Some Folks Need a Cyber-Smackin’ – Neal Kumar Katyal

By Piper Bayard and Jay Holmes

Here at Bayard & Holmes, we’ve created the Cyber Smack, because some folks need a good cyber-smackin’. A Cyber Smack is the cyber equivalent of a smack upside the head for being egregiously stupid or ignorant.

Neither of us is affiliated with any political party, and our only agenda, if we have one, is to turn your problems into our opportunities. (Click here.) As hard core moderates in every way, we are in the enviable position of getting to Cyber Smack everyone from Hollywood figures who think they are elected officials to actual officials who stun and amaze us with their astoundingly Hollywood-sounding pronouncements.

Right now, Obamacare is being litigated in the Federal Circuit Courts. At question is the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and whether Congress has the right to require every American to purchase health insurance. The concern is that, if Obamacare stands, there will be exactly no limit on what Congress can demand of Americans under the Commerce Clause in the future.

Whether you are Republican, Democrat, or some flavor “Brand X,” you have to admit that seriously stupid things are being said about this new approach to health care. In honor of those seriously stupid things, our first distinguished winner of the Bayard & Holmes Cyber Smack is Neal Kumar Katyal, Acting Solicitor General. Apparently, his interpretation of the American Dream is for all Americans to earn so little money that each and every one of us is eligible for welfare.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the political stunt double of Kumar from the Harold and Kumar movies, has decided to return to the big screen as Obama’s Acting Solicitor General. We wonder if, like his movie double, this Kumar consumes copious amounts of marijuana and, perhaps, other mind-altering substances, based on his recent oral argument in defense of Obamacare.

While the Harold and Kumar movies are somewhat entertaining, we find the scripting for this current screen novel to be highly revolting. Katyal defended Obamacare in court by saying that, if people didn’t like the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, they could avoid it by choosing to earn less money. . . . Really? . . . Is our administration really encouraging us to impoverish ourselves? And in this economy, when so many people are suffering from poverty already?

While Acting Solicitor General is, indeed, an acting role, we take this statement as a strong example of why presidents should not hire actors as Acting Solicitors General.

We’re partially in agreement with Neal Kumar’s suggestion that people earn less income, but our theory is a bit more limited. It’s limited to him. We’re suggesting that, in keeping with his troll-like role for the administration, we send him to New Jersey where he can live under highway bridges and fully experience his personal philosophy that Americans need to earn less money.

We thought about putting him to work in a fast food restaurant for minimum wage, but we didn’t want to take away the position from some honest, hard-working person who has more of a goal in life than earning so little money he does not have to purchase health insurance.

For his outstanding ability to keep a straight face while reciting insulting political gibberish in his battle to vastly expand the powers of Congress, we are awarding Neal Kumar Katyal with a well-earned Cyber Smack.

Consider yourself Cyber-Smacked, Kumar. The rest of us will sleep better with you residing under a dank highway bridge in New Jersey. Perhaps you’ll find employment with one of the only businesses currently experiencing growth in New Jersey. The Mafia. Between your face, your law degree, and your disregard for the truth, you should do well in the interview, and they will provide you with plenty of opportunities to spout gibberish to judges.

Do you think the McDonald’s application site will be shut down from the rush of people trying to lower their incomes? Who else do you think needs a Cyber Smack?


28 comments on “Some Folks Need a Cyber-Smackin’ – Neal Kumar Katyal

  1. Jill Kemerer says:

    My opinion on enforced health-care? It’s un-American. My entire life I’ve savored the freedoms our country was built on–freedom of speech, religion, etc… Exactly how is forcing every American to purchase health care a freedom in our country? I don’t get it. I realize our health care system stinks. Do I love that our premiums, co-pays, and out-of-pocket costs grow to crushing proportions every year? No. But forcing people to pay for health insurance does not solve that problem.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      I think you make an excellent point in that forcing people to purchase health insurance does not solve the problem. We would still have all of the same problems. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

  2. I’m sorry, I realize there are people out there without health care. I realize there are people who can’t afford it. But why should the rest of us who actually pay for our own healthcare have to suffer because of the rest of America? That’s right – I pay for my health care….I choose exactly how much or how little I want. If I didn’t want it, how could the govt force me to purchase? Do I think insurance companies scam off the top? Yea, I kinda do. But, how can the govt force people into something? That doesn’t fall in line with our country’s freedoms.

    Since you have me going, I’m also going to add that I’m sick and tired of the entitlement today’s generation has – everyone expects everyone to do for them; no one does for themselves anymore. Why should they when they keep getting hand outs. I believe in federally funded programs – but I think there should be a limit. How about – if you already receive federal assistance (food stamps, whatever), and you have another child after the fact, your benefits don’t increase.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      I certainly understand about limits on federal assistance. I get pretty angry when I hear of people who have four children and five dogs on welfare indefinitely, and they are pregnant with another. Personally, I think people should make non-proliferation agreements with the government in order to receive public assistance. As in, they aren’t going to proliferate this problem by having more children while on welfare. Once they are off welfare, they are welcome to breed. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

  3. wosushi says:

    I am all for helping those who need it. If I have more, I am happy to help. BUT, when it comes to government forcing you to help through a program, things get dicey.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any program that gives the beneficiaries any incentive to work for their benefits. If anything, several programs penalize you for being responsible. (I say this from our recent experience with unemployment and so-called mortgage programs. Want help? Stop paying and don’t you dare try to get a job…)

    Well meaning programs are still exactly that. Well MEANING, but without the proper follow through. In my opinion, of course 🙂

    • Piper Bayard says:

      You make an excellent point about programs not giving beneficiaries any incentive to work for their benefits. If people don’t give back in some way, then they have no reason to move on or to care about the “health” of the program, itself, regardless of how well MEANING that program is. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

    • Texanne says:

      Wow, wosushi, where are you? In Texas, to receive unemployment benefits, you are required to be actively seeking employment. Yep, you have to file reports on the applications for employment you have submitted, resumes you have sent out, and plans for and results of job interviews. The complexity of this reporting varies according to job levels.

      In CA, all you have to do is to phone the office and say you’re out of work. Don’t know about the other 48 (or 55, depending on whom you ask) states’ policies.

  4. Kathleen says:

    Love the entire concept of a cyber smack!!

  5. educlaytion says:

    Fascinating. I’ve been interested in how people view Obamacare for a while now. I find my college students are much less supportive than most people assume. I like the above comment about how important it is to take care of everyone but leave the part about government control out.

    Also interesting is that you connected Kal Penn. Did you know that his character was killed off of the show House a couple years ago because he up and took a job with the Obama White House? Crazy connections.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      Hi Clay. Actually, we did know Kal Penn worked with the Obama White House. They look so much alike at first glance that we had to look him up to make sure he hadn’t slipped a law degree in there somewhere and changed his name.

      Unfortunately, there is no such thing as government care without government control. The fact is that the rule with government is whoever pays is boss. For example, some jurisdictions used to have a Man-in-the-House Rule saying welfare mothers could not receive money if they had a man living in their house. It was presumed that the man would be the substitute father and support the family. At that time, police in those jurisdictions regularly performed no-knock, warrantless Man-In-the-House raids to catch violators. Welfare mothers had no rights against these searches. If Obamacare stands, it is guaranteed to be followed with banning salt and fat and anything else deemed evil from restaurants and actively persecuting unhealthy people and people who have unhealthy habits of any kind. Lest you think I’m joking, restaurants in Buenos Aries were forced to remove salt shakers from their tables just last week. The argument is that if government is paying for it, government has the right to control it. Ergo, when government money is involved in your rights, your rights are reduced to privileges.

      Thanks for stopping by.

  6. amblerangel says:

    I lOVE the cyber slap and can’t think of a better place to start. The people that need it won’t buy it anyway- I’d like to see how it will be enforced- by hospital administrators in the emergency room when the forcees show up as they do now? Uninsured because they still can’t afford it or choose not to…

    • Piper Bayard says:

      In the interests of time, space, and my blood pressure, I won’t even get started on what happens in America’s emergency rooms these days. I’ll just say that your argument totally computes. Thanks for stopping by and commenting. 🙂

  7. This conversation has gotten to a point that always gets me upset. Yes, there are people who abuse the state system. I also agree that it actually actively prevents people from reaching for a point of self sufficiency since the benefits disappear long before you can afford the replacement.

    But the system doesn’t even work. The point that it actively tells you to NOT improve your lot has a lot of truth. I was on welfare, working ten to fifteen hours a week (Best I could get at the time) and going to school. The problem? I needed 30 ‘work’ hours to qualify. My schooling? Didn’t count if it wasn’t in class with a professor’s signature. My major? Filled with online and ‘distributed learning’ classes.

    So me, a straight ‘A’ student, now president of an honor society, who volunteers regularly, could get nothing, while the guy who showed up at the free ‘life skills’ classes? Got money as long as he wanted.

    Going further, in regards to Obamacare, I’m fairly upset at the edits from one of the original Senate versions. The one I had read had some of the same requirements: everyone on insurance, the exchange, much of the same things. Except for one: A sliding scale on medicaid. The plan actually including competition that almost couldn’t be beat. It would have forced other insurance companies, through their own self interest, to improve services, cheapen prices and get that large group that they’d have lost. Sometimes it’s not control we need, but another option.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      Sounds like you have lots of excellent reasons to be angry. What a bureaucratic cluster you had to deal with! And I agree with you 100%. “It’s not control we need, but another option.” Thank you for stopping by and sharing your experience.

  8. Tamara LeBlanc says:

    I second Wosushi’s comment one hundred percent! Love the cybersmack too. I”d like to use it on all the spam I get in my inbox;]

  9. Dave says:

    A well-deserved cyber-smack, indeed.

  10. We do need a health care reform. Not a lot of Americans could afford health insurance. And besides, regardless of whether or not we have the national healthcare, the government still had to pay for healthcare of those that can’t afford it (ER). Lack of healthcare is also the cause of bankruptcy of some and that’s what the healthcare is trying to avoid. As a former nursing student (whose mother still works at a healthcare facility and who shares my opinion), I know how necessary it is for all Americans to have a health insurance.

    Now, the tricky part is how not to overstep people’s freedom to choose with the necessity to provide. Though it’s necessary for everyone to have healthcare, there are others who could afford to have a better coverage. That’s where the politics play in.

    However, I won’t deny that the government needs to have a better internal audit. It’s not doing a very good job if people could abuse the system. If they want to get rid of the waste, they had to have a better internal audit procedures.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      As I read your comment, it occurs to me to distinguish between health care and health insurance. We all need health care. Does that mean we all need health insurance? I’m wondering what would happen if we actually tackled the problems in heath care rather than ignoring those problems and expanding insurance coverage. And I agree with you 100% about needing better internal auditing. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

  11. kadja1 says:

    A major problem with “Obamacare” is the citizens will have to pay for theirs PLUS everyone else’s. I am really tired of the entitlement mentality that has been instilled into the heads of generations for decades. Many of us have enough pride that we work out butts off and I really don’t want my dime going to benefit someone who isn’t entitled. Unless one is disabled or elderly, there is no reason for anyone not to work. I’d pick cotton by hand or work in the onion fields if I had to in order to avoid the freaking dole that Obama is trying to put into place.

    It’s as if we are all being trained to be “inmates” in our own country. Think about it. If we are made to earn less $, we cannot travel and get out. They control all if this thing passes. Now the TSA is wanting full body scanners and such in train and bus stations? In prisons, we cannot subject offenders to some of what I see and hear about the TSA doing on a daily basis. You also have to have CAUSE to strip search and offender in many states or a reasonable suspicion that they might have contraband on them. The officers in the TSA don’t even have to pass a psychiatric test or take law enforcement training. This leads to all kinds of future abuses if things aren’t stopped now.

    Reality is that not all Americans can afford the health insurance as proposed and still put food on the table–but wait! They want to limit that too. I find it ironic that leaders in Spain have condemned this model of socialized medicine for the very reasons stated in the original post. It is s joke. It is just ONE of the reasons I believe that the remaining socialists/commies in the Senate and the current administration are going to get cyber slapped in 2012. The media can spin this however it wants to, but the fact of the matter is this: Americans are fed up and they are teaching their children (who will also be voting) WHY they are fed up.

    I am of the opinion that if this treasonous lot gets it’s way that this nation will be requiring the assistance of Doctors Without Borders within 15 years. Bet on it…Take away these entitlements for able bodied and able minded people and create jobs, then more people will be able to afford health care. Health insurance should NOT be mandated by the government. If they couldn’t handle “Cash for Clunkers” what makes anyone think they can handle “Quotas for Quacks” which is what this will turn out to be later down the road–since all the good doctors will go overseas…Think it can’t happen? Just wait…

    • Piper Bayard says:

      You make some excellent points. Actually, Quotas for Quacks is already happening. My doctor’s receptionist was most apologetic in January when the new insurance regulations required her to ask my ethnic background, to which I always answer, “American.” Apparently, Obamacare requires doctors to keep track of the racial component of their patients, and if they don’t treat a certain number of medicare-patients-of-color, they are not paid for any medicare services they provide. (This is how the receptionist explained it to me.) Insurance companies, being the skumbags they are, jumped on this and put it into their own regulations so my doctor’s office was being required to ask the question of everyone, not just medicare patients. They haven’t asked me lately so I’m not sure where that stands at the moment, but as far as I’m concerned, if those are indeed the correct facts, this is the new rise of institutional racism. I will be researching this issue soon for the blog.

      Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

  12. Texanne says:

    If you decide to franchise the Cyber Slap (TM) let me know. There is much work to be done.

    As I’ve been reading the posts on Pakistan, I’ve been wondering what parallels are beginning to show up in this country. Aside from our political dynasties, we are looking at what appears to be an abyss between government and religion. Did I say abyss? I meant battleground.

    Health care sits right on top of that battleground. What is health care? Is birth control health care or baby-killing? How will health care be rationed? I do think Obama intends to pull the plug on Granny, because Granny is expensive to keep, and she’s not shovel ready. Or maybe she is. Granny is quite the political football. So is every kid in the preemie unit and everyone with chronic illness, especially if that illness renders the person useless to the state. With the pre-natal testing that is now routine, almost everyone knows when they are going to deliver a baby with Down’s Syndrome. Many choose to abort. When does the government, citing its financial contributions and responsibilities, become the one to decide which child is born and which is not?

    I read a book that proposed, seriously, to downsize the human race as a way to save the planet. Among other things, this downsizing would include the prohibition on procreation by persons above a certain height. Weight, with the rationing of food, would not be a factor as everyone would be thin. Hey, this is rational thought. Everyone loves rational thought, unless you’re a man over the 5’9″ or a woman over 5’3″ tall.

    Don’t forget about that franchise business, okay? It’s a timely idea.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      I know it sounds extreme to some that the government could become the one to decide which children are born, but the fact is that, if the government is paying for those children, it will claim the control. It always does. There are no “gifts” from the government. All government handouts are purchased with our civil rights.

      As far as downsizing the human race, I would simply settle for people not having children they can’t support. That should take care of huge chunks of the population right there.

      And if you know of anyone who needs a good Cyber Smackin, have at! There’s more work than Holmes and I can do alone here. 🙂

  13. ellieswords says:

    As a worker in the healthcare industry for 6 yrs (not anymore) in both nursing homes and hospitals, I can tell you that the health care we have right now isn’t working well, either. The insurance misers have created a terrible system, one that could possibly rival the one that is going to replace it. I’m ready for a change.
    The new plan sounds terrible, really. Sigh. In five years I might be looking back at the old way in envy of better times.

  14. kadja1 says:

    The Constitution never gave anyone the right to the following: 1…The right to NOT be offended. If they don’t like what someone says, they should do the adult thing and IGNORE it or change the channel. 2. It did not give anyone the right to play “Robin Hood” with the taxpayer dollar–although they do this now. The people STILL have the right to stop this practice by voting out idiots and having referendums and recall elections. 3. The Constitution never gave anyone the right to an entitlement–other than the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I somehow do not think that the right to live off the taxpayer dime was included in the last part of that…

    Anyway, this link is just for Piper and Holmes for a laugh! The OP called it the “Moment of Truth” but someone changed it!:

Talk to us. We talk back.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.