Tele-Prompter Boy and Obamacare

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Listen to this lead-in by a CNN Tele-Prompter reader about a federal judge in Texas ruling that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional:

“The law that brought health care to millions of Americans has been struck down by a federal judge.”

First words out of his mouth.

That’s what they used to call editorializing – as opposed to the statement of fact without the color of opinion you read just above it, in the lead to this story – about the same subject.

The Tele-Prompter reader leaves no doubt as to his view about both the Texas judge’s ruling and the Affordable Care Act, which is annoying right out of the gate because who cares what this Tele-Prompter reader’s opinions are about anything? It’s one thing to listen to a veteran newsman who’s earned some bona fides offer up his slant on an issue, especially if it’s something he’s been covering for decades and maybe thus the man has something to say that’s worth listening to.

But this kid?

What really makes the ol’ teeth begin to ache is the Millennial-looking Tele-Prompter’s efforts to shame – and then lead by the nose.

Those poor millions of Americans! Their health care is in peril! Mean judge!

Bad man!

Of course, no one’s health care is in peril. The federal judge didn’t rule that it is unconstitutional for people to purchase health care. He ruled it is not constitutional to use the taxing power of the government to force people to buy it.

See the difference, Tele-Prompter boy?

No, of course. He doesn’t. He – like so many of his colleagues – editorializes unconsciously, because he and his kind literally cannot imagine that anyone could possibly take issue with something like the Affordable Care Act.

It is the authoritarian collectivist given from which the editorializing proceeds.

The left is so far left it has fallen off the edge of the spectrum into a holler (as we say out in the Woods) where everyone not only agrees but cannot imagine others might not. Every utterance presumes the collectivist premise – and proceeds from there.

One sees this canker all over the face of the public discourse, which is almost entirely controlled by people like Tele-Prompter boy.

“If the ruling is upheld, millions may end up losing their health care,” he lugubriously intones – once again, letting the listeners (if they are still listening) know just exactly what they ought to be thinking about the judge’s decision.

But those millions will still have the right to buy health insurance; what they might lose – if the  judge’s ruling stands –  is the federal bayonet used to force others to subsidize their health insurance. A statement of fact – as opposed to the lubricious editorializing of the Tele-Prompter boy.

Who then calls up an amen chorus in the form of David Katz, a Clinton-nominated former assistant U.S. attorney – which is like calling up Robert Shapiro to neutrally elaborate upon the innocence of OJ Simpson.

Katz soliloquys about the “troubling” ruling – another example of the media’s premise-accepting. It is a fact that if the Affordable Care Act were to be declared unconstitutional, health insurers would be free to charge premiums that correlate to risk – just as car insurance companies do.

Whether that is “troubling” is an interpretation of facts. An interpretation which presumes it’s vicious, somehow, that those who cost more to care for ought to perhaps pay more for their care than those who require less care.

Oddly enough, it is not considered vicious or even “troubling” (yet) that people who get lots of speeding tickets pay more for their car insurance – on the theory that they are more likely to cost the system money than people who rarely or never get speeding tickets.

Tele-Prompter boy does not tear up while relaying the “troubling” story of the multiple DWI offender who has totaled several cars, along with several people in the process, who can no longer find “affordable” coverage.

And Katz is nowhere to be found.

Such stories, of course, are never aired at all by Tele-Prompter boy and if they were, the serial DWI driver would receive no encomiums from the amen chorus.

Meanwhile, it is “troubling” – to Tele-Prompter boy, Katz, et al – that the 44-year-old obese chain-smoker who ate himself into diabetes might no longer be able to use the IRS to force healthy 25-year-olds to provide the “coverage” he requires at an “affordable” price.

Elvis, the story goes, used to shoot out the TV whenever Robert Goulet appeared.

Such extreme measures are hardly necessary.

Just push the button and say bye-bye to Tele-Prompter boy.

Millions already have. Millions more will. Many of those millions voted for Trump – for all his many flaws – precisely because they’d had their fill of being lectured by Tele-Prompter boys (and girls).

Fake News would be tolerable. The Weekly World News was entertaining.

CNN, et al are not.