Holder and Sebelius: Challenging Obamacare Law is Like Challenging Civil Rights and Opposing Car Insurance

By Doug Powers  •  December 14, 2010 04:09 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

The arguments made by Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius in their op-ed piece in the Washington Post are tired, ridiculous and desperate, and those are just the parts that make sense.

Here’s one predictable example:

It’s not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one.

This echoes Rep. Clyburn, who referred to health care reform as the “Civil Rights Act of the 21st Century.” How many people went clamoring for waivers from the Civil Rights Act? And as I recall, the Civil Rights Act didn’t mandate that every American purchase civil rights either, but maybe that’s a discussion for another day.

Do Holder and Sebelius recall from which side of the aisle most of the challenges to the Civil Rights Act came (think “Al Gore’s father”)? There’s always a chance the humor was intentional, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Prior to that, Holder and Sebelius took apples and oranges to new heights by going the car insurance route:

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

If Geico ever needs replacement reptiles, they know who to call — but Ed Morrissey at Hot Air thoroughly dismantled this ridiculous comparison.

Meanwhile, away from the unicorn ranch and back in the real world, firms are being forced to spend money on consultants to help them wade through the hip-deep new regulations that will ultimately have them passing the costs on to their employees. There’s a looming doctor shortage (read: loooong waits). The “Law of Unintended Consequences” is rearing its ugly, bureaucratic head. Over two-thirds of doctors say they will retire or go to part-time once the law is fully in effect — and in spite of the continual “private carriers deny claims which is why the government should run it” canard, the program the government has been running for a long time, as a percentage, historically denies more claims than seven other top private carriers.

Julian Assange is running around out there somewhere handing out national secrets like lollipops, terror plots are on the rise, and instead the Attorney General is lecturing concerned Americans about the sin of believing their lying eyes, ears and brains over agenda-driven Democrats. As for Sebelius, advice about what’s best for the health of children might be greeted with more of an open mind if it wasn’t coming from a late-term abortion proponent — but I’m picky that way.

Mr. Holder, go prosecute man-caused disaster suspects; Ms. Sebelius, go teach people the proper way to cough. The voters can handle this one. Public support for the health care monstrosity is the lowest ever. Just wait until it’s implemented, if it’s ever fully allowed to be.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments


  1. #1
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:11 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    It’s more like stomping on kittens and beating babies in the crib. If we’re going to be silly, let’s be really silly.

  2. #2
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:18 pm, DanVanSmak said:

    Is it me, or is Ms. Sebelius beginning to look *old*? Methinks having to constantly sell this steaming pile of crud is detrimental to her health. After all, we know this pile of crud is detrimental to ours. You would think she’d be in great shape, having to chase this pig around so she can slap lipstick on it. Memo to Kathleen — learn how to lasso and hog tie — oh wait — it seems that’s what Dems call “regulation.”

    *out*

  3. #3
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:26 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    It’s not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts.

    But enough about abortion and same-sex ‘marriage’…

  4. #4
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:30 pm, Romeo13 said:

    Holder will go to the mat on this one…

    DADT??? They threw the game…

    New Black Panther Party suit? Didn’t even bother to show up to play…

    Most Politized Justice Dept. EVAH!

  5. #5
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:33 pm, Mister P said:

    It is what I would compare it to. Lets say the government finds that you have a spare bedroom. They then decide that you Must rent that bedroom to a homeless couple for the good of society. Then they say you must Waive the rent because they can’t afford it.

  6. #6
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:38 pm, txvet2 said:

    These people get more absurd every day. Sign of desperation.

  7. #7
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:39 pm, spaceycakes said:

    Let’s say DC stays the hell out of my pocketbook, life, car, radio, website, etc.

  8. #8
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:39 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Mister P said:
    It is what I would compare it to. Lets say the government finds that you have a spare bedroom. They then decide that you Must rent that bedroom to a homeless couple for the good of society. Then they say you must Waive the rent because they can’t afford it.

    And autoworkers and Congress get better rooms – the Ritz – but you have to pay for it.

  9. #9
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:40 pm, txvet2 said:

    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:33 pm, Mister P said:

    It is what I would compare it to. Lets say the government finds that you have a spare bedroom. They then decide that you Must rent that bedroom to a homeless couple for the good of society. Then they say you must Waive the rent because they can’t afford it.

    Then award them the house based on possession.

  10. #10
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:43 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Mister P said:

    Mister P: “Is my ObamaRoom ready?”

    Innkeeper: “If this were an emergency nap, we could let you have a bed next week, but since it’s an elective nap, you’ll have to come back in July.

  11. #11
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:46 pm, spaceycakes said:

    txvet2 said: Then award them the house based on possession.

    Demonic possession?

  12. #12
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:47 pm, J S Ragman said:

    Challenging Obamacare Law is Like Challenging Civil Rights and Opposing Car Insurance

    Not that they are even remotely the same, but I don’t recall the government wanting to eliminate all private car insurance companies. Unfortunately, they are more in the car building business.

  13. #13
    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:58 pm, Hangfire said:

    I remember in the early 70′s, when Oklahoma made car insurance mandatory.

    The price of car insurance skyrocketed immediately, since you HAD to buy the product.

  14. #14
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:01 pm, babiesgrandma said:

    And as I recall, the Civil Rights Act didn’t mandate that every American purchase civil rights either, but maybe that’s a discussion for another day.

    Well, I believe that Jim Crow laws that enacted the “poll tax” for blacks to vote was established by the DEMOCRAT PARTY. Blacks had to pay a tax to vote. But I digress.

  15. #15
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:09 pm, tre said:

    At the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City a student accidently cut his hand. He was taken to the bases medical clinic. The doctor there threw a fit because they weren’t open yet.

    To their credit, the nurses there treated his hand, and that doctor was later reprimanded, but, do you think that would have happened at a private hospital?

  16. #16
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:10 pm, jrgdds said:

    The pair (Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius) took particular aim at the argument that the law was beyond the reach of the federal government because it sought to regulate inactivity.

    After Holder called America a nation of cowards ,wants terrorists prosecuted in criminal court, dropped charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers, and sued Arizona over SB 1070 amongst others.

    Who would believe he’d come down on the wrong side of the constitutionality of Obamacare?

  17. #17
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:10 pm, Truesoldier said:

    This echoes Rep. Clyburn, who referred to health care reform as the “Civil Rights Act of the 21st Century.”

    He is right, to the Democrats this IS like the Civil Rights act. And just like the with the Civil Rights act the Democrats are on the side of the fight that wants to take peoples freedom aways from them….

  18. #18
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:14 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    Then they say you must Waive the rent because they can’t afford it.

    ….and then the IRS taxes you on the implied rental income the room is worth.

    Oh, and you are required, by law, to feed them because they can’t afford food either.

  19. #19
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:14 pm, right_on said:

    Gosh, American’s should really heed what Holder and Sebelius have to say about the Obama Healthcare law. They have nothing to lose (except power over our lives)…they have both done so much (so far) to ensure our national security, our well-being, and give so much credibility to our justice system…

    Right!

    He won’t prosecute obvious crimes, and seeks super-protections for terrorists, minorities, and illegal aliens, but we should believe him on this one. Uh-huh…yep!

    And Sebelius, the pro-union zealot, who supports late term abortion as a “health right,” and who admonishes everyone who works for her “not to leave a paper trail–don’t put anything in writing“…sure. Let’s listen to her, as well!

    If there was an “Enemies of the State” list anywhere in existence, these two dim bulbs would be right up at the top of the list along with Reid, Pelosi, and others.

    Unfortunately, there are unplugged Americans who don’t follow politics, and will believe anyone from the administration with a title….

  20. #20
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:17 pm, Truesoldier said:

    Then they say you must Waive the rent because they can’t afford it.

    and you should pay a higher tax rate, because you must be rich seeing as you have an extra room.

  21. #21
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:19 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Let me just say that I am ASHAMED, that Sebelius is from Kansas.

  22. #22
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:24 pm, txvet2 said:

    On December 14th, 2010 at 4:46 pm, spaceycakes said:

    txvet2 said: Then award them the house based on possession.

    Demonic possession?

    Some would argue that the entire Congress is possessed by demons. I just think it’s occupied by willfully stupid, venal, self-centered criminals.

  23. #23
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:27 pm, Hangfire said:

    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:19 pm, Dexter Alarius said:
    Let me just say that I am ASHAMED, that Sebelius is from Kansas.

    No reason to be, Dexter.

    As a Hawaii resident, I’m not ashamed that the President is from HawaiiKenya.

  24. #24
    On December 14th, 2010 at 5:44 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    pparently these people have never heard of, much less read, the Constitution.

  25. #25
    On December 14th, 2010 at 6:03 pm, rightisright said:

    It is what I would compare it to. Lets say the government finds that you have a spare bedroom. They then decide that you Must rent that bedroom to a homeless couple for the good of society. Then they say you must Waive the rent because they can’t afford it.

    this reminds of the movie ‘Pacific Heights’, is it coming true? If you saw the movie you had to of had your emotions stirred and not a good feeling for the government.

    Do the dems really thing America is that stupid to believe their crap? Ahhhh, yes when you consider how many democrats there are voting…all waiting for their free lunch.

  26. #26
    On December 14th, 2010 at 6:20 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    Can these fools get any more stupid? Yep…

  27. #27
    On December 14th, 2010 at 6:42 pm, swede said:

    rightisright said:
    Do the dems really thing America is that stupid to believe their crap?

    Actually, they think we are stupid because we don’t believe it. We are just to damn dumb to know what’s good for us. Oh yeah, and according Dear Leader’s diatribe over the weekend, we’re nuts too. See, we’re gripped by fear so we’re just not thinking straight! Irrational idiots don’tcha know.

    I Read the Holder/Sabellius pablum in WaPo this morning and laughed my a$$ off. Seems there’s some lady in NH who’s better off now – even though her treatments are not even under BarryCare yet!?! Same lame game we heard for a year…See, there’s this poor single mom from East Dubuque with 14 kids, working 4 jobs and she has gout, rabies, the flue, brain tumors and ingrown toenails. Or something. She’ll die an agonizing death unless we pass BarryCare. Why do we hate her children?

    I guess the good news is they’re Bitterly clinging to the same tortured logic that didn’t work the first time.

  28. #28
    On December 14th, 2010 at 6:54 pm, letget said:

    This will not fly. If you don’t have a car or drive the feds say you gotta pay for insurance? I am thinking these feds think we are as brain dead as they are. I live in TX and there are thousands who have NO insurance driving, the nasty illegal thing. WE pay for them, same as with the bhocare!
    L

  29. #29
    On December 14th, 2010 at 6:55 pm, stoptheinvasion said:

    to #16 -
    “After Holder called America a nation of cowards ,wants terrorists prosecuted in criminal court, dropped charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers, and sued Arizona over SB 1070 amongst others.
    Who would believe he’d come down on the wrong side of the constitutionality of Obamacare?”
    ———————–
    Exactly.

    they send out the Social Justice Minister and the HealthControl Minister to tell us what to think about our own Constitution.

    memo to Leftist Jerks – you Lost.

    you lost the election.

    you lost the court battle to ignore our Constitution.

    yet you never stop lying, destroying, stealing, and smearing.

    rats thrashing in the trap.

  30. #30
    On December 14th, 2010 at 6:58 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Holder: Fine, you don’t want Obowmaoscare?! Don’t come crying to me afterwards when your bowels become distended and sebelius!

  31. #31
    On December 14th, 2010 at 7:02 pm, Fenguri said:

    If I find car insurance offensive, I can take a bus or cab. I can bicycle, or walk or bum a ride with a neighbor.

    If I find health insurance offensive, I can…what? DIE?

    These are in no manner the same decision. Stop insulting us!

  32. #32
    On December 14th, 2010 at 7:29 pm, California Red said:

    I give Dexter the thread winner award.

    Hypocrites run tot he courts every chance they don’t get what they want.

  33. #33
    On December 14th, 2010 at 7:30 pm, txvet2 said:

    You know, the insurance companies aren’t at all innocent in all of this. They were the ones who pushed for mandatory auto insurance and got it passed, but you still have to pay for uninsured motorist coverage. They also backed Obamacare and are salivating over the increased premiums they get to charge. They’re in the crosshairs as much as we are and they deserve to go broke, but they won’t. They fund too many politicians.

  34. #34
    On December 14th, 2010 at 7:31 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Dear Reader’s minions are very practiced at propaganda. The left has been very successful shaping opinions, often at odds with facts.
    They are able to fool somewhere around half the people half the time. Always inching the ball forward. Nothing is ever rolled back.
    Fedzilla grows.

    Liberty dies.

  35. #35
    On December 14th, 2010 at 7:33 pm, jbh45 said:

    Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident.

    Idiot statement. No auto insurance carrier will cover a loss that falls outside of the policy period. If you first get in an accident and then buy car insurance, your policy will not cover for the prior accident that occured outside your policy period. You will be rated based on your driving performance and as an individual will pay a higher premium, but this in no way will impact the premium of other insureds unrelated to this accident/driver.

    Dumb and dumber….

  36. #36
    On December 14th, 2010 at 8:07 pm, txvet2 said:

    On December 14th, 2010 at 7:33 pm, jbh45 said:

    You missed the point. Of course it would be stupid to require car insurers to pay for accidents that happened before you bought your insurance. It’s just as stupid when applied to health insurance and pre-existing conditions. But, unlike car insurance, at least some health insurers were covering pre-existing conditions after a prescribed waiting period, I think generally around 6 months.

  37. #37
    On December 14th, 2010 at 8:12 pm, cicerokid said:

    Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

    Hey, congressional dipsheets! Did mister obvious just explain how O-Commie-Care will affect wage-earners?

  38. #38
    On December 14th, 2010 at 8:26 pm, GraniteMan said:

    Do Holder and Sebelius recall from which side of the aisle most of the challenges to the Civil Rights Act came (think “Al Gore’s father”)?

    This is something that’s stuck in my craw for years. How the hell did Dems rewrite history to get on the side of fighting for civil rights since the civil war? They were the ones trying to keep kids from the school house door and Ike had to fight them!

  39. #39
    On December 14th, 2010 at 8:43 pm, happy2behere said:

    So enamoured of their own wonderfullnes, the Dems crammed Obamacare down our throats, laughing all the while at those who dared question its constitutionality.

    Now, convinced of their own magnificence, they still don’t get it.

  40. #40
    On December 14th, 2010 at 9:08 pm, EWTHeckman said:

    If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident.

    I believe this argument is essentially correct. You cannot mandate that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions (which was a big part of their sales pitch) without also mandating that everyone buy health insurance.

    The simple fact that such a requirement to buy insurance is blatantly unconstitutional tears down the rest of ObamaCare with it. (Not even activist judges have been able to stretch the Constitution that far.) That’s why the recent ruling is such a victory.

    ‘Course, Holder and Sebelius are trying to argue that it’s okay to violate the Constitution for such a “noble purpose”, but their own argument manages to show why such government giveaways are such a bad idea.

  41. #41
    On December 14th, 2010 at 9:24 pm, EdDantes said:

    True story:

    I live in Manhattan and there are only two options available for my wife and I to buy insurance (I just started a new job and have a 3 month wait period).

    1. $2400/mo (that’s right, per month)
    2. $2500/mo

    Only two carriers have health insurance policies in Manhattan because of state regulations and the high price of care in the city.

    However, the state does have a policy that I could purchase for $500/mo, but I make too much money supposedly. Ironically, my tax dollars are funding this “subsidy” for which I don’t qualify.

  42. #42
    On December 14th, 2010 at 9:27 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Gee, Ed, don’t let this get out or Obama and friends will want the tax rates to decrease 1 dollar below what you make!

  43. #43
    On December 14th, 2010 at 9:44 pm, bjc said:

    *The GOP got their marching orders on Nov. 2; We expect a full repeal and replace bill out of the House in January of 2011; Then let’s see how they(the 2012 Dems)vote in the Senate; Press on towards that goal; We expect nothing less!

  44. #44
    On December 14th, 2010 at 10:05 pm, tre said:

    On December 14th, 2010 at 6:20 pm, tiredofit08 said:
    Can these fools get any more stupid? Yep…

    “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
    Albert Einstein

  45. #45
    On December 14th, 2010 at 11:33 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    I have two words for Holder and his slime ball side-kick.

    F—k You…… and F—k her too.

  46. #46
    On December 14th, 2010 at 11:40 pm, TooMuchTime said:

    The arguments made by Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius in their op-ed piece in the Washington Post are tired, ridiculous and desperate, and those are just the parts that make sense.

    Their argument is both good and original. The part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.

    We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security…Those challenges ultimately failed…

    As usual, the gov’t lies. They lied to get Social Security past the courts. Originally, the gov’t claimed the tax money went into “trust funds.” The court of appeals ruled the law unconstitutional because you can’t earmark funds before you have them; everything has to go into the general treasury.

    So when the case was before SCOTUS, the gov’t was still telling the “trust fund” lie to the people but argued that the tax was just another tax; it wasn’t earmarked for anything. SCOTUS declared the Social Security TAX constitutional, but on the question of whether Social Security itself was constitutional, they left the question open. Yes, that is correct. They had a question before them and refused to answer.

    The challenge didn’t fail; SCOTUS did. And socialism got its foot in the door. Unfortunately, now it’s sleeping on the couch, eating all the food, and crying like a baby when we try to get rid of it.

  47. #47
    On December 14th, 2010 at 11:49 pm, TooMuchTime said:

    This is something that’s stuck in my craw for years. How the hell did Dems rewrite history to get on the side of fighting for civil rights since the civil war? They were the ones trying to keep kids from the school house door and Ike had to fight them!

    When MLK was in jail, JFK and his brother RFK worked their magic to free him. At first, both MLK and his father were a little worried about asking for help; you see, JFK was a democrat and both MLK and his father were Republicans. They didn’t believe a democrat would help. When JFK did, this gave the democrats a chance to change their spots.

    Of course, that help has actually eroded all of the success up until that time. Now, the democrats are laughing at the blacks because they vote 90% democrat and it’s the democrats that have made inner-city ghettos a living hell. Personally, I think it was all part of the plan starting in the mid 60s.

  48. #48
    On December 14th, 2010 at 11:51 pm, Republicanvet said:

    It’s not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one.

    Oy. Hearing from leftists, who have turned legislating from the courts into an art form, complaining about someone contesting this abomination in the courts is like listening to Michael Moore complain about fattening foods.

  49. #49
    On December 15th, 2010 at 12:22 am, swede said:

    Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

    OK, Eric Einstein – Auto liability is required to cover damages and injury you may cause to other people. Colision insurance is only required by lenders. Once you’re car’s paid off it’s optional. Health insurance covers you.

    Auto insurance is affordable because of interstate markets. I live in Atlanta and buy auto insurance from MD. The two most important issues driving health insurance out of sight are non-competitive markets and desperately needed tort reform. You idiots didn’t deal with either in your bonehead bill.

    Clue to you. Come in please.

  50. #50
    On December 15th, 2010 at 2:30 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Holder and Sebelius

    Punch and Judy?

  51. #51
    On December 15th, 2010 at 8:14 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    The level of arrogance of these elitists combined with the fact they have managed to weasel their way into power has surpassed even my wildest cynical imagination.

    One more nail in the coffin of the auto insurance canard, auto insurance policies are written for automobiles as a requirement to allow them to be driven, (by anyone), on government roadways. So that renders the rebuttal of saying that no one is required to own a car moot because no one is required to have auto insurance to drive a car in the first place. The only requirement I know of is to have a license to operate. These elitists probably would even require us to have have a license to live if they thought they could get away with it..

    You are perfectly free to own a vehicle and drive it around on your own property to your hearts content without any government restriction. Farmers do this with their tractors and combines; golf courses and senior developments do this with golf carts, etc. I cannot think of any way their lame allegory fits at all in that context.

    (Can I get a waiver if I promise to stay at home???)

  52. #52
    On December 15th, 2010 at 8:27 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    “We’re the TEA party,
    couldn’t be prouder.
    If you can’t hear us,
    we’ll shout a little louder.”

    Which part of an historic 63 seat flip in the House wasn’t loud enough for them? There isn’t enough ear wax in all of DC to explain it..

  53. #53
    On December 15th, 2010 at 8:56 am, spaceycakes said:

    Darth Sebelius

  54. #54
    On December 15th, 2010 at 11:14 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    Both Holder and Sebelius are evil anti-American socialist / statist / marxist / communist clowns. And racist to boot.
    ***
    Now–let me tell you what I really want to say about them. November 2012 can’t get here soon enough for me.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

  55. #55
    On December 15th, 2010 at 11:20 am, cheapseat said:

    I sure haven’t heard the catch phrase of 2009 lately, you remember “If you are happy with your plan, you can keep it!” It seems that the majority of large companies with pull are getting waivers to keep their plan. Waivers for what? Oh that’s right, you can only keep your plan if we allow you to do so. That part was in the pages they didn’t read and talk about. I smell a revolution in the air.

  56. #56
    On December 15th, 2010 at 11:24 am, pueblo1032 said:

    Picking CAR INSURANCE as a good comparison sure won’t work in favor of the administration’s argument… With the OPEN BORDER policy of the FEDS, here in PHOENIX the chance of being hit by an ILLEGAL, without insurance, and fleeing the scene is about 50/50…

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook