the balanced-budget amendment
  • Supported expanding Medicare and other entitlement programs
  • Opposed allowing citizens to divert part of their Social Security taxes to private investment accounts
  • Opposed reducing estate taxes

If someone can explain to me how it benefits senior citizens to have the IRS seize more of their lifetime savings when they die, please do so.

As if I needed another reason to never join AARP, the organization lobbied in favor of ObamaCare.  And how here’s the punchline:  after helping Obama pass this massive federal intrusion into our lives, AARP has received a waiver:

The seniors group that lobbied heavily for ObamaCare and stands to profit handsomely from it now has its own waiver. As the White House picks winners and losers, AARP wins and the rest of us lose.

Although not specifically mentioned by name in the rate review rules finalized last Thursday by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the rule that exempts Medigap insurance providers is clearly designed to benefit the largest seller of such policies and the biggest lobbyist for ObamaCare — the American Association of Retired Persons.

The millions forced by ObamaCare to lose the Medicare Advantage coverage will result, the report said, “in a massive migration of seniors to Medigap plans. AARP is the nation’s leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee.” Cha-ching!

ObamaCare waivers and exemptions have been handed out to unions, corporations, luxury hotels and restaurants in Nancy Pelosi’s district, and Harry Reid’s entire state of Nevada.  Apparently, the main qualification for receiving an exemption from ObamaCare is to have supported ObamaCare in the first place.  Strangely, our unbiased mainstream media doesn’t seem interested in asking why the Obama administration would feel the need to exempt anyone from a law the president insisted will actually save us all a ton of money.

So while well-connected businesses (including AARP) and good friends of Harry, Nancy and Barack won’t be subject to the health-care “reform” law, most of us will.  I seem to recall the Constitution includes a provision guaranteeing equality under the law.  If ObamaCare applies to a restaurant owner in Tennessee but not in Nancy Pelosi’s district, that’s not equality under the law.  If the Supreme Court doesn’t declare ObamaCare unconstitutional for that reason alone, it’s time to just admit the Constitution is dead –  as opposed to surviving on life support, which has been its status for some years now.

In the meantime, I’m considering sending a large contribution to Obama’s re-election campaign.  If my business grows to the point where I need to start hiring employees other than my wife, I’d like to ensure that any new regulations Obama manages to get through Congress won’t apply to me.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
11 Responses to “ObamaCare’s Waiver-ing Supporters”
  1. Be says:

    Is it time for a change yet?

    I just hope the competition doesn’t implode.

  2. Amy Dungan says:

    I’m trying to so hard to be surprised, but it’s just not happening. I can’t even fake shock at this point. I hope the constitution isn’t dead, but I’m pretty sure hope and change are.

    I guess we could consider passing a sweeping law and then exempting your friends a change.

  3. Wyatt says:

    Sadly, The Constitution was mercilessly beaten to death by the end of the 1800s (or early 1900s if we’re being charitable) and we’ve only been pretending to adhere to it since. Although I must say I am getting very, very vexed by the fact that we’re not even pretending to adhere to it anymore. Example: Obamacare, as this very article notes. Another example, Indiana’s supreme court deciding that police have the right to enter and search your home for any reason whatsoever, no warrant/probable cause required ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-ind-ruling-on-illegal-police-entry-sparks-protest-20110519,0,4882870.story ). Another example, the hilarious semantic gymnastics (yeah, I used to play bass for semantic gymnastics…) the administration is using to keep this third open-ended war we’ve gotten ourselves into from being considered an actual war. Ad infinitum.

    I’m almost grateful for this administration- for a long time, I put up with/defended Bush II’s continual shredding of The Constitution simply because MY home team surely wouldn’t abuse expanded executive, military, and domestic spying powers. The left admonished us for treating The Constitution like it was a series of suggestions. Now, I’m watching the inverse happen- no sense of irony, just an undeniable example of the pot calling the kettle black. I remember Bill Clinton using Janet Reno like a mob enforcer, and the results were the same- the right was SO CONCERNED about trampled rights, and the left didn’t worry too much because the ends somehow justified the means as long as their guy was making the decisions. Are our attention spans really that short? Obama’s crew have clearly shown me what a boob I was, and if Democrats had any hindsight, they’d be feeling pretty stupid about now.

    And the competition will implode, by the way- the wacky, byzantine system we’ve set up for our primaries guarantees that a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will never get an edge over party hacks like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. We’ll be lucky if Herman Cain comes anywhere near the nomination- and I’m not even remotely a big fan of him (he ranks as ‘barely acceptable’ on my list of people I’d vote for).

    I’m afraid you’re right. If the question is “which party shreds the Constitution the most?” the answer is “whichever party is in power.”

    • Be says:

      Tom, as usual, you cut to the chase. It’s all about power.

      But Wyatt’s point is well taken – I get so sick of the partisanship that frankly I can’t decide who I disrespect most: the liberal altruists who seem clueless about reality or the republicans who are supposed to defend individual freedom. Or even the Libertarians (with a capital “L”) who pretend to defend the individual and acquiesce to the powers “in power.”

      That’s why I wish — knowing it’ll never happen, short of a major disaster that sparks a true political revolution — that we had a small government. Power corrupts, so I want the government to have far less power.

  4. Phil Bennett says:

    Unions are all the same — they might’ve had a point back in the early days, but they’ve done nothing but hold their members back, and indulge in other skulduggery, your case in point. They’re almost oblivious to economic realities when it comes to employer responsibility but soon wisen up when it’s “their” money on the table.

    Is there actually a man / woman, conservative with a small “c”, laissez-faire in attitude to economics and world affairs out there with enough dogged determinism to actually persuade voters? Maybe someone like Thomas Sowell, but he’s too smart to run.

    I’m afraid I foresee 4 more years of Obama, and that’s four years where he doesn’t have to give two hoots to being re-elected.

    I’m more optimistic at this point. Obama’s negatives are running really high.

    • Be says:

      His lows may still be better than the opposition’s highs. Palin? Romney? Even Gingrich? Bachmann? Pawlenty? Really? I would support Ron Paul, but do you really think this country is ready for that reality? What scares me is that if the economy keeps on it’s downward spiral that the right might really nominate a tea bagger: that could be worse because the country will vote to keep the devil we know. {{{{shiver}}}}} I am increasingly pessimistic about our country. How sad/

  5. Jamie says:

    Since I didn’t vote for him can I be exempt too?

    No, to be exempt from his programs, you have to support his programs.

    • Jamie says:

      That is a stupid rule. Plus, it’s really sad when a government that is supposed to be for the people ignores what the people want.

  6. Pat says:

    Watching from Canada – this is strange/weird to see. American commentators have made nasty comments about our “socialist” system, but it is truly universal, no exemptions.

    We’re plenty socialist here.

  7. Milton says:

    Nothing inspires confidence in a government program like watching the people who backed it scramble to be exempted from it, and watching the government grant those exemptions as fast as they are requested. I guess this is how Obamacare is going to “bend the cost curve downward”– no one will be using it, so it won’t cost any money to run it!

  8. When I got laid off last year then went on temporary disability because of a repetitive stress injury to my shoulder and hand (30 years as a computer programmer), I asked my ex-boss what he thought I should do for health insurance since COBRA was so expensive. He told me to get a very high deductible plan. He said since he had moved on from the company he has been able to reduce the cost of his and his wife’s healthcare. Unfortunately his insurance ran out before he investigated what he should buy. He can’t get insurance now because of his wife’s diabetes (she uses an insulin pump and has had diabetes since she was a child).

    I ended up going with COBRA because TARP pays 65% of the cost. Obamacare makes high deductible policies illegal so when COBRA runs out I’ll have to buy a high priced Obamacare approved policy. Other than my shoulder injury I’m pretty healthy, especially since I went to a high fat, low carbohydrate diet.

    I found many years ago that if you don’t have health insurance that if asked, doctors will charge you much less because they are getting immediate cash. With a high deductible policy I could not provide an insurance card, pay less, send my bills to the insurance company and save more than the deductible since I don’t have to pay co-payments and high insurance premiums. Even if something went horribly wrong, my deductible would be about the same as the higher insurance premiums.

    That’s one of the many aspects of ObamaCare that worries me. We have a high deductible policy because it works for us — our only doctor visits in the past two years have been for routine checkups for the girls. If we’re forced into a more expensive policy, I’d sure like to know how that’s supposed to make health care more affordable.

  9.  
Leave a Reply