He's talking about you (Editorial)

Every time another story comes out about how great Obamacare is doing - and the AP sends one out about once a week - I just love the irony.

Sentient human beings understand that websites shouldn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars, that health care "reform" shouldn't make millions of people lose their health insurance, and that collapsing state health insurance exchanges do not a successful government program make.

There's more, including the "if you like your doctor" and "if you like your plan" lies from the president, the lie about families saving $2,500 annually with Obamacare, and the lie about Obamacare reducing the deficit by a cool trillion.

And, recently, we have the saga of the healthy Golden Valley woman with a $1,000 a month premium that will still force her to pay through the nose should she need to go to the emergency room.

Where's the irony? Meet one of the chief architects of Obamacare, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, and this classic quote from him:

"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it's written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass."

Get it? Jonathan Gruber isn't talking about me or the other people who saw through the bull and who know government typically fails when it tries something best left to the private sector. (And don't point out how wonderful big government programs such as Medicare and Social Security are. Both are headed for financial collapse with trillions in unfunded obligations.)

No, Gruber is saying the people who are stupid are the ones who supported the bill and who continue to support it.

Got it?


North Carolina is in the (manufactured) news for passing a law that basically clarifies who can use what bathroom. Under the bill's terms, "private schools, restaurants, stores, and businesses are free to establish whatever bathroom policies they'd like, but that access to government bathrooms will be determined primarily by biological sex."

Somehow, this is supposed to be a sign of evil intolerance. I view it as a sign that we've lost our marbles.

I just don't get why we are even talking about a man going to work and "presenting" as a woman, and then suing with the support of the federal government because the man wasn't allowed to use the women's restroom. To me that's a problem, especially if the restroom has more than one parking space.

What's worse, though, are cases involving students and gym class. There are actual syndicated columnists out there who think middle school students of different sexes should shower together. I suppose it's not big deal if the guy thinks he's a girl, unless he suddenly realizes in the shower that he's a lesbian.

Maybe this whole debate is to get us to be more European. That doesn't work for me.

My three years in the Army were mostly spent in West Berlin, and one Christmas the Americans were invited to the Christmas party at France's Military Liaison Mission. I knew one of the French soldiers, and after a few beers I asked him where the restrooms were.

There was one. We walked in and he pointed to the row of urinals against one wall. "This is for you," he said. Then he pointed to the opposite wall, which included a row of toilet stalls with doors. "This is for the women," he said. I could see their feet under the doors.

Later, when I stepped outside and around the corner under the cover of darkness, I found the place for the Americans.