Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Fears Supremes Could Rely Upon Constitution, Other Old Documents In Voiding Health Care Law

I've dispensed with my usual blockquote style to interject responses more rapidly because... the stupid, it burns:

Jonathan Gruber, a key intellectual architect of President Obama's overhaul of the American health care system, is a little frustrated... "I'm frustrated that the future of the American health care system rests in the hands of one or two of these unelected people who might make the decision based on political grounds..." a few hours after the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear challenges to the Affordable Care Act. "It's very disturbing."

Gruber wasn't disturbed by other rulings, however, that upheld left-wing positions like the Constitutional right to an abortion and the Constitutional right to collect welfare.

The court consolidated several different challenges and will hear a host of issues related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which became law in March 2010, granting a full five-and-a-half hours for oral argument. But the central question is whether Congress can require people to buy health insurance, and, if not, whether that mandate can be severed from the rest of the bill.

Yes, because the Constitution can be interpreted to allow a massive, authoritarian, centralized government to force people to buy health care insurance, to buy certain kinds of clothing, to buy certain kinds of housing, and to buy only approved food items. After all, food, housing and clothing are as essential to human beings as heath care (if not more crucial), which means the government can compel you to buy those products.

Those sections are right next to the Abortion Clause of the Constitution.

Gruber, whose ideas also made up the landmark overhaul of health care in Massachusetts that was overseen by then-governor Mitt Romney, thinks that the Obama health care package would still be better than nothing if the mandate were removed, but said that it wouldn't be nearly as effective... Without the mandate, Gruber said, the bill would only cover a third to half as many people, and that premiums go up 20 to 30 percent.

What a schmuck. The European social welfare states -- with cradle-to-grave "free" health care and outrageous pension programs -- are collapsing as we speak. And Gruber thinks that the individual mandate will help drive down costs.

"Look, if this succeeds, then Obama becomes F.D.R. This is the most important social policy accomplishment since the 1960s. And if this succeeds, this could be the kind of benefit to the Democratic Party that Social Security was..."

Would that be the same program of which its trustees -- including Timmy Geither, Hilda Solis, and Kathleen Sebelius -- wrote, "Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided"?

And yet Gruber evangelizes for still more deficits as the economy teeters on the brink of utter and complete collapse. He screeches for more debt as Democrats fight the reform of Social Security and Medicare, which -- according to their own experts -- are poised to implode in just a few years' time. He cries to borrow more money as Democrats have already saddled our children and grandchildren with debts that simply can't be repaid.

There's a special place in Hell for the likes of Gruber, who represents nothing less than an enemy of civilization. For he is helping to shred the most magnificent society ever created on the face of the Earth; and he does so in order to construct some sort of sick monument to Soviet-style central planning, which can't succeed and has never succeeded in all of human history.