Judge Vinson Also Smacks Down Crony Capitalists

The American Thinker ^ | February 02, 2011 | C. Edmund Wright

[Scanian]

Judge Vinson's individual mandate ruling is seen -- properly -- as a defeat for Obama Care and a win for individual freedom. And it is all of that of course.

But there's more. Perhaps almost as pleasing as the affirmation of individual freedom and the dismissing of a government run society is the smack down Judge Vinson's ruling gave the concept of "crony capitalism." And that may be just as important in the long run.

After all, no government run society is even possible without corporatists and crony capitalists eager to jump into the sack with the statists who will design laws to force unwilling customers to those corporations. This is something the statists will do under threat of sending IRS and other bureaucrats to harass every unwilling business or individual. You did remember that it was 16 thousand new IRS agents -- not 16 thousand new doctors -- that Obama Care has plans to employ, didn't you?

Gee, you think maybe ObamaCare was about control and not health care?

And you can believe that the resulting threats from bureaucrats are indeed scary to those entrepreneurs who put it all on the line daily. Business owners successful enough to be targets -- yet too small to be crony capitalists with Beltway connections -- know full well that unelected and unaccountable and incompetent bureaucrats can wipe out their life's work with mindless and asinine regulations and rulings. You know, like ObamaCare. Or OSHA. Or the EPA. Or an EEOC ruling. And so on.

Now in the case of ObamaCare, the chief crony capitalists were the short-sighted health insurers who backed a program that would end capitalism as we know it -- even as it temporarily swelled their customer base. What a bargain.

[screaminsunshine]

This article is so right on the money. All the fools fell for the rhetoric about how the Democrats were taking on the evil insurance companies. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of the Big Managed Care insurers were out there complaining about it. They were in the closed door back rooms of Congress cutting deals with Democrats. Same with the big drug outfits. Stupid liberal democrat voters fall for it every time. This is the best article I have seen yet on this subject.

[Happy Rain]

“Hitler never saw the need,or took the trouble,to replace the old Weimar Constitution with one of his own.”

-”Modern Times” by Paul Johnson P.285

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

This was also about revenue. Obama was licking his lips over the massive taxes, fees and fines that this monstrosity would haul into the treasury. How else would they make the claim that the bill would REDUCE the deficit?

Of course they included cap & trade revenue into it, among others.

[taildragger]

Judge Vison’s smack down might be bigger than we realize. Obamacare was couched in so many ways. They kept the dollar amounts at about 90% of what it would have been so it couldn’t be considered a tax or not get on budget. Ditto the payments up front and benefits on the tail end. They also kept away from Clinton care’s nightmare perception of single payer to make it more palatable, by the indivdual mandate. This and the lack of Severability clause ( Thank you American Thinker you had it 1st months ago) because of Scott Brown getting elected, has them being to cute by half and it has bit them in the tukus. Serves um right.....

[ballplayer]

Does anyone have the Site where you can read the Whole 78 page Ruling?

[snowsislander]

Does anyone have the Site where you can read the Whole 78 page Ruling?

Please try this link:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flndce/3:2010cv00091/57507/150/0.pdf

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Another name for "crony capitalists" is "rent seekers". These are corporations that use their profits to manipulate the political environment rather than improve their products or develop new ones.

But how would we stifle "crony capitalism"? Would we limit the political activities of corporations? For example, would we enact campaign finance laws that limited what corporations could spend their money on?

Around FR making such a suggestion is tantamount to labeling yourself a commie and being against the constitution.

Would we enact laws that made lobbying illegal or more restricted? Again such a suggestion would get you the commie label and maybe even banned.

So we know that there are scumbag corporations that use their profits to distort the market, but they do so in ways that are technically legal.

The only things we could do to try and prevent this is to either shame them into stopping what they are doing, organizing boycotts, or waiting the decades necessary for the free market to finally kick them off their undeserved posts.

Another possibility is to take away the designation that allows corporations to be treated as "legal persons". If we could get rid of that designation, then limiting their activities would not necessarily be unconstitutional.

If companies were forced to use their profits to compete in the market, rather than in congress, then we would all be much better off.

Of course that would be a commie thing to suggest, so I won't.

[jiggyboy]

Great article. The part about the insurance CEO’s cashing out quickly on the one-time government-mandated windfall is an excellent indictment of the system.