“The insurance industry has decided to lead the charge against health reform, and everyone recognizes their motives: profits,” said White House deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer.

Yeah, that evil profit motive. You know, that which provides all of the people gainfully employed in the insurance sector with the money to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families; that which allows their children to get educated and become contributing members of society; what permits those people to pay taxes; that which gives them the ability to support charities and churches which in turn help their neighbours and communities grow.

Gotta bust that profit motive – it e-e-e-vil.

"The insurance industry has decided to lead the charge against health reform, and everyone recognizes their motives: profits,"

Yes, we have a sitting President of the United States that believes profits are evil.

What is profit? It is the product of a business that operates effeciently and sells a quality good or service that people want to buy. No business in this country can force its customers to buy its product.

Obama and the Democrats are anti-market, anti-business, and anti-freedom. There is no plainer admission that their goal is to destroy private health care so they can operate and control it.

I noticed there was no attempt to counter the claims of the evil insurance company. Instead, the White House simply called them greedy profiteers and claimed that EVERYONE knows how these greedy companies are. I wonder when they will make that argument completely irrelevant, much as they have done with the "racism" argument. I mean, we have heard 9 months of attacks on "greedy corporations" starting with the attacks on AIG (probably before that I am sure). There has to be a point when this attack line plays out.

"There has to be a point when this attack line plays out."

I'd say it happened when the Democrats passed the TARP bailout. The wost offenders in the financial crisis would all be *out of business* if Pelosi and Reid hadn't ridden to their rescue with piles of government cash.

Instead they continue to attack and villify the very companies that they themselves propped up with billions of dollars of taxpayer money. What towering, screaming, hypocrisy.

Damned that pesky First Amendment! How dared they speak out! Or, from the Obama admin position, to hell with the First Amendment.

To Hell with the First Amendment indeed:

New Federal Hate Crime Statute Still Allows Free Speech, to the Extent Government Deems It Prudent

They've attached new hate crime categories and penalties to a military budget bill, trusting that Republicans won't vote against it, and if they do, they'll have ads taken out against them for doing so.

To make sure that Republicans were damned if they do, damned if they don't, our civil libertarians and First Amendment fans in the Democratic Party made sure they drafted the provisions as odiously and as unconstitutionally as humanly possible.

First, the committee — controlled by majority Democrats, of course — inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback's amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights "unless the government demonstrates … a compelling governmental interest" to do otherwise.

That means your First Amendment rights are protected — unless they're not.

<a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/293597.php” target=”_blank”>http://ace.mu.nu/archives/293597.php

CATO Inst. Health Care Expert Michael F. Cannon on the how the Individual Mandate is Government Run Health Care:

The most hazardous health reform measure before Congress is not the so-called "public option," but proposals to make health insurance compulsory via an individual or employer mandate.

Compulsory health insurance could require nearly 100 million Americans to switch to a more expensive health plan and would therefore violate President Barack Obama's pledge to let people keep their current health insurance. In particular, the legislation before Congress could eliminate many or all health savings account plans. Making health insurance compulsory would also spark an unnecessary fight over abortion and would enable government to ration care to those with private health insurance.

Obama adviser Larry Summers writes that mandates "are like public programs financed by benefit taxes," meaning that compulsory health insurance would also violate President Obama's promise not to increase taxes on the middle class. Under the House Democrats' legislation, some middle-income earners would face marginal tax rates over 50 percent (before state taxes).

The experience in Massachusetts belies the claim that compulsory health insurance brings down health care costs. The "shared responsibility" ruse allows Massachusetts politicians to declare success for a compulsory health insurance scheme whose actual costs reveal it to be a failure. Massachusetts also demonstrates that compulsory health insurance enables, and ultimately requires, politicians and government bureaus to control nearly all aspects of health care and medical practice.

Rather than make health insurance compulsory, Congress should make it more affordable by letting individuals control their earnings and choose their own health plan from any state in the Union.

Contrary to popular opinion in the media, the Individual Mandate, not the so-called public option is the key to stopping Obamcare in its tracks. Stop the Individual Mandate and the whole bill will unravel for lack of funding and mandatory participation in the scheme!

This is a very dangerous period because Nationalization will still occur even without an overt government run insurance plan like this "public option" provision everyone keeps fixating on – Wyden/Bennett and the Bacus bill are prime examples of this.

Individual Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a “free market” solution and “individual responsibility” but in this context they are not – they are simply a front for a government run system. Many conservatives can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was) .

Here are the core elements what will be contained in the “health care reform compromise” after the so-called “public option” is in all likelihood dropped:

(a) Federal Regulation aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

(c) Government Subsidies aka MIDDLE CLASS MEDICAL WELFARE

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

Well, guess who didn’t support AND viciously attacked supporters of Individual Mandates during last years Democratic primaries?

I you said President Obama and VP Biden, give yourself an A!

And the Individual Mandate should be an easy target for conservatives and the GOP to attack since President Obama has done a huge 180 from his campaign promises!

Here is a great article by James Joyner about just how vigorous his opposition to Individual Mandates used to be:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc…ance_manda…

From the mouth of then Candidate Obama:

“If you look at auto insurance, in California there’s mandatory auto insurance,” Obama explained. “Twenty-five percent of the folks don’t have it. The reason is because they can’t afford it. So John and I, we’re not that different in this sense; that I’m committed to starting the process. Everybody who wants it can buy it and it’s affordable. If we have some gaps remaining, we will work on that. You take it from the opposite direction, but you’re still going to have some folks who aren’t insured under your plan, John, because some of them will simply not be able to afford to buy the coverage they’re offered.”

Why does he now currently gushes over in his praise for using government force to compel you to buy a private product against your will?

These individual mandates are a huge tax increase on the young and healthy to pay for the uninsured. They violate your liberties and are unconstitutional. As a candidate, President Obama rightly and sensibly was on the correct side of this issue when he correctly opposed the Individual Mandate.

The American people have a right to know why he changed his position on this so suddenly.

Is it because he needs trillions of your dollars in new taxes to pay for the uninsured?

Is it because he wants to compel everyone to participate in his federal government dominate insurance market so that Washington politicians can control your medical care and insurance choices?

Or is it because he has cut a backroom deal with the largest and richest insurance companies in this country to give them millions of new customers in exchange for their support of his plan?

If his plan will really, truly give us cheaper private insurance and more choices, why do people have to be forced to participate on penalty of law?

We deserve an straight answer and need to ask the media and our elected representatives to demand one now.

President Obama needs to be called out for his Flip-flop on Individual Mandates until we get a honest answer!