Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘ObamaCare’

What Trump should do next


waving flagPosted By Joseph Farah On 08/23/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/what-trump-should-do-nextbring

donald-trump2Donald Trump has catapulted to the lead in the race for the Republican presidential nomination by focusing on two popular issues:

  • Proposing the building of a wall along the Mexican border to stem the overwhelming influx of illegal immigration,
  • Attacking the Stalinesque doctrine of “political correctness” that increasingly inhibits freedom of expression in the U.S.

His approach has been very effective so far. But it’s time for Trump to open up a new offensive front.

  1. If I had his ear, as I have once or twice in the past, I would advise Trump to say, as the future president, he would refuse to raise the debt limit to force Washington to live within its means like every American family and business is forced to do. He should say that $18 trillion is too much, and that continued borrowing by the federal government is completely unsustainable. The only way to dig out of this hole is to stop borrowing, and, as president, he will not request or approve any future hike in the debt limit.
  2. He should also allay fears on Wall Street that such an action will result in a default by ensuring that Washington, under his leadership, will continue to service the existing debt.
  3. And, lastly, he should characterize this action as a great opportunity to return to constitutionally limited government by cutting government spending and programs that never should have been started in the first place.Spiraling

In 2008, I gave this same advice to a Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. He used it in a debate and established himself as a frontrunner jfkuntil questions about his personal life forced him to retire from the race. Imagine, however, the power of Donald Trump’s voice on this critical issue in 2015. He is already the unchallenged frontrunner in the GOP race. His every utterance grabs the attention of the media. And, this proposal is radical. It is as anti-establishment as his positions on illegal immigration and political correctness. I dare say that this third major pillar in his campaign to “Make America Great, Again” would make him next to unbeatable.

I’ve been working on this anti-debt campaign since 2011, shortly after the Republicans swept into power in the House of Representatives. I called it the “No More Red Ink Campaign.” It has generated more than 1 million letters to Republican lawmakers in Washington so far. I pointed out that Republican approval was essential to Barack Obama’s plans to continue borrowing and spending without restraint. All Republicans in Congress had to do – even in just one of the two houses they control – was to say no to more borrowing. Instead, they have provided Obama all of the resources he needed to launch Obamacare, fund Planned Parenthood, grow anti-business regulatory departments like the Environmental Protection Agency, push Common Core through the Department of Education and so on.

Donald Trump, with the power of his platform, could make this issue a focus of national attention, propelling his candidacy forward injusticewith a new offensive front that would leave his competitors staggering. And, the neat thing about it? It’s the right thing to do. It makes perfect sense. It’s like a magic bullet politically. It solves the seemingly unsolvable problem of runaway growth of government, which inevitably brings with it restrictions in personal freedom and subjugates the legitimate powers of the states to Washington.

I am persuaded that, if framed properly, this issue would make the Trump campaign unstoppable. He would not only increase his support among Republican voters but win over many disillusioned Democrats the way Ronald Reagan did in 1980 and 1984.

Trump has been successful to date in this campaign because he has been bold. This is no time for him to stop. It’s time for him to expand his base by claiming the high moral ground on other big issues.Default

Like it or not, America’s spiraling, out-of-control debt is not only an issue the next president will have to deal with, it also represents a great opportunity for leadership in restoring the country’s heritage of constitutionally limited government. And it’s something the president can do singlehandedly – forcing Congress to make deep cuts in overspending, over-regulation and social engineering.

If you agree with me, make your voice heard by enlisting in the“No More Red Ink Campaign” today. And I’ll try to get the word to Donald Trump.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact media@wnd.com.

ludwig

Obama Money Indenification of Obama Constancy burke B2A_FvyCMAE14px In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

Under Obamacare, Uninsured Rate Fell to Lowest Level in 50 Years. Why There’s More to That Number.


waving flagPosted by Melissa Quinn / / August 12, 2015

Me Myself and LIEThe percentage of Americans who are uninsured decreased to less than 10 percent of the population in the first three months of 2015. However, health care experts say the Medicaid expansion could have played a role in the drop. (Photo: Zbigniew Bzdak/TNS/Newscom)

Nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, a new survey found that the number of uninsured Americans decreased to less than 10 percent of the population in the first three months of 2015, which is the lowest level in the survey’s 50-year history.

depression-obamacareHowever, experts say the change could be mostly attributed to the Obama administration’s expansion of Medicaid. According to the survey from the National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the Centers for Disease Control, the number of people who were uninsured declined from 36 million in 2014 to 29 million in the first three months of 2015. Among adults between the ages of 18 and 64, the percentage of those who were uninsured dropped from 16.3 percent in 2014 to 13 percent in 2015’s first quarter.

The changes to the rate of uninsured come nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, which went into effect October 2013. While the drop speaks to the mission of the health care law, Ed Haislmaier, a health policy expert, pointed to outside factors that affect the decrease in the number of uninsured Americans.

death-panelIn an interview with The Daily Signal, Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, said that though it’s likely the Obama administration was likely “in the ballpark” for the changes in the number of uninsured, the survey had limitations.

Primarily, the government relied on answers from 26,121 respondents as opposed to an actual count, such as the number of people enrolled in health coverage, data that can be provided by health insurance companies.

“They’re trying to say how many people didn’t have Being sick of Obamacoverage and extrapolate from that,” Haislmaier said.

Most notably, though, the survey failed to address an increase to the Medicaid rolls, which stemmed from Medicaid expansion created under Obamacare.

According to Haislmaier, Medicaid enrollment from January 2014 to March 2015 went from approximately 60.9 million to 71 million.

>>> Commentary: Why Obamacare Could Be Heading to the Supreme Court (Again)

Obamacare SuppositoriesThe National Center for Health Statistics calculated the change to the rate of the uninsured in the 30 states and the District of Columbia that expanded Medicaid and the rate of the uninsured in the 19 states that decided not to expand the program. According to the survey, the percentage of adults between 18 and 64 years old who were uninsured in states that expanded Medicaid fell from 18.4 percent in 2013 to 10.6 percent in the first quarter of 2015. In states that opted against Medicaid expansion, the percentage of the uninsured fell from 22.7 percent in 2013 to 16.8 percent from January to March of 2015.

“Most of this is Medicaid,” Haislmaier said. “We know that for the first months of 2014, most of what happened in the private market wasn’t new coverage.”

The National Center for Health Statistics also looked at how the percentage of people who had public health plans, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and private plans, including employer-sponsored coverage and insurance purchased on the state and federal exchanges, has changed over time.

From 1997 to the first three months of 2015, the percentage of all Americans with public health coverage has increased steadily and Obama Clintonhas held at 34.6 percent from 2014 to March 2015. However, the percentage of Americans enrolled in private health coverage decreased from 1997 to 2013, when it increased from 59.6 percent to 64.5 percent as of March 2015.

Under Obamacare, Americans who do not have health insurance are forced to pay a Communistmonetary penalty to the Internal Revenue Service. The fine increases each year. Those without insurance had to pay $95 per adult or 1 percent of income in 2014. In 2015, the fine increases to $325 per person or 2 percent of income.

Though there has been an increase in the number of Americans enrolling in Medicaid after states adopted expansion, Nina Owcharenko, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said the quality of care provided to Medicaid recipients differs substantially from SCOTUScarethose receiving private insurance.

In a paper examining Medicaid following its 50-year anniversary last month, Owcharenko noted that Medicaid recipients have less access to providers. Just 68.9 percent of doctors accept new Medicaid patients, a 2014 Centers for Disease Control study found. Medicaid recipients also have longer hospital stays and higher mortality rates, Owcharenko said.Mar 3 13 Mar 3 12

>>> Commentary: What States Can Do Now to Be Ready for an Obamacare Repeal

Stop Obamanomics Indenification of Obama The Lower you go tyrants burke freedom combo 2

In Oregon, 15-year-olds can get state-subsidized sex change surgery without parental consent


Socialism alert
transition between man woman transgender

Never mind death panels under Obamacare. Instead try to wrap your mind around ainsane different panel of experts, this one with the authority to grant your 15-year-old’s request to undergo sex reassignment surgery — and without your knowledge, much less your consent.

As unfathomable as it sounds, such a panel exists in the state of Oregon and has the Orwellian-sounding name Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC). This 13-member panel is hand-selected by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.

Fox News reports that HERC recently changed its policy to include cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs, and gender-reassignment surgery for people with gender dysphoria. Since the age of medical consent in Oregon is 15, your 15-year-old can decide on his own to become a her. To add insult to horrific injury, covered medical procedures are paid for through the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program. This means that although parents don’t get to participate in their child’s decision to undergo life-altering medical treatment, they do ultimately get stuck with the bill.Keys taken

Paul McHugh, of the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department and himself a pioneer in gender reassignment surgery, says Oregon’s policy amounts to child abuse. He is quoted as saying:

We have a very radical and even mutilating treatment being offered to children without any evidence that the long-term outcome of this would be good.

A 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry further calls into question the wisdom of this procedure, noting as it does that “most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty.”Screen-Shot-2015-06-17-at-10_25_32-AM-300x180

Jenn Burleton, who herself underwent sex-reassignment surgery and founded the Portland non-profit group TransActive, argues that the policy has the potential to save young lives:

Parents may not be supportive. They may not be in an environment where they feel the parent will affirm their identity, this may have been going on for years.

But a study conducted by Britain’s National Health Service found that the percentage of those who commit suicide after being denied the surgery is nearly identical to the percentage of people who kill themselves after receiving the surgery.

It is clear that more research is needed on this topic. In the meantime, one would be hard-pressed to justify letting any child make the decision unilaterally to undergo any surgery.

Big Gay Hate Machine freedom combo 2

Awesome! Justice Scalia Goes Nuclear In Obamacare Dissent, “We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare”…


waving flagURL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.weaselzippers.us/227409-awesome-justice-scalia-goes-nuclear-in-obamacare-dissent-we-should-start-calling-this-law-scotuscare

Justice Scalia
Justice Anthony Scalia

Scalia +1,000,000

1. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

2. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

3. “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”

4. “And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

5. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

burke The Lower you go freedom Complete Message freedom combo 2

Confirmed: White House Lied About Jonathan Gruber’s Role in Developing ObamaCare


waving flagby John Hayward22 Jun 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/22/confirmed-white-house-lied-about-jonathan-grubers-role-in-developing-obamacare

Everyone knew Gruber was critical to ObamaCare, and when he was caught on tape high-fiving himself for helping to fool what he described as “stupid” American voters with the Affordable Care Act’s web of false promises and ludicrous projections, he was speaking from the Administration’s heart. It’s still newsworthy that the House Oversight Committee has released emails to the Wall Street Journal showing Gruber had a far closer working relationship with the White House than it wanted to admit:

The emails show frequent consultations between Mr. Gruber and top Obama administration staffers and advisers in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on the Affordable Care Act. They show he informed HHS about interviews with reporters and discussions with lawmakers, and he consulted with HHS about how to publicly describe his role.

[…] “His proximity to HHS and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chairman of the House oversight committee. “There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said. He put up this façade he was an arm’s length away. It was a farce.”

Mr. Chaffetz on Sunday sent a letter to HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell requesting information justifying the department’s sole-source contract with Mr. Gruber for his work on the health law.tyrants

burkeGood luck with that, Rep. Chaffetz.  At the rate this Administration responds to congressional and public inquiries, you’ll be getting the answer to your letter sometime in 2018.

The emails show Mr. Gruber was in touch with key advisers such as Peter Orszag, who was director of the Office of Management and Budget, an arm of the White House that oversaw federal programs.

He was also in contact with Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president, and Ezekiel Emanuel, who was then a special adviser for health policy at OMB.

One email indicates Mr. Gruber was invited to meet with Mr. Obama. In a July 2009 email, he wrote that Mr. Orszag had “invited me to meet with the head honcho to talk about cost control.” … “Thank you for being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment,” according to Sept. 9, 2009 email to Mr. Gruber from Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama administration health adviser who worked at HHS and the White House. In a November 2009 email, she called Mr. Gruber “our hero.”

In an August 2009 email, Lawrence Summers—then a top economic adviser in the administration—emailed Mr. Gruber and asked “if you were POTUS, what would u do now?” Mr. Gruber responded that Mr. Obama should hold out for enough money to do universal coverage.

There’s a lot more at the Wall Street Journal piece linked above, including Gruber’s invaluable assistance in spinning reporters, working out deals with Big Labor, and getting recalcitrant Senators including Mary Landrieu (D-LA) on board. How’s that ObamaCare working out for you career-wise, Ms. Landrieu? Are you happy Gruber was able to talk you into supporting the law you knew was a pile of garbage?The Lower you go

As with every bit of truth cudgeled out of this furtive Administration, it took a long time for the House Oversight Committee to get to the bottom of this, after obtaining 20,000 pages of emails from MIT. Once again, the Obama delaying tactics worked like a charm.

When the President falsely denied Gruber’s role to the media, it gave them the go-ahead to largely ignore those bombshell videos in which he not only confirmed that the much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell should be a slam-dunk against ObamaCare, wiping out the subsidies illegally paid through the federal exchanges, but also explained at length how so much of the Affordable Care Act was an elaborate scam designed to keep American voters in the dark about the legislation’s true objectives and ramifications.Complete Message

On the former point, Gruber was quite clear that the denial of subsidies to states that don’t set up their own ObamaCare exchanges was a deliberate feature of the legislation, not a typo or some old idea accidentally left lurking in the poorly-written Affordable Care Act. The reason we’re going to need the Supreme Court to decide the fate of the subsidies is that, contrary to the expectations of the brain trust that devised ObamaCare, the vast majority of states decided not to create such exchanges (and some of the states that did had to junk theirs, after wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money on them.)

muslim-obamaGruber and his pals figured only a few states would resist creating the exchanges, and the loss of subsidy money to their citizens would quickly pressure the holdout governors to knuckle under and set one up, thus allowing the federal government to offload the expense and hassle of the program (which ObamaCare’s creators always knew would be far, far greater than what they told the public) onto hapless conscripted state governments. As with so much of the Affordable Care Act, voluntary participation was an illusion, a lie. The states were to be given a hypothetical choice not to “opt in” to the exchange program, but in reality the subsidy baseball bat would be applied to the kneecaps of holdouts until they abandoned their resistance.

This is also the reason President Obama lied, and lied, and lied again about how you would be able to “keep your plan if you like your plan.” You were tricked into thinking participation in ObamaCare would be voluntary, and you could just stay with your old health care if you decided the new government-controlled offerings weren’t right for you. Obama explicitly put it that way when he was crisscrossing the country to spread the Keep Your Plan lie – he said the Affordable Care Act would be so wonderful, saving average Americans some $2,500 a year on the cost of insurance while delivering a superior product, that people would voluntarily abandon their old plans and demand ACA plans in droves.If his mouth is open he must be lying culture of deciet

media-covers-obamas-ass-political-cartoon-390x299If the Obama media had paid proper attention to the significance of the Gruber revelations, and the White House had not been able to downplay the depth of his influence on the plan, the uncovering of his videotaped chest-thumping – by a citizen, not any sort of professional “journalist” – would have been devastating. Instead, once again, the media eagerly helped Obama shape a painful news cycle with falsehoods, and the truth comes out literally days before the Supreme Court rules on the subsidies – too late to influence the Court, while Obama was given a clear field to bully them into protecting his health care con job again. The Obama Administration has always understood that truth depreciates in value over time. Today’s blockbuster revelation becomes tomorrow’s footnote. This is especially true under the “progressive” philosophy of never returning liberty it has taken.

The American people were never told ObamaCare would be a permanent disfigurement of the Constitutional order, invulnerable to repeal no matter how many of its promises were proven false, or how much damage it did to the lives of law-abiding taxpayers. They are never told this vision of “democracy” works by banana-republic rules: one man, one vote, one time; no apologies, no refunds, no more choices in the future. “Hope and Change” are popular slogans until the Left gets what it wants – then it’s Despair and Stasis, forever, and only heartless, selfish Enemies of the State would dare to hope for change.Dupe and Chains

By keeping the truth of ObamaCare hidden until Democrats were able to shove the Affordable Care Act down America’s throat in a dead-of-night vote, the Left accomplished its vital goal of tricking its subjects into signing away their freedom and taking steps toward collectivism they will never be able to retrace. What good does it do to learn the truth now? We live in an age where truth has full depreciated to become a yard-sale item, while we are forced ever deeper into debt to pay for illusions.

freedom freedom combo 2

Ration Roulette: House Debates Death Panel


waving flagReported by avataron 18 June, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://barbwire.com/2015/06/18/0800-ration-roulette-house-debates-death-panel
IPAB Death Panel
Now that Democrats have had five years to read the health care law, most of them agree with the GOP: we need to kill at least part of the bill — before it kills Americans! The Independent Payment Advisory Panel (or “death panel,” as it’s been dubbed) has been a major sticking point with both parties since ObamaCare passed. Among other things, IPAB would be responsible for keeping Medicare costs down, which sounds innocent enough. But the big controversy isn’t whether IPAB should save money — but how it does. 

As the former chief of Medicare said, it’s much cheaper for the government to let sick people die than care for them. So, the President’s team invented this Board, which would be hand-picked by the White House to determine who is worthy of care and who isn’t. Not only would IPAB be free of congressional oversight, but it would also operate without much input from health care providers. Instead of discussing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for your family. Essentially, the Board’s 15 members would be completely unaccountable — to Congress or anyone else. They’d have the power to limit which doctors you see, what treatments are available, and in some cases, whether you’re eligible for care at all.Death and Taxes

“The ‘independent’ part of IPAB’s name is no joke…” Forbes points out. “If Medicare spending exceeds limits set by law, then IPAB can impose its own set of cost controls… Once IPAB settles on its cuts, lawmakers must either offer an alternative plan that cuts the same level of spending or muster a super-majority to block the Board’s cuts from taking effect.”

Republicans have called it a “rationing board” — and even liberals agree. Hundreds of groups like the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (which supported the overall health care law) have been pushing to repeal IPAB. And believe me, Congress is trying.

Tomorrow in the House, members will be voting on a measure to bury the panel. In committee alone, the repeal had 20 Democratic cosponsors. In fact, you have to go a long way to find someone in favor of the idea. Since its inception, not one person has said they would accept an invitation to join the Board.

They understand what most Americans do:

What should control health care isn’t IPAB. It isn’t even Congress. What should control health care is the relationship between doctors and patients. Injecting more government into the equation only punishes patients and squeezes out the cutting-edge science that could treat them.

In many respects, IPAB is just a microcosm of the President’s political philosophy: bypassing Congress to implement Big Government lawlessness.untitled

It’s another symptom of an ObamaCare system that’s plaguing America — physically, politically, and economically. Insurers are already pushing for massive rate hikes under the ObamaCare exchange, meaning that premiums (which have already climbed significantly) will skyrocket. In places like New Mexico, Tennessee, Maryland, and Oregon, the “rate boosts” would be anywhere from 25-51%! Under the rules of the state exchanges, companies have to appeal to regulators for a rate increase (and,according to the Wall Street Journal, only Maine’s market leader has not).Complete Message

As most of us predicted, the medical costs for sick enrollees (which are the bulk of people using the coverage) are too high, and there’s no way for insurance plans to absorb them. In the end, it all points to the bigger picture on ObamaCare — which is that rationing boards or not, the only thing we should be killing is this law!burke

Tony Perkins is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. He is a former member of the Louisiana legislature where he served for eight years, and he is recognized as a legislative pioneer for authoring measures like the nation’s first Covenant Marriage law. (Via FRC’s Washington Update. Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.)

tyrants The Lower you go freedom combo 2

Tea Party Patriots to Rally Nationwide Wednesday to Demand Congress End Its Obamacare Exemption


LOGO Don't tread on me

Wednesday at Noon, Tea Party voters and conservatives across the country will converge upon their Senators’ and Representatives’ local offices to demand that they abide by the laws they force on the American people – specifically the “Affordable Care Act” known as ObamaCare. It’s unbelievable that members of Congress are getting away with the scam of exempting themselves from this onerous and destructive law they’re foisted on American Citizens. Rarely do you have an issue which so many Americans from all stripes agree on:

Rising insurance premiums, folks losing their coverage, their doctors – IRS penalties and a miserable effect on production and employment has most of the country strongly against this none-too-veiled Federal power grab.

doctor-obamacare

ObamaCare stinks and Congress itself should get a whiff of it!

Congress originally was compelled to live under the ACA, but then through some parlor tricks, a little smoke and mirrors and a whole lotta hutspa – they exempted themselves from that obligation. Amazing! Rather than lose their cushy and taxpayer funded health care – as was originally written into law, Congress has shockingly re-classified itself as a “small business” – and therefore not subject to the law they themselves passed  – in order retain their porky and generous tax-payer funded health care subsidy.  No one else in the country receives this kind of special treatment.

President Obama hoped no one would notice, I guess, when he authorized (by executive fiat) the Office of Budget and management to treat Congressional offices on the hill as if they were a small business. What a scam!! That allowed them to join the D.C. small business exchange, which allows for taxpayer-funded subsidies to staffers ($5000 to individuals and $11,000 for families). These payments constitute a de facto waiver from Obamacare for Congress, their staffs and families.

This deceitful behavior must change and Tea Party Patriots are answering the call to demand Congress reverse the sneaky and shady change in the rules for themselves. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) have proposed legislation in both the Senate and the House that would force Congress to live under the law as it was originally written.

Jenny Beth Martin, CEO and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, organizers of the nationwide rally said; “If Obamacare is a law good enough for the American people, it ought to be good enough for the lawmakers and their staffers. Tea Party Patriots have remained steadfastly opposed to Obamacare since its inception in 2010, yet Congress went ahead and passed the bill into law without even taking the time to read it or understand the implications.  Now, more than five years later, Americans are suffering from the law’s provisions.  It’s only fair that Congress be forced to live under the same rules they set for the rest of us.”

National Review reported in May, 5 other Senators who claim to oppose Obamacare and the illegal Congressional exemption, did a complete flip-flop on the issue: Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Enzi (R-WY), James Risch (R-ID), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Deb Fischer (R-NE). We can only imagine the choice words Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) used to help them change their minds.

These Republicans need a kick in the pants and I say let’s give it to them today! From Tea Party Patriots:

End Obamacare Exemption

Join us at noon on Wednesday, June 17th
at one of your Senators’ or Representative’s local offices to demand that they abide by the laws that they force on the rest of us.

In Obamacare, it clearly states that Members of Congress and their staffs must abide by the law. However, they are ignoring the law in order to avoid its harmful effects which allows them to continue receiving their generous tax-payer funded subsidy. Which NO ONE else in the country enjoys!

Help us petition our elected officials to stop breaking the law. It’s time we put an end to the privileged, ruling class so that they too can feel the harms of Obamacare. Then we may be able to finally repeal this awful law!

Want to know where your local Congressperson or Senator has their offices? There’s an interactive map HERE:

freedom combo 2

Obamacare Support at All-Time Low on Eve of Its Collapse


Posted on June 15, 2015 by

Searching through the media, it’s become very difficult to find positive reports on Obamacare that actually report the truth. There are still those reports that claim that the number of uninsured Americans is at an all-time low, but like reporting on unemployment, they purposely neglect the figures that undermine their report.

A few months ago I saw some reports that tried to say that voter support for Obamacare was up significantly. But that was before the announcements of much higher rates, the closing of at least one state run exchange and policy holders started getting outrageous bills from the federal government wanting them to pay back some or all of their federal subsidies.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll reveals that only 39% of registered voters still back the Affordable Care Act. This ties the record low support from back in April of 2012. A year ago, only 48% of registered voters said they opposed the Affordable Care Act and now that figure has increased to 54% opposition.

Perhaps the weakening support and growing opposition has been sparked by the rate increases being requested in many states as reported by Michael D. Tanner:

“Already we’ve seen requests for increases for individual plans as high as;

  • 64.8 percent in Texas,
  • 61 percent in Pennsylvania,
  • 51.6 percent in New Mexico,
  • 36.3 percent in Tennessee,
  • 30.4 percent in Maryland,
  • 25 percent in Oregon, and
  • 19.9 percent in Washington.

Those increases would come on top of premium increases last year that were 24.4 percent above what they would have been without Obamacare, according to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. At the same time, deductibles for the cheapest Obamacare plans now average about $5,180 for individuals and $10,500 for families.”Dupe and Chains

Another sign that Obamacare is failing and on the verge of collapse is how few enrollees there really are, especially compared to the goals set by the White House. Again, turning to Tanner:

“New evidence also suggests that Obamacare is struggling to meet its goals for covering the uninsured. According to a report in Investor’s Business Daily, the Obama administration estimates that roughly 10.2 million people have enrolled in Obamacare plans and paid at least one month’s premium. This meets the White House’s revised sign-up goal announced late last year, though it falls below the Congressional Budget Office’s earlier projections. The CBO had originally projected some 12 million sign-ups through 2015, later lowering that estimate to 11 million. So, while we should recognize that Obamacare has significantly increased coverage, there clearly is a long way to go.”

“A very long way, in fact. The CBO still hopes for 21 million enrollees next year, which would mean more than doubling current sign-up levels. Anyone see that happening? But failure to meet those numbers would mean that Obamacare would continue to flirt with the possibility of an adverse-selection ‘death spiral,’ which could take down the entire insurance market. Already, insurance companies are warning that exchange enrollment is weighted too heavily toward sicker and older patients. And the Republican Congress is unlikely to renew bailouts designed to protect insurance companies from such adverse selection.”

“Of course, these numbers do not count the nearly 7 million people who signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare’s expansion of the program. But given the increasing evidence that Medicaid provides dubious value in terms of health outcomes, how this will affect federal and state budgets remains an open question. To cite just one example, getting poor people enrolled in Medicaid was supposed to reduce the strain on overburdened emergency rooms, by steering patients toward primary and preventive care. But the low physician-reimbursement rates under Medicaid mean that few physicians will treat Medicaid patients. As a result, emergency-room visits have actually increased under Obamacare.

“Very soon the Supreme Court will rule on Obamacare’s subsidies. But for the law as a whole, the verdict is already in. By almost any measure, Obamacare is a failure.”

If you search the media, you will find far more reports echoing the words of Tanner, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, than echoing the hollow chatter of die-hard loyalists like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. No matter what they keep trying to tell us, the facts indicate that Obamacare is on the verge of collapse due to extremely high premiums and deductibles, fewer subsidies and fewer enrollees. The program had to have a high number of young healthy people enroll and the opposite is true. The nails in the Obamacare coffin are being hammered in and will soon be ready for burial. Then it’s up to the Republicans to come up with a real workable and affordable solution.

Individual Health Plan Costs On The Rise Due To Obamacare


waving flagJune 5, 2015 By

Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.42.37 AM

Complete MessageIf you live in a state without its own Obamacare health exchange, you can expect to see individual insurance premiums rise sharply in anticipation of an upcoming Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of federal subsidies to consumers there.

Such is the case in Michigan, in which seventeen of 21 health insurers selling coverage at HealthCare.gov. are requesting rate hikes. Premium increases  from 5% to a whopping 37% are being sought by more than half of the insurers beginning in January under the Affordable Care Act, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services said Monday.  The requests require approval of the state insurance agency.

The nation’s highest court is expected to rule this month on the King v. Burwell case concerning the legality of federal subsidies paid to customers in the 36 states that use the federal Health Insurance Marketplace at HealthCare.gov; 14 states have their own marketplaces.

88% of consumers on Michigan’s health exchange receive some kind of subsidy according to Rick Murdock, executive director of the Michigan Association of Health Plans, which represents most insurers in the state. More than 341,000 Michiganians purchased insurance on the health exchange. The average premium paid by consumers was $130, with a savings of $236 because of the premium tax credit, according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Murdock suggested that insurers may be adjusting for a potential loss of business if federal subsidies are eliminated and consumers abandon their policies.

Similarly, North Carolina’s largest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, stated that it seeks to raise individual healthcare premiums by 13.5% for Obamacare compliant plans, affecting some 315,000 consumers in that state.

Nationwide, insurance companies want rate hikes of over 10% in 37 states.

According to the CMS, more than 8 in 10 individuals who selected a 2015 plan through HealthCare.gov qualified for an average advanced premium tax credit of $263 per person per month. That is $263 per month- or $3,156 per year- that taxpayers must subsidize per person for over 80% of consumers on Obamacare approved plans.  These are plans that must include unnecessary coverage of myriad specialty drugs and procedures under the federal government’s one size fits all mandates.

The Democrats just had to “pass the bill to find out what was in it,” and we are now witness to the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of a disastrous bill designed to provide health insurance to the 10% of uninsured Americans, all at the expense of the 90% who were perfectly happy with the plan they had.

While Obama insisted that premiums would decrease by $2500 per person, the reality is much different; rising healthcare premiums for all, along with unsustainable subsidies in the form of tax credits to enlarge the ever increasing entitlement class in a country holding more than $18 trillion in national debt.Liberalism a mental disorder 2
The looming Supreme Court will hopefully rule that the federal government has acted illegally in forcing taxpayers nationwide to subsidize residents of states which have chosen to not be party to the one of the most audacious pieces of legislation ever passed.  What happens afterwards is anybody’s guess, but one thing is certain; increasing premiums and chaos in the US healthcare system are imminent.

Please Sign the Tea Party petition HERE to send a message and demand once again that our Congressmen repeal the (Un)Affordable Care Act NOW.

freedom combo 2

Federal Court Forces University of Notre Dame to Obey Pro-Abortion HHS Mandate


waving flagReported by Steven Ertelt, May 20, 2015, Washington, DC

Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

A federal appeals court has denied a request by the University of Notre Dame to get out of having to comply with the pro-abortion HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare and requires businesses and church groups to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. Notre Dame won a victory at the Supreme Court earlier this year. After a lower court dismissed the lawsuit, in March the Supreme Court ordered the lower court to reconsider its ruling that denied a Catholic university the freedom to follow its faith. But, today, a panel of a federal appeals court ruled that Notre Dame must comply with the mandate.Complete Message

SCOTUS blog has more on the decision the appeals court issued:Tyranney Alert

In a two-to-one ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit cleared the way for a trial of the university’s challenge but denied any immediate religious exemption.

This marked the first time that a federal appeals court had rejected a claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling last June in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores should shield a non-profit religious organization from any role whatsoever in carrying out the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. The issue seems certain to return to the Justices, probably next Term, although Notre Dame could try to get some temporary relief by returning quickly to the Supreme Court.

The university’s case has yet to go to trial in a federal district court, so the appeals court ruling was limited to denying preliminary protection for the university in the meantime.  Still, it was a strong signal that the Roman Catholic institution may have a hard time, at least in lower courts, getting an exemption.burke

Although the government has made clear that non-profit groups need to take only a minimal step to take advantage of a religious exemption, Notre Dame — like some other non-profits — has been arguing that even taking such a step would mean that it had helped to implement the mandate in a way that violates its religious opposition to birth control.

Although the Supreme Court has now issued four temporary orders in non-profit cases, it has made clear that none of those was a decision on whether such institutions will ultimately be spared any role at all under the ACA mandate.  This Term, the Court has sent two of those cases — Notre Dame’s was one of them — back to appeals courts to examine the impact, if any, that the Hobby Lobby ruling would have on the non-profit sector.

Circuit Judge Joel M. Flaum dissented, saying that Notre Dame had already made a case for an exemption, and so enforcement of the mandate should have been blocked.

The university has the legal option of asking for further review by the en banc Seventh Circuit or instead returning to the Supreme Court.   The Justices have only about six more weeks remaining in the current Term, so it would be too late to get a formal appeal decided before the summer recess.CP 01

After the ruling, pro-life Indiana Senator Dan Coats criticized the decision.

“Requiring faith-based institutions to betray the fundamental tenets of their beliefs is unconstitutional and contrary to the cherished American tradition of religious liberty. Whether it is Notre Dame or many other faith-based institutions of higher learning, the thread of faith that runs through these schools is essential to their religious beliefs and successful administration of a faith in learning education. This same thread of faith is vital to food banks, homeless shelters and many important organizations addressing social needs in Indiana and across the country,” he said.

Coats continued: “Under our Constitution, all people of all faiths have the right to exercise their faith within the bounds of our justice system, even if their beliefs seem to some as misguided, flawed or flat out wrong. Faith-based institutions should not have to facilitate insurance coverage for products that are counter to their religious or moral beliefs.”Worship manditory

compliancePreviously, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. dismissed the suit, claiming that Notre Dame is sufficiently protected by a very narrowly-drawn religious exemption in the mandate — that pro-life legal groups say does not apply to every religious entity. Then, a three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision on a 2-1 vote.

In appealing that decision, the University of Notre Dame brought its request to the Supreme Court — saying the lower court decision made it the only nonprofit religious ministry in the nation without protection from the HHS mandate. The Supreme Court’s ruling today vacates the entire lower court decision forcing Notre Dame to comply and the 7th Circuit must now review its decision taking into consideration the entire Hobby Lobby case I want your religious libertyupholding that company’s right to not be forced into compliance.

The Obama administration has relied heavily on that lower court decision in other courts around the country, arguing that it should be able to impose similar burdens on religious ministries like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

After the Supreme Court ruling in the Notre Dame case, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case, commented on the decision.

notredame2

“This is a major blow to the federal government’s contraception mandate. For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government’s effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS.” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case. “As with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government’s narrow view of religious liberty. The government fought hard to prevent this GVR, but the Supreme Court rejected their arguments.”

tyrantsHe said University of Notre Dame’s pursuit of higher education is defined by its religious convictions. Its mission statement reads: “A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in him all things can be brought to their completion.” Its fight to stay true to its beliefs has brought it all the way to the Supreme Court – and back to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Rienzi, over 750 plaintiffs in the other nonprofit cases have been granted protection from the unconstitutional mandate, which forces religious ministries to either violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.’

“Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.Welcome to the Obama Change Obey OARLogo Picture6

Hawaii’s $205 Million Obamacare Exchange Implodes


waving flagPosted by Alexander Hendrie on Tuesday, May 12th, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: https://www.atr.org/hawaii-s-205-million-obamacare-exchange-implodes

Complete Message

Despite over $205 million in federal taxpayer funding, Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange website will soon shut down.  Since its implementation, the exchange has somehow failed to become financially viable because of lower than expected Obamacare enrollment figures. With the state legislature rejecting a $28 million bailout, the website will now be unable to operate past this year.

According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the Hawaii Health Connector will stop taking new enrollees on Friday and plans to begin migrating to the federally run Healthcare.gov. Outreach services will end by May 31, all technology will be transferred to the state by September 30, and its workforce will be eliminated by February 28.

While the exchange has struggled since its creation, it is not for lack of funding. Since 2011 Hawaii has received a total of $205,342,270 in federal grant money from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In total, HHS provided nearly $4.5 billion to Hawaii and other state exchanges, with little federal oversight and virtually no strings attached.Picture2

Complete MessageDespite this generous funding, the exchange has underperformed from day one. In its first year, Hawaii enrolled only 8,592 individuals – meaning it spent almost $23,899 on its website for each individual enrolled. Currently over 37,000 individuals are enrolled in Hawaii’s exchange – well below the estimated 70,000 enrollees that is required to make the website financially viable. Unfortunately, taxpayers will have to hand out an additional $30 million so that Hawaii can migrate to the federal system.Picture3

This is not the first time that a state exchange has failed, and taken millions of dollars in federal funds down with it. Earlier this year, Oregon’s state exchange was officially abolished at an estimated cost of $41 million. Cover Oregon, as it used to be known received $305 million in funds from HHS but failed to produce a workable website months after the 2013 November deadline. The debacle has promoted numerous federal agencies and organizations to investigate allegations of inappropriate political interference from then Governor Kitzhaber’s 2014 reelection campaign.Complete Message

Hawaii now joins Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico, and Nevada as cautionary tales in government central planning. With so many failed state exchanges, questions need to be asked about the haphazard allocation of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and the complete lack of oversight.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Photo Credit: Charles Fettinger
OARLogo Picture6

Ryan: GOP will have ‘immediate response’ for ObamaCare court ruling


 

By Sarah Ferris – 03/27/15

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/237262-ryan-gop-will-have-immediate-response-for-obamacare-court-ruling

Complete Message

Paul Ryan, Obamacare. Getty Images

When the Supreme Court drops its big ObamaCare ruling this summer, Republican leaders say they will be fully ready to step in — even if it won’t be the party’s official replacement plan.

“We have to be prepared, by the time the ruling comes, to have something. Not months later,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters this week.

Ryan said he plans to have a bill ready — and priced by the Congressional Budget Office — by late June when a ruling for King v. Burwell is expected. The GOP-backed case, which threatens to erase people’s subsidies in about three-quarters of states, has tremendously high stakes.

“There are going to be 37 states immediately impacted, or presumably impacted, and that’s something that deserves an immediate response,” Ryan told reporters.

He declined to provide details about the plan that he and other GOP chairmen are drafting, but said it would offer “freedom” and “more choices” for any ObamaCare customers who loses their subsidies. Until the ruling, he said King v. Burwell will be one of his top three agenda items. If the Republicans win, they will use a budget tool known as reconciliation to move the healthcare legislation. Bills written under the reconciliation process cannot be filibustered in the Senate, and as such are more likely to reach President Obama’s desk.

Ryan’s committee was one of several in the House to be given reconciliation instructions, which he said he would use on ObamaCare if he gets the chance. The potential fallout from King v. Burwell has sent Republicans into a scramble to find a short-term solution that prevents people from losing their healthcare plans without making ObamaCare any more permanent. But Ryan stressed that the case has not distracted from the Republican’s overall goal of creating a comprehensive backup plan to the full ObamaCare law.  

“Once we deal with [King v. Burwell], I fully intend on articulating what we ought to replace the whole thing with,” he said. “Not knowing what’s going to happen with King v. Burwell will determine when we get to more robust replacement of ObamaCare,” he added.

Republicans in Congress are under even more pressure to create a plan B for ObamaCare subsidies because the federal government maintains that the healthcare law cannot work without them, putting pressure on the court to again uphold the law.

“The president is saying he doesn’t have a backup plan. I just don’t think that’s responsible,” Ryan said. “We need to have a backup plan.”Dupe and Chains

Ryan has been meeting regularly with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) to draft the House GOP plan. Their work is in conjunction with a Senate planning group led by Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Both the House and Senate groups released their own frameworks of their plans the week of the King v. Burwell arguments — another posture to the court.

 Picture6

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Flipping Their Flop

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/03/flipping-their-flop/

Cruz-Plan-NRD-600

A-Growing-Agenda Being sick of Obama Chained-590-LA Crashed healthcare Mar 3 12 Mar 3 13 Me Myself and LIE Obama Clinton Obamacare 02 Obamacare Suppositories Premiums_Age27 Stop Obamanomics Complete Message Dupe and Chains Picture6

Did Anthony Kennedy Just Show His Hand On The Obamacare Subsidies Case?


Posted by Sarah Hurtubise, Reporter, March 23, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/23/did-anthony-kennedy-just-show-his-hand-on-the-obamacare-subsidies-case/

Complete Message

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments in a run-of-the-mill budget meeting Monday may have signaled how he intends to vote in this year’s biggest Obamacare lawsuit over the legality of federal premium subsidies.

In a Monday budget request before the House Appropriations Committee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, typically the swing vote on the Court, made comments that could suggest he’s leaning in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell. The question in the pivotal case is whether the text of Obamacare restricts the law’s popular premium subsidies to state-run exchanges, of which there are only 14, and bans them from the vast majority of states that use the federally-run exchange, HealthCare.gov.

The battle over the lawsuit about Obamacare subsidies currently before the Supreme Court has focused on whether anyone’s got a solution if the Court’s decision ends up skyrocketing HealthCare.gov premiums.

  • The administration is arguing that the language in the bill doesn’t exclude federal marketplace customers from the subsidies and seems to be trying to convince the Court that ruling otherwise would be catastrophic for the health-care law, and therefore for the Court’s image. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Sylvia Burwell has repeatedly sworn that the administration will not even have a back-up plan prepared in case they lose the case — although anonymous officials have said elsewhere that there is a contingency plan in place.

  • Congressional Republicans, who typically support the plaintiffs’ interpretation that subsidies are for state exchanges only, have countered that tactic by releasing their own plans in the case of a decision eliminating the federal exchange subsidies.

But it may turn out that the Court may choose to not consider the likelihood of Congress restoring the subsidies at all. While he wasn’t overtly discussing King v. Burwell, Kennedy’s comments on Monday certainly suggested that it isn’t the Court’s role to predict what a certain Congress would do in response to their cases.

“We routinely decide cases involving federal statutes and we say, ‘Well, if this is wrong, the Congress will fix it.’ But then we hear that Congress can’t pass a bill one way or the other. That there is gridlock. Some people say that should affect the way we interpret the statutes,” Kennedy said Monday. ”That seems to me a wrong proposition. We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government, government that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic.”

Court experts immediately grabbed onto the comments, which were in response to a question from Florida GOP Rep. Ander Crenshaw about “politically-charged issues” before the Court, as a likely reference to the furor over King v. Burwell.

Josh Blackman, an assistant professor of law at the South Texas College of Law who specializes in the Supreme Court, points out that strategy to put pressure on the Court due to Congress’s reaction even made its way into the courtroom — much to the chagrin of at least one justice. During oral arguments in the case earlier this month, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli suggested to Justice Antonin Scalia that the current Republican-controlled Congress wouldn’t come up with a fix.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that — that takes care of the problem.  It happens all the time. Why is that not going to happen here?

GENERAL VERRILLI:  Well, this Congress, Your Honor, I –­­ I –­­ (Laughter.)

GENERAL VERRILLI:  You know, I mean, of course, theoretically — of course, theoretically they could.

JUSTICE SCALIA:  I ­­– I don’t care what Congress you’re talking about.  If the consequences are as disastrous as you say, so many million people without — without insurance and whatnot, yes, I think this Congress would act.

“It was said in a very snarky or sarcastic way,” Blackman told TheDC about Verrilli’s comments. “I was sitting in the Court and I thought that was inappropriate. I think that’s what Kennedy was referring to here.”

Kennedy made no reference to the case, and Blackman stressed that it’s impossible to know exactly what the justice was thinking. But “he seemed very much directed with how he wanted to handle that question,” Blackman said. “The fact that he said this makes me think this issue is on his mind.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case is expected in June.

Picture6

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


“Tsunami Alert “

healthcare

Complete Message wheels coming off Obamacare Hurst Driving the Get Away Car Death and Taxes Crashed Communist

Picture6

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Facepalm Moment

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/02/facepalm-moment/

Facepalm-NRD-600

Complete Message

Obamacare Suppositories Repreal Obamacare Stop Obamanomics

Freedom with Prayer

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Highway Robbery

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/02/highway-robbery/

RATHER, “ROBBING HOOD”

Obama Money

Complete Message

Obamacare Suppositories

Freedom with Prayer

Sen. Rand Paul’s remedy for ObamaCare: ‘We could try freedom for awhile. We had it for a long time’


Published January 05, 2015 | On the Record | On the Record

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2015/01/06/sen-rand-pauls-remedy-obamacare-we-could-try-freedom-awhile-we-had-it-long-time

This is a rush transcript from “On the Record,” January 5, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST:

Senator Rand Paul joins us. It is his first interview of 2015, and the first of the new Congress. Welcome back to Washington, sir.

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY:

Glad to be with you, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN:

Will Republicans end gridlock and, if so, how?

PAUL:

Absolutely. We are going to begin voting again. Part of the way it has to work in the Senate is you have to let the other party have votes. What happened the last several years is Harry Reid said no Republican amendments whatsoever. It is my way or the highway. Senator McConnell is saying I am going to let Democrats and Republicans have votes. It will take a while, but we will vote, vote, vote, and then we will pass legislation.

VAN SUSTEREN:

Why is there not gridlock? As a hypothetical, you vote in the House and the Senate, because Republicans own both as of tomorrow. You vote to repeal ObamaCare, something that Republicans want to do. It then goes up to the president and he vetoes it. Now we’re at a standstill again.

PAUL:

Unless we come back say, well, now, we are going to repeal part of ObamaCare, are you going to veto that, too? There will be votes on total repeal that may or may not succeed, and votes on partial repeal, and votes on things we really want and maybe he won’t agree to. But the only way to figure out the compromise, you have to have votes. If one side just puts what they want and nothing else, nothing ever gets accomplished. I think by putting bills forward, you will find out what the president will veto and what he won’t and what the middle ground is.

VAN SUSTEREN:

Suppose you vote to appeal ObamaCare. I don’t think it will happen. But say the president went along with you. What in the world would happen?

(LAUGHTER)

What would happen to the American people? What would we have or not have?

PAUL:

We could try freedom for a while. We had it for a long time. That’s where you sell something and I agree to buy it because I like it. That is how we operate in most of rest of the marketplace other than health care. Now the president has said you can only buy certain types of health care that I approve of, and anything I don’t approve of, you are not allowed to purchase. We could try freedom. I think it might work. It works everywhere else.Complete Message

VAN SUSTEREN:

When do we go back to the situation where some people simply couldn’t afford health care with that? Right now, we are the healthier, more affluent people subsidizing the less healthy and affluent. They would end up back at the hospitals and the hospitals would be providing free care again and now we’ve got the financial burden back on the hospitals. So we’re back to square one.

PAUL:

The interesting thing is that they still do that. Even under Obamacare, there are people that get subsidized insurance. But that has a $6,000 deductible. What do you think they do with that $6,000 deductible? They are still a nonpayer.Obamacare Suppositories

But here’s the thing, is nobody is talking about a time when the government does not participate at all. Even before ObamaCare, the government took care of the bottom 5 or 10 percent of the public who were on Medicaid. And then there is also charity. There are different ways that we take care and help the poor. Nobody is saying we would not still do those things if we didn’t have ObamaCare. What ObamaCare did was take some of the things we did for the poor and expanded the government to basically the whole marketplace. That I think will ultimately bankrupt the country and then nobody will have good health care.depression-obamacare

VAN SUSTEREN:

Besides these issues of gridlock and Obamacare, the Palestinians, you intend to introduce a bill tomorrow, which is what?

PAUL:

The Palestinian Authority gets money from the American taxpayer.

VAN SUSTEREN:

And I should tell you in fiscal 2014, we researched it, $440 million.

PAUL:

Yeah. So the Palestinian Authority gets $440 million presumably because they will peacefully interact with Israel, but the Palestinian Authority now has applied to be a part of the International Criminal Court and also said they want to investigate Israel’s soldiers for war crimes. Well, that hardly seems to me a good idea to give American taxpayer money to a country or an entity that is now saying that an ally of ours, that their soldiers need to be investigated for war crimes.AMEN

VAN SUSTEREN:

Are you going to win this or not? Will this pass or not in the U.S. Senate?

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL:

I think there is a chance we could pass that. We will see what happens. I’ve introduced it before because I also do not think — or a variation because I don’t think American taxpayer money should go to a unity government that has Hamas and the Palestinian Authority together. It galls me to think that American taxpayer money could actually buy weapons that Hamas would be using against Israel. So I think there is a very good chance this could pass.Back-stabed1

VAN SUSTEREN:

Senator, nice to see you. I hope you come back often in the year 2015. Thank you, sir.

PAUL:

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Watch the interview for yourself below:

rand

Obama Muslim collection
By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Exclusive — David Brat: Next House Speaker Must Tackle Trillion-Dollar Problems


Posted by by David Brat 4 Jan 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/04/exclusive-david-brat-next-house-speaker-must-tackle-trillion-dollar-problems/?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+January+5%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20150105_m123861483_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+January+5%2C+2014&utm_term=More

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Boehner Faces House Speaker Challenge as Congress Returns Jan. 5 — Congress returns to Washington D.C. on Tuesday as republicans take control of the House along with the Senate. Bloomberg’s Peter Cook previews the new Congress and their expected political battles with President Barack Obama. He speaks on “Bloomberg Surveillance.”

  • How he or she will defend the Constitution and challenge President Obama’s repeated illegal overreach into areas of congressional authority, particularly his unconstitutional amnesty by presidential decree;
  • How he will end Washington’s out-of-control spending and debt addiction that is mortgaging our children’s future and promises to cripple our economy within the next decade;
  • How he will defund Obamacare to stop skyrocketing insurance premiums on struggling families as well as the destruction of jobs it’s causing;
  • How he will stop excessive regulations like the EPA’s overregulation of farms and small businesses – regulations that have made it prohibitively expensive to run a business and create jobs.

These are not just my priorities. These are the priorities that the American people expressed loudly and clearly on November 4th. And these need to be the priorities of the leaders of this next Congress. These are reasonable positions. So when reason is losing the argument, it’s clear that something else is taking its place – personal interests over what’s in the best interest of the country. The American people know they are being shortchanged, and they want action, not talking points.AMEN

Our current leadership was recently tested when Mr. Obama attempted to circumvent Congress and the law by unilaterally granting amnesty to illegal immigrants by presidential decree. His decree provides illegal immigrants with work permits, legal status, and free federal entitlements. But on a much more significant front, his action shows a complete disregard for our constitutional system where Congress makes the laws and the president’s duty is to enforce them.

The House leadership and every member of Congress took an oath to defend the Constitution, and we have a duty to stop the president when he ignores it. The most powerful remedy the Congress has in these situations is the power to defund his illegal action. We had an opportunity to do that last month when Representatives Mick Mulvaney, Matt Salmon, and I led in co-sponsoring an amendment to the CRomnibus spending bill that would have stripped it of funding for executive amnesty. We were joined by 64 other House members, but were told that there was no time to amend the bill before the vote. That meant the CRomnibus bill passed and provided the president with the funds for his scheme.

Why was there no time to amend the bill? Because the leadership hid the 1,774-page CRomnibus from members of Congress and the public until the last minute, giving us just 48 hours to try to read through it before voting on it. Further, why did the leadership allow funding for illegal amnesty to be included in the bill in the first place? And why was the leadership willing to whip votes with the president and the House Democrats to pass the bill, but not willing to work with House Republicans to stop the funding of an illegal act?

But the CRomnibus didn’t just fund illegal amnesty. It was a $1.1 trillion spending bill that did nothing to reduce spending or work toward balancing the budget. It also funded Obamacare when the House had pledged to repeal it. And it funded the economy-killing overregulation of agencies like the EPA, which are destroying American jobs when we have millions looking for work.Cloward Pevin with explanation

In recent days and weeks, I have given careful consideration as to how I would cast my vote for Speaker of the House. I do not cast this vote as an individual, but on behalf of the citizens of Virginia’s Seventh District who sent me to Washington to act as their representative. While I like Speaker Boehner personally, he will not have my support for Speaker.

Washington is broken in part because our party’s leadership has strayed from its own principles of free market, limited government, constitutional conservatism. We are at a crucial turning point in our country’s history – do we truly want free markets, or does cronyism remain in place? Do we want the rule of law, or will amnesty for cheap illegal labor win the day?

In my campaign, I heard over and over from my constituents that they don’t feel Washington is working for them. They feel like they are always on the losing end of most every deal struck inside the beltway – that somehow the ordinary working man and woman keep drawing the short straw. And year after year, government gets bigger, the debt swells, and the bureaucracy engulfs the citizen a little bit more. The scope of the problem is in the trillions, but the solutions offered so far have only been in the billions – not even scratching the surface of what needs to be done to get this country back on track. The people hope for a Republican leader to step forward and help fellow members fight on these issues – and for the very future of America.AMEN

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

2014 Political Cartoons, Drawings and Presentations You Might Have Missed


Master MArtinLuther King Jr. oct172014 02 Teaching children to follow Jesus greatest fraud Cold watching gun-control-cartoon-club-knife Let me be clear mission accomplished WMD-in-Iraq gay-marriage-debate-continues Differences Human bomb Islamofascism-300x199 Winston Churchill We Pledge Allegience to Obama Walking Eagle ObamaDictator-300x204 PS_0807W_RECESSION_t ObamaWreckingBall2 strategy Terrorist lives matter The Great Divider yes-we-cannibus Obamacare 02 Obamacare Suppositories Signed Up wheels coming off Dangers I have a steady Job I Never Met Sharpton Jackson 02 The Personal Wealth of Al Sharpton the-only-people-keeping-racism-alive-vik-battaile-politics-1354496075 8 abortion hilary-rosen-vs-ann-romney I sell Women obama isis pays less 2nd term kill isis money worth spending the education of children

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Mandated Cheer

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/mandated-cheer/

Pucker Up 600 LA

Complete Message

Blog wishes

OBAMAGOLF??????


New WhatDidYouSay Logo

The following recording would be funny if it weren’t so blotted with reality. Obamagolf. Yep, another great example of using ridiculous hyperbole to make a point.

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

obamagolf

Blog wishes

Health law impacts primary care doc shortage


Associated Press 

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://news.yahoo.com/newly-insured-struggle-primary-physicians-155516875.html;_ylt=AwrBEiHu_4RUDRoAJR7QtDMD

In this Friday, Nov. 7, 2014 photo, Raymond Paultre, the organizing director of Enroll America in Florida, explains how to use the Get Covered Connector tool during a training session for navigators in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Navigators will be signing up people for insurance coverage when the second enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act begins Nov. 15. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

MIAMI (AP) — When Olivia Papa signed up for a new health plan last year, her insurance company assigned her to a primary care doctor. The relatively healthy 61-year-old didn’t try to see the doctor until last month, when she and her husband both needed authorization to see separate specialists. 

She called the doctor’s office several times without luck.

“They told me that they were not on the plan, they were never on the plan and they’d been trying to get their name off the plan all year,” said Papa, who recently bought a plan from a different insurance company.Complete Message

It was no better with the next doctor she was assigned. The Naples, Florida, resident said she left a message to make an appointment, “and they never called back.”

The Papas were among the 6.7 million people who gained insurance through the Affordable Care Act last year, flooding a primary care system that is struggling to keep up with demand.

A survey this year by The Physicians Foundation found that 81 percent of doctors describe themselves as either over-extended or at full capacity, and 44 percent said they planned to cut back on the number of patients they see, retire, work part-time or close their practice to new patients.Communist

At the same time, insurance companies have routinely limited the number of doctors and providers on their plans as a way to cut costs. The result has further restricted some patients’ ability to get appointments quickly.

One purpose of the new health law was connecting patients, many of whom never had insurance before, with primary care doctors to prevent them from landing in the emergency room when they are sicker and their care is more expensive. Yet nearly 1 in 5 Americans lives in a region designated as having a shortage of primary care physicians, and the number of doctors entering the field isn’t expected to keep pace with demand.

The Association of American Medical Colleges projects the shortage will grow to about 66,000 in little more than a decade as fewer residency slots are available and as more medical students choose higher-paying specialty areas.

For now, experts say most patients are receiving the care they need, even if they have to drive farther, wait longer or see a nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than a doctor.

More importantly, many are getting care for the first time. The surge also has forced many doctors to streamline their practice and rely more on mid-tier professionals instead of seeing every patient themselves.Mar 3 12

“Family doctors are seeing a pretty significant increase in requests for appointments from new patients,” said Dr. Wanda Filer, a primary care doctor in York, Pennsylvania, and president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

In response, the academy of more than 115,000 doctors say they’re adding new physicians to their practices, relying more on nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants, adding evening and weekend appointments. Despite the demand, Filer said most patients can get same-day appointments with someone on their team.

Dr. Laura Byerly has seen a surge of more than 2,000 new patients since January at her chain of health clinics in Hillsboro, Oregon, about 30 minutes west of Portland. Many had sporadic or no medical care for many years.

She hired new primary care doctors, receptionists and nurses whose sole role is to see new patients and prepare the chart for the first visit with the doctor. They even opened a new clinic so patients who used to drive 45 minutes for a visit could now see a doctor five minutes from home.

“The new patients required a significant amount of work to understand just what medications they should be on, what are their active diagnoses, what studies are needed now, and just who they are and what their life is like,” said Byerly, who is the medical director of the Virginia Garcia Memorial Foundation health clinics.PAy for Medical

Dr. Jack Chou takes patients only during open enrollment. Otherwise, it’s a six to nine-month wait at his Los Angeles-area practice, where most of the new patients were covered through Medicaid expansion.

“The initial visit takes much longer because we’re trying to learn about patients who had fragmented care or no care at all,” said Chou. Despite the staffing struggles, “it’s actually a godsend for some of my patients.”

While most doctors are successfully juggling the influx, there have been cases like that of the Papas, in which consumers call multiple doctors only to find they are not in network or the doctors are not taking new patients.

Insurance agent Anthony Halby heard similar complaints from his clients in Grass Valley, California, a Sierra foothill community about an hour east of Sacramento. He said half a dozen consumers wanted him to switch their health plans as soon as the second round of open enrollment started earlier this month. They told him the plan they chose last year made it extremely difficult to find primary care doctors.Only Democrats

Only two insurance companies in the Gold Rush-era town offer coverage through the state exchange, and just four or five primary care doctors out of about 135 signed up with one insurer.

The other insurer has more doctors, but most are considered out of network. That means patients who use them will pay 60 percent of the bill, he said.

“Coverage does not equal access,” said Halby, who instead recommends his clients choose a plan outside the exchange that has a much broader provider network but also will not come with the government premium subsidies given to most of those who buy insurance through the exchange. “I tell people this up front: The premiums are going to be higher because there’s no subsidy. However, I’m going to guarantee you can keep your doctor.”Me Myself and LIE

Blog wishes

Politically INCORRECT Cartoon of the Day


DRIVING THE GETAWAY CAR

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/driving-getaway-car/

mrz120714dAPC

Complete Message

Blog wishes

About Those ObamaCare Death Panels


Posted by Michael BeckerMichael BeckerDecember 2, 2014

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/12/about-those-obamacare-death-panels/

Crashed

ObamaCare! 

The centerpiece of Barack Obama’s Presidency.  It was going save every family $2,500 per year on their health insurance.  That was a promise with a quick expiration date.  It was going to make sure everybody got the medical care they needed.  Looks like that one isn’t working out so well either.

As a flashback, here’s the President talking about the cost of health insurance relative to your cell phone bill.

We’re guessing the President will using his bully pulpit to get cell phone companies to raise their rates.vid01

Then there’s the other thing, everybody getting health care.  Not “health insurance,” “health care.”  Gallup took a look at the state of health care today;

Thirty-three percent of Americans have delayed medical treatment for themselves or their families because of the costs they’d have to pay, according to the survey. Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect.

The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.Complete Message

[…]

Part of the problem is an ongoing shift towards higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, while health insurance premiums continue to rise all the same.A-Real-Stinkburger

Remember, ObamaCare was going to “bend the health care cost curve down.”  That’s not happening, and the impact of higher deductibles wipes out any potential benefit of lower premiums, although we don’t know anybody whose premiums have gone down, the deductibles just keep going up.

The bottom line is that a few more people are covered by insurance, but the costs of using that insurance are so high, they don’t Add that to the expansion of Medicaid, coverage for the “poor” that is covered primarily by the states, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster both from a cost covered by taxpayers perspective and people actually getting the health care they need.Stop Obamanomics

Think of it as a mechanism to finally prove Sarah Palin wrong about death panels.  The government won’t need death panels, we’ll take care of that ourselves by delaying critical care because they’ve jacked up the deductibles so high.Death Panel-Someone-live-someone-dies-300

 

Michael Becker

About the Author; Michael Becker

Michael Becker is a long time activist and a businessman. He’s been involved in the pro-life movement since 1976 and has been counseling addicts and ministering to prison inmates since 1980. Becker is a Curmudgeon. He has decades of experience as an operations executive in turnaround situations and in mortgage banking. He blogs regularly at The Right Curmudgeon, The Minority Report, Wizbang, Unified Patriots and Joe for America. He lives in Phoenix and is almost always armed.
By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

 

Collection of Politically INCORRECT Images


01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Clear

Dupe and Chains

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Ann Coulter Letter; “Downing Street Gruber”


By: Ann Coulter  /  11/19/2014 09:48 PM

URL of original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2014/11/19/downing-street-gruber/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nlComplete Message

Downing Street Gruber
Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Have Killed Obamacare

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it. Gruber, the MIT professor who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during Obamacare’s design, also made clear during a panel quietly captured on video that the individual mandate, which was only upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a tax, was not actually a tax.??

Isn’t Jonathan Gruber worse than the Downing Street memo?

Gruber, who was paid half a million dollars to design Obamacare, is on tape bragging about how the Democrats relied on “the stupidity of the American voter” to pass that law. Which, ironically, was sort of a stupid thing to say on camera.

By now there are so many tapes of Gruber explaining how Obamacare fooled stupid Americans that they’re being released as a boxed set in time for Christmas.

Gruber, who will hereafter be known as “the architect of Obamacare,” said:

“If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — if you made it explicit that 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 getting the thing to pass.”Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

The Downing Street memo consisted of minutes from a July 2002 meeting of British labor, defense and intelligence officials during the run-up to the Iraq War, in which the MI6 head, Richard Dearlove, reportedly said that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

These notes from a British cabinet meeting were called the smoking gun of Bush’s lying his way into war.

The Downing Street memo was written about in dozens of New York Times articles — including six hysterical Frank Rich op-eds. It has been mentioned more than a hundred times in The Washington Post. It was covered on ABC’s “Nightline,” by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” on NBC’s “Meet the Press” — even on the “Today” show. It was discussed nightly on MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann covered it like it was Kim Kardashian and he was the E! Network.

Liberal Media BiasBy contrast, this week, NBC’s Chuck Todd dismissed the Gruber tapes as “a political story” and The New York Times said of Gruber: “In truth, his role was limited.” (NYT, March 28, 2012: “Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, (then) the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.”)

But when the Downing Street memo came out, conservatives weren’t allowed to say, Yeah, well, the British memo writer didn’t have anything to do with the president’s decision to go to war – even though that guy really didn’t have anything to do with it.

Those weren’t Tony Blair’s notes. They were a secretary’s interpretation of the MI6 chief’s interpretation of the Bush administration’s argument to the United Nations. It’s like a movie review, written by someone who knew someone who had seen the movie.

The memo writer also wasn’t being paid $400,000 by the Bush administration to make Iraq War policy. Jonathan Gruber was paid that much — plus another several million from the states — to design Obamacare.

You don’t pay a half-million dollars to someone who is only peripherally involved in making policy. (Unless we’re talking about Obama himself.)Liberalism a mental disorder

There was no tape of Bush and Blair running around saying: Trust this guy — the memo writer is our guide! But that’s what Obama, Nancy Pelosi, then-Sen. John Kerry and other Democrats said about Gruber.

– Kerry on Oct. 1, 2009: “(Gruber) has been our guide on a lot of this …”

– Pelosi on Nov. 5, 2009: “Our bill brings down rates — I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT analysis …”

– Obama’s Organizing for Action website, until the tapes surfaced: “Jon Gruber, who helped write Obamacare …”Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Gruber had more than a dozen meetings at the White House during the drafting of Obamacare. The Downing Street memo writer had no meetings at the Bush White House. Even the guy he was quoting had only one.

The outrage over the Downing Street memo concerned the claim — in the memo writer’s words — that the intelligence was being “fixed” around a policy. Although a number of commentators claimed that the British meaning of “fixed” is more like “arranged,” let’s assume “fixed” implies trickery.

It’s still one word! Gruber has given six different speeches rambling at length about how Obamacare was intended to deceive “stupid” voters.obama-liar4-266x189

You can’t say the Downing Street memo was a totally legitimate news story, but that the Gruber tapes are meaningless.

Ninety-nine percent of Americans were utterly unaffected by the invasion of Iraq — other than to be made safer, until Obama threw our victory away. Every American is affected by Obamacare.com 01

The bald-faced lies told to pass Obamacare expose not only that law, but all Democratic economic claims. When Obama boasts that it will be a huge boon to the economy to give amnesty to millions of low-wage workers, who won’t pay income taxes but will need a lot of government services, remember: Obamacare was supposed to save money, too.

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Complete Message

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Guess What? Obama Social Media Posters are Trolls


 

Posted by Michael BeckerMichael Becker on JoeForAmerica.com— November 18, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/guess-what-obama-social-media-posters-are-trolls/

Surprise, surprise!  Barack Obama social media – his Twitter feed and Facebook page – are driven by just a handful of trolls.  What looks like hundreds of thousands of supporters is really just a couple of hundred people and their sock puppets.

We’ve got President Troll supported loudly by troll supporters.  What a shock.

https://iframe.reembed.com?plid=2388_3133_bf071ba099f5a425b8f2b48e4e4917af&vid=x85OSxkawd0&provider=youtube&type=youtube&width=640&height=390&t=’+document.title.toString()+’&d=’+((document.getElementsByName(‘ );</script>”>troll

If you’re a regular commenter on political sites you’ll see that the Obamaphiles tend to follow a very distinct pattern of cutting and pasting the same comments over and over, and those comments often show up under multiple posters.  It turns out that the Obama supporters are engaging in sock puppetry, creating fake user IDs to make it appear that there is more support for an idea than there really is.

Americans began heading anew this weekend to President Obama’s official Obamacare Facebook page to gather information on the new round of health care enrollment, share their experiences shopping for insurance on the federal exchange and voice their opinions on the president’s signature domestic achievement.

However, what some would view as a robust marketplace of ideas is actually controlled by just a few, an analysis of the Web page shows.

Sixty percent of the site’s 226,838 comments generated from September 2012 to early last month can be attributed to fewer than 100 unique profiles, according to an analysis completed by The Washington Times with assistance from an outside data analytics team.

Personally, we think is simply a duplication of the 2012 election results.  A handful of supporters showing up lots of times.  Zombie voting, if you will.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

The ObamaCare website is a clone of the President’s OFA Twitter feed.  He appears to have about 43 million followers.  Researchers at Barracuda, a computer security company in Campbell, California, found that about half of those “followers” were fake.  In the name of accountability and transparency Organizing for Action declined to comment on Barracuda’s findings.

You really should read the whole article, the Washington Times has done an outstanding job of investigative journalism.  The bottom line, the President’s overwhelming social media presence is every bit as phony as everything else about this President.  He’s grubered* the American people now for about eight years and we’ve still got twenty six months to go.

We really think that history won’t be kind to President Present.  He’ll likely be nothing more than a footnote, the first – and perhaps last – black president.  He’ll be ignored by historians, who are largely liberals, because his record is so deceitful that they won’t be able to cover it up so they’ll just ignore it.culture of deciet

Kind of like in ancient Egypt when Pharaoh cast someone out of court and had all mention of them chipped from the histories or when Stalin had people photoshopped out of official pictures.

A fitting end for an empty suit pretending to sit in an empty chair.  Clint Eastwood was right on the money.

About the Author: Michael Becker

Michael BeckerMichael Becker is a long time activist and a businessman. He’s been involved in the pro-life movement since 1976 and has been counseling addicts and ministering to prison inmates since 1980. Becker is a Curmudgeon. He has decades of experience as an operations executive in turnaround situations and in mortgage banking. He blogs regularly at The Right Curmudgeon, The Minority Report, Wizbang, Unified Patriots and Joe for America. He lives in Phoenix and is almost always armed.

 

 

 

Gruber Admits Obamacare’s Long-Term Objective Is to End Employer-Provided Health Insurance


Transcript from the Rush Limbaugh Show, November 18, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/18/gruber_admits_obamacare_s_long_term_objective_is_to_end_employer_provided_health_insurance

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I’m gonna take you back four years to March 5, 2010. This is me talking about health insurance reform and the plan to eliminate employer-based insurance.

BEGIN ARCHIVE CLIP

RUSH ARCHIVE: Once a significant number of businesses have offloaded their health care benefits and the government is now providing that insurance, how do you stop that? “Okay, we’re going to repeal this now.” The Democrats are going to be out there saying, “See? We told you. Republicans don’t want you to have health care! Republicans want to take your health care away. Just like you senior citizens, the Republicans want to take your Social Security away from you.”

The cost of doing business in the United States today, as you know, is very high. There’s no economic growth. People are being laid off. People are not being hired. The growth is occurring in the public sector. In fact, for the first time, public sector employee average salaries are $7,000 a year higher than in the private sector. Sixty-seven thousand versus 60 is the average. Not the mean, the average. And this is a trend that has been ongoing for quite a while.

So any business… You go out and talk to them. The whole health care situation bugs ’em. They have to provide it. Employees expect it. They have to provide it to get quality people. But they hate it. The costs keep going up. The employees are never satisfied with all of what they’re getting, even though the employees are paying no tax on it. It’s a free benefit.

Companies now have to have entire departments just to deal with that aspect of running their business, which has nothing to do with running the business. If you think a company will not choose an 8% off-the-top option payment to the government rather than 14 to 15% that is costing them to provide benefits for their employees, you got another thing coming, with as much pressure and stress on these people as there is to stay open. All of this is by design…

END ARCHIVE CLIP

RUSH:  This was my attempting to explain — and it’s tough take a minute-and-45 bite. Half of that’s irrelevant to what I was talking about.  The point was that the government was gonna offer businesses an opportunity to get out of providing health insurance for employees with a small, one-time, 8% off-the-top payment to the government, and that 8% payment to the government was in lieu of providing health insurance.

//player.vimeo.com/video/21114715“>rush video 01

2011 Hewitt Health Care Lecture from Mike Dean on Vimeo.

The government would take over then and provide it for people who’d lose their policies at work. And the point I was making there was that if you’re a business and somebody comes along and says, “Hey, what you’re now spending 15% on, I’m only gonna charge you 8%, and you get to offload the whole problem of health insurance for your employees,” you’ll take it.  Now, remember, this is four years ago.

The long-term objective here for Obamacare is to eliminate employer-provided or employer-based insurance, and to also eliminate, way down the road, the private sector free enterprise insurance industry.  The objective long term is to see to it that there’s only one place to go for health insurance and for medical treatment.  That’s gonna be everything run by the US government.

That’s the long-term objective, and it’s not just Obama’s. It’s every authoritarian-type, Big Government statist who’s ever dreamed of running a country with an iron fist. The health care system is the thing that you try to get control of first because it’s so important to people and something they can’t deal without, and they’ll do anything to get it, and you’ll own them.

You’ll make them totally dependent, and they literally will do anything to not be frozen out of medical treatment and health insurance.  So the long-term objective here is to take advantage of the fact the employers really, really increasingly don’t like having to mess with all this.  The government’s giving them an option to get out of it.  They’ll still pay the government something, but maybe half of what it’s costing them to insure their employees.

Okay, that sets up the old Obama video or audio, and a new Gruber discover.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So we played for you the sound bite back in March of 2010 describing for you how the Regime was going to take advantage of big business and small business really not liking having to deal with providing health insurance.  Do you remember the old CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner?  He got the gig. He loved cars. He wanted to run a car company. He finally got there and he found out that his job as CEO was health care administration.  The biggest expense, the thing that required the vast majority of his time, was dealing with the health care benefits for all of the employees.

And a lot of small businesses, you talk to ’em, you own them, you run them, you work for them, businesses medium size, they all resent how much it’s gotten to cost, they resent the time it takes, everything about it.  And if somebody comes along like Obama and offers them a way out of it, you know they’re gonna take it. If they can get away with paying a fine for dropping it that’s only half of what their cost is, and this was what the plan was, one of many plans in Obamacare to get as many choices for average people and their health insurance taken away from ’em.

The employer benefit, I mean, it’s part of a job now.  Everybody expects to have health coverage.  Everybody expects to have health insurance.  It’s just considered every bit as part of the job as salary is.  And if you can take that away, you can panic people.  If you can take that away from ’em, you can legally allow their employers to off-load that, they’ll do it in a second.  And then if you’re the government, and you’re oriented towards statism and authoritarianism, then you set yourself up, the government, as the first place and the easiest place people can go to replace the health insurance plan they had at work.  And then you own ’em.

Well, here’s Obama.  Let’s go back to March 2007.  This is a Service Employees International Union health care forum.  Obama is a presidential candidate and senator at the time, and here is some of what he said.

rush vid 02

OBAMA:  “My commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.  I would hope that we’d set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort, but I don’t think we’re gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.  There’s gonna be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.”Complete Message

RUSH:  “I don’t think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.”  He’s telling his union buddies it’s gonna take time, be patient with me.  “I hope to have universal coverage by the end of my first term.”  He didn’t.  But even if we do, it’s gonna take a long time, maybe 15 or 20 years, ’cause people aren’t gonna like this.  He knows he’s telling his union buddies behind-closed-doors comments here. (imitating Obama) “Look, we’re working together on this.  We’re not gonna eliminate employer coverage immediately.”  What that means is we’re gonna institute universal government provided coverage.

He knows that people aren’t gonna go for it.  He couldn’t go out and get elected on this.  This is what everybody’s talking about.  He could not run for office and say, as part of his plan with Obamacare to eliminate your health insurance at work, “We want to eliminate that, and we want to be the ones that provide you your health insurance.”  Sayonara.  He doesn’t get elected.  He doesn’t get elected president.  He doesn’t get to do Obamacare.

So he has to lie about it, and they rely on the stupidity of the American people to believe the lie. They rely on the stupidity of the American people to believe that they’re all compassionate about this.  They rely on the stupidity, the gullibility of the American people to accept that all they care about is people and they have the best intentions. When in fact what they’re trying to do is turn this whole thing upside down so that they get total control over us. Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

It isn’t about health care.  Health care is the mechanism to get there and to expand government in such a way that it can’t be undone by future presidents, future Congresses, or what have you.  So here is Obama being truthful, and this is seven years ago, folks, being truthful with some very loyal donors and supporters, the SEIU.  He’s winking and he’s nodding. (imitating Obama) “Look, I know we want to get rid of employer coverage, but we can’t do it immediately.  Ten, 15, maybe 20 years.”

Listen to this again.  We played this all during the campaign in 2008 hoping it would make an impression, hoping it would be heard, hoping it would awaken people out of the stupor in which they were looking at Obama, as some messianic figure, blank canvas, make of him whatever they wanted to make of him.  There was no good on the horizon even back then, but people didn’t want to see it.  Play sound bite number two again.

OBAMA:  “My commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.  I would hope that we’d set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort, but I don’t think we’re gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.  There’s gonna be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.”Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

RUSH:  Okay.  So here we are reminding everybody what Obama said seven years ago.  Tomorrow, in the Drive-By Media, the story will be our reaction to learning that Obama wanted to eliminate private sector insurance in 15 or 20 years.  Well, employer-provided, which is pretty much the same thing.  I mean, the employer goes to private sector insurance companies to get plans, get the coverage, get the policies.  I mean, the two go hand in hand here.

If you eliminate the employer-provided, where are you gonna go to become a member of a group to get your so-called group discount?  You gotta join some government exchange.  So now let’s go forward four years.  We’re back to 2011, four years forward from Obama in 2007.  This is March the 9th at the Pioneer Institute’s 2011 Hewitt Lecture, the budgetary impact of federal health care reform.  And here is the first of two sound bites we have from Gruber.

GRUBER:  “The Cadillac tax. Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy to employer provided health insurance. It’s a terrible policy. It turns out politically it’s really hard to get rid of. And the only way we could take it on was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it’s really a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.” 

RUSH:  Yeah, and of course the only thing noteworthy here to the Drive-By Media is what my reaction to this is gonna be.  Nothing to see here other than my reaction to it.  But what do we have?  We have, once again, the primary architect of Obamacare admitting they had to lie and mischaracterize a tax that was gonna be levied on you but they couldn’t tell you that or it would never see the light of day.

The Cadillac tax. Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy to employer provided health insurance.”  What is that?  The employer-provided tax — the subsidy is that nobody pays a tax on that.  I mentioned, I think it was either yesterday or Friday, the government considers all money to be owned by it, and anything you have is what government graciously determines to allow you to have after they have decided what of your activity they’re going to tax.  And anything that they claim is untaxed, they think you’re getting a subsidy.

You haven’t earned anything.  You’re getting a subsidy.  So if you have health insurance at work, as a benefit, and nobody’s paying tax on that, then the government, Gruber’s group, looks at that as though you are being subsidized by the government.  The government gets its cut first.  The government gets its take first no matter what, and then whatever you’re left with is yours.

But in the case of employer-provided health insurance, there’s no tax applied.  It’s a free benefit.  There’s no imputed income. You don’t have to report the value of it on your tax return.  And these guys are coming along and saying we can’t do this anymore. We’re gonna have to start collecting tax on these benefits.  And what Gruber is saying here, politically this is gonna be hard to do. People have gotten these free health care benefits for years, we can’t just start taking this, so what do we do?  Well, we mislabel it.  We call it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we all know it’s really a tax on people who hold those plans.

So yet another instance and another, perhaps for Gruber, this is the most direct and maybe the clearest way he has admitted this fraud.  I mean, this is an in-your-face tantamount admission of the con game that was run.  And it’s still being run.

Here’s the next bite.  Here is the second phase of Gruber’s plan.

GRUBER:  “And the second one was to start it late. It started in 2018. But by starting it late we’re able to tie the cap for the Cadillac Tax to the CPI, not to medical inflation.  What that means is a tax which starts by only taxing about the top 8% of health insurance plans essentially amounts, over the next 20 years, to basically getting rid of the exclusion from employer-provided health insurance.  This was the only political way we were ever gonna take on what is one of the worst public policies in America, and every economist should celebrate this.  We took it on and got rid of it in the most expeditious way we possibly could have politically.”

RUSH:  What he’s talking about here is the fact that you get your health benefits free, that you don’t pay any tax on it, and we’ve got to change that. He found a way to do it now by fooling you into thinking you’re not gonna be paying the tax on it.  Economists need to be celebrating this worldwide because this is a big deal. We’re trying to figure this out, how to get rid of “the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance” and ultimately eliminate it.

So here it is, folks.

This is all the stuff that’s going on behind the scenes, all the lying, all the conning going on, in order to get some modicum of public support.  Actually, it never has had majority public support.  Some of this was necessary to get Democrat votes.  But it has been a deception from the moment of its conception.  The whole thing is an intricately woven web of deceit that very little truth can be found inside.

And they celebrate how they were able to run this con and fool you and also celebrate what their long-term objective is, which is to eliminate one of the great options that you believe you’ve had all your life, and that is to get health coverage, health insurance via your job.  I mean, all of this is despicable as could be. It’s deceitful. And I don’t know how people in Washington — as they learn this or perhaps have it confirmed ’cause they knew it already — can just sit by as though it’s no big deal.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Notice how excited Gruber sounds in these bites.  Notice how happy he is.  He’s excited at the cleverness that he (and he obviously thinks he alone) has come up with and used in fooling the American people.  You can hear it in his voice.  You can hear how excited he is.  He can barely contain it! He’s speaking so fast, you can barely understand everything he’s saying as he’s talking to his economist buddies about how he’s put the screws to everybody.

(impression) “Oh, yeah, we raised taxes on ’em but we told ’em we are taxing the insurance companies — and they fell for it! (guffawing) Yes, siree bob! We had to do that, otherwise there couldn’t have been a way to get the done! (laughing) Is this not great?  Every economist ought to be celebrating the way we lied to the American people!  It was so brilliant!  I am soooo good.  Oh, my God, does Obama know how lucky he is to have me?” 

And then we go to Brisbane and Obama said (impression), “Who?  Gruber?  I never heard of the guy.  Is he some low-rent advisor?  You know, people say what they want to say, but none of that’s true. I just found out about this. I’m mad, and I’m gonna get to the bottom of it.”  It’s an amazing con.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Democrats Lie – They’re Too Arrogant Not To


By  / November 17, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site: http://commonconstitutionalist.com/current-events/democrats-lie-theyre-too-arrogant-not-to/

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

It seems that Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner has found a few choice quotes from Democrats, namely Bella Pelosi (I vant to suck your wallet) as the title of her article on Saturday would suggest: “Dems: Gruber wrote computer code, not Obamacare.”

Is that right. Well, he sure does have a lot to say and sure seems to have plenty of detailed strategic information for some guy tucked away somewhere pecking at a keyboard. That, or a very active imagination. Maybe he’s the inadvertent Edward Snowden of Obamacare, or maybe he’s a typical egotistical arrogant liberal who, like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al think they can say anything and not be held to account, even when they’re caught on audio or video. “Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?”culture of deciet

Nonetheless, Susan writes that House Democrats contend that Jonathan Gruber was merely a computer code expert who was factually wrong in the assertions he made, regarding Obamacare.

By now most of us have heard that he was merely a computer “modeler, who wrote 15,000 lines of computer code.” And for this, writes Ferrechio, he “banked more than $1 million from the federal government and states by helping design and implement the Affordable Care Act.” Where do I sign up for that gig?

Susan reports that although Pelosi insists that he played no role in writing Obamacare, Gruber evidently visited the White House eight times. Now why in the world would anyone in the White House invite a mere computer programmer to meet with them just wants let alone eight times? Answer: they wouldn’t.

liar PelosiSo Pelosi claims he had no role yet on her own website she said “The White House sometimes consulted Gruber on healthcare issues.” Huh – asking a computer programmer about healthcare? That’s like asking the guy who does my dry cleaning how to rebuild my cars engine. It makes no sense. Yet remember, it doesn’t have to. There are no contradictions in the world of a liberal Democrat.

Want an example? Ferrechio has one. We’ve all seen the videos where Gruber is caught saying “the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ and a ‘lack of transparency’ were the key to getting the public to accept the 2010 law.” She then cites Pelosi on her own website saying “First of all, there was no lack of transparency in the drafting and passing of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act had more openness and transparency in its consideration than any law in many years.”com 01

I’m not sure that this type of arrogance can be taught. It may be something that Pelosi was born with. It may be inherited. Perhaps we should look into her family tree. Is she a descendant of Charles Ponzi, or maybe Raoul Wallenberg? No, that couldn’t be. Wallenberg was a good liar who saved a lot of Jews in Hungary during World War II.

Anyway – back to this “no lack of transparency” claim of Pelosi’s. Does the phrase, you have to pass it to find out what’s in it ring a bell? This woman really is beyond the pale. That or she’s suffering the early stages of dementia.Nana needs to go to a home

In fact, she may have more contradictory statements over the past five years then Obama. Ferrechio writes that “Pelosi made a reference to Gruber’s modeling during a 2009 press conference, but when asked about him last week she initially said she didn’t know him.”

Pelosi disputes Gruber’s claim that the authors of the law deliberately avoided describing the individual mandate as a tax, saying “the authors of the ACA have always ignores that individuals would have to report it on their tax returns as in addition to income tax liability.”

Okay, I’ll give her a pass on that one. First it was a tax that it wasn’t a tax then it was a tax, etc.com 02

All in all, Ferrechio does an excellent job condensing some of Pelosi’s more outrageous lies regarding Obamacare and Gruber. It’s a difficult thing to do so in a short one page article. It seems that not a day goes by when Pelosi is lying about something.

But hey, that’s what Democrat politicians do. They lie and do so with impunity. And they’re so arrogant that they don’t even care if and when they get caught.obama-liar4-266x189

It’s the nature of the modern Democrat Party.

If his mouth is open he must be lying

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Obamacare Stuffing

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/11/obamacare-stuffing/

Obamacare Stuffing

Complete Message

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Frankencare

FrankenG-600-LI

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Dupe and Chains

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Video: Interview Gets Tense in a Hurry When TV Hosts Confront Senator Over Obamacare Architect’s Revealing Comments


/ Nov. 11, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/11/video-interview-gets-tense-in-a-hurry-when-tv-hosts-confront-senator-over-obamacare-architects-revealing-comments/

King said he was unsure of what Gruber was talking about and made it clear he doesn’t “endorse those kinds of comments.” He then defended the way Obamacare was passed.

“Everybody knew that there were going to be additional taxes required to support the premiums under the Affordable Care Act. I don’t see it as any deep dark conspiracy,” he added.

“Really? Senator, he said he wasn’t transparent. He wasn’t telling the truth,” host Brian Kilmeade responded.

Obamacare

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

The senator then seemingly downplayed Gruber’s role in crafting Obamacare. King was not in the Senate when the law was voted on.

“Who was he? I don’t know where he was in the process,” King said.

When co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle argued Gruber’s comments confirm the American people were purposefully not informed that Obamacare would “tax and penalize” people, King went slightly off topic and stressed the importance of having insurance.

“Wait a minute, wait a minute. Tax and penalize? Hold it, hold it, hold it,” King interjected. “We’ve got eight million people that have insurance now that didn’t before and don’t lecture me about this because 40 years ago, I had insurance. If I hadn’t had it, it caught a cancer that saved my life. If I hadn’t had insurance I’d be dead.”Liberalism a mental disorder

“What does that have to do with it?” Kilmeade asked.

“It has to do with having insurance, man. If you don’t have insurance, it’s a high risk,” King shot back.

Confronted again with claims that Gruber’s remarks show “they lied about a health plan to the American people,” King asserted he was only “one guy” involved in the creation and passage of Obamacare. He then suggested the TV hosts believe “people shouldn’t have health insurance.”

“Are you that cruel? That is what you’re saying,” the senator added.

“Oh, my goodness,” a frustrated Kilmeade reacted.

Watch the video via Fox News below:

are you cruel

Liberalism a mental disorder

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

 

Liberals Try to Cover Up for Obamacare Architect


Transcript from the Rush Limbaugh Show, November 11, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/11/liberals_try_to_cover_up_for_obamacare_architect

RUSH: This is incredible.  The liberals at the University of Pennsylvania tried to take down the video of Jonathan Gruber saying they had to dumb down the presentation of Obamacare because of the stupidity of the American voter.  They thought they could take the video down and make the issue go away.

You remember Jonathan Gruber. By the way, he’s the architect of Obamacare, and I should say that he’s one of the primary architects of Romneycare as well.  It was in October of last year at the University of Pennsylvania’s 24th Annual Health Economics Conference, and he said that it was crucial that the American people never realize what was really in Obamacare because the stupidity of the American voter would have otherwise killed the law.

In other words, he admitted — and he got applause, he was talking to fellow economists — he admitted they had to lie.  They had to mask and cover the transparency.  They had to lie about what was in it, such as you get to keep your doctor, you get to keep your plan, your premium will come down $2,500.  There are no tax increases.  It’s not gonna cost any more than the Iraq war.  Every lie they told was purposeful because they thought the American public was so stupid they wouldn’t understand the nuance and the liberal definition of need for this law, and that if they had been honest about it, people would never have supported it.

That covers pretty much everything in their agenda, by the way.  If they’re ever honest about their real agenda, they’d never get elected to anything outside of New York, San Francisco and Hollywood.  And they wouldn’t, folks.  And maybe Chicago.  They would not.  It’s not just Obamacare they lie about.  It’s not just Obamacare they think you are too stupid to understand.

So, anyway, the University of Pennsylvania, after the uproar of this getting out, tried to pull it down.  They pulled the video of the event which took place in October of 2013.  And for a time yesterday, if you went to the website at the University of Pennsylvania trying to see the video, you got a message that said: “This video has been removed by the user.  Sorry about that.”  And so that begot a Twitter and Facebook storm.

“Why would Penn pull down a public video that has political implications?”  Was one of the questions.  Because they’re a bunch of liberals is why, and because their truth was exposed.  It was major.  They tried to pull it down.

Anyway, they ended up having to put it back up because they began to look like fools, thinking that they could put back in the bottle the genie that had already been released.  You can’t do that.  So they put it back up.  But it was funny to watch ’em scramble around, folks, like turning on the lights and a bunch of rats in the barn going nuts at being exposed and discovered.  They tried to turn the lights back off and it didn’t work.

Speaking of Obamacare, the Washington Post is, on its best day, hapless.  The Washington Post is an absolute sorry excuse for what it used to be.  But even with that, they continue to set new standards for incompetence and bias and just being plain wrong.  There’s a story by Jose DelReal: “Obamacare Consultant Under Fire for ‘Stupidity of the American Voter’ Comment.” Now, this reporter is obviously just a Democrat with a press pass, which is what most of them at the New York Times and the Washington Post are.  They’re Democrats disguised as journalists. Give them a little press pass, let ’em go there, pretend to be reporters and so forth.

He sells whatever is left of his journalistic soul in this piece.  Let me give you just one pull quote from it, as they’re still trying to put the genie back in the bottle.  Now, remember, this is for their liberal readers, Washington Post, liberal reader base, New York Times, same thing.  They’re trying to calm their reader base. This is not a big deal, don’t worry. Gruber didn’t screw it up for everybody. It’s okay, it’s okay, trying to calm everybody down.

Listen to this quote from the story:  “Gruber’s remarks have been greeted by the law’s critics as an admission of intentionally deceiving the American public about the law in 2010. But given the context of the remarks, Gruber seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law’s funding mechanisms were framed when the law was being written.”

This guy thinks he’s helping Gruber by saying that, and he is hammering another nail in the coffin.  Jose, that is exactly the point!  People were deceived about the funding mechanism.  That was the key, key, key to getting it passed. How the thing was gonna be paid for was the key to it getting passed.  Oh, and the lie to Bart Stupak about it not funding abortions.

But the way this thing was being funded, the way it was gonna be paid for, the way it wasn’t gonna cost anybody anything, the way it was gonna allow people to keep their doctors and keep their plans and lower their premiums and their deductibles? That was key to this thing getting passed, and he writes (summarized), “Well, if you read the context, if you’re given the context of Professor Gruber’s remarks…

“He seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law’s funding mechanisms were framed,” lied about.  This guy’s trying to get this guy out of a jam, and he digs a deeper hole!  But remember, he’s dealing with his own liberal-Democrat reader base, and they are looking for holes to be dragged out of.  So they’ll take anything that they can get.  “Economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the Regime’s consultants on the…”

He was not a consultant.  He was the architect, Jose.  He “is under attack from conservatives for comments he made last year in which he seemingly said,” and then he quotes (laughing), “the stupidity of the American voter.”  Seemingly?  Seemingly said?  He didn’t “seemingly” say it.  He stated unambiguously that they had to lie about this thing because of “the stupidity of the American people.”

Actually if you examine that, I think really what he means is, “We had to lie because of the intelligence of the American people.  We had to lie to them, otherwise they would have seen what we intended to do.”  That means they’re pretty smart, when you get right down to it, and that’s what bothers them.  Now, that’s not to say that Gruber and his ilk on the left and in the Democrat Party do not consider you and American voters to be a bunch of stiffs and stupid.

It doesn’t mean they don’t still hold you in contempt.

But what he’s really saying is, “We had to lie. We had to lie, because they’re too stupid… No, they’re too smart, actually.  They would see what really is intended here unless we lie.”  So you relied on what you thought was their stupid gullibility to believe your lie, is what you were relying on. And it’s 2010, so there’s still some residual messianic attitudes about Obama in 2010.  So that’s what they were relying on.

Anyway, it’s CYA time at the Washington Post.  But it’s not over for the bad news about Obamacare.  From the Washington Times: “Obamacare May Not Have Enough Enrollees to Stay Solvent — Fewer than 10 million projected; 13 million needed to stay solvent. The [Regime] on Monday said fewer than 10 million Americans will enroll in Obamacare’s health exchanges this go-around, well short of the 13 million target congressional scorekeepers deemed critical to its economics…”

Meaning: They’ve gotta have 13 million people paying premiums through the nose in order to fund this thing.  It suggests “another rocky rollout in the law’s second year of full operation,” and it’s next week (chuckling) when the mandate hits.  It’s next week when the next wave of unforeseen expenses hit everybody.

“Policy advisers at the Health & Human Services Department estimated that 9 million to 9.9 million people would enroll through the exchanges — or only a slight increase over the 8 million that the [Regime] says were active at the end of the first enrollment period this April. The Congressional Budget Office, which is the government’s official scorekeeper, had predicted the law would need 13 million customers on the exchanges. …

“‘Under the president’s health care law, Americans have experienced broken exchanges, canceled coverage, higher premiums and unaffordable deductibles,’ said Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House oversight committee… ‘Despite the administration’s habit of moving the goal posts, the fact is Obamacare is simply not delivering the results Americans were originally promised by the president.'”

Neither is anything else, and this the American people know, which explains the election results this past Tuesday.  “The number of enrollees is key, because if too few take part in the exchanges, the pool of customers is too small, and it could skew the economics of Obamacare, forcing insurers to raise premiums and pushing even more people to forgo coverage, choosing to pay the tax penalty instead,” the FINE.

Stop and think of something here.  We have Obamacare.  It was gonna save the day. It was gonna insure all the uninsured. It was gonna make sure that the previous existing condition people were covered. It was gonna be magic, right?  Now, what are we talking about here?  They’re hoping to get 13 million people?

How many people are in this country, 250 million adults, 220?  What is it?  I don’t care, 10 million, 13 million. It’s chump change.  It’s nothing. They got 8.8 million the first go round?  We’re nowhere near mass adoption of this. You know, there’s a new group of people elected in the House of Representatives that just been handed another golden opportunity here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Here’s the truth of the matter, folks.  If the American people were stupid, the Democrats would still run the Senate and maybe even the House of Representatives. If the American people were stupid.  This, by the way, really grates on the Democrats, believe me, ’cause if the American people were stupid — meaning falling for all the lies — the Republicans wouldn’t have been elected.

It is elitism that is ignorant because it’s arrogant and conceited, and Jonathan Gruber is an elitist and therefore has no idea what life is really like for all the people he’s out there writing legislation for.  All he knows is that they’re stupid, and they can’t deal with the truth.  They don’t know what’s best for ’em. So in order to give them what’s best for them (Obamacare), we have to lie to them.

The American people are just a bunch of idiots.

So lies got Barack Obama elected, twice.  Corrupt politics got Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote.  But this brilliant economist, Jonathan Gruber, wasn’t smart enough to make Obamacare popular.  Imagine that!  If the American people were so stupid, they could have been talked into how wonderfully great this legislation is and they’d been out there signing up.

They’d be going nuts, throwing parties, talking about how they’ve all got free health care, but the American people are not that stupid and didn’t fall for this.  Obamacare has never enjoyed majority public support.  You really can’t outsmart free markets for very long.  Reality eventually sets in and the lies end up uncovered.  Markets work. Be they intellectual markets or economic markets, they work.

But you know what’s really tied up in all this?  The people of this country trusted Barack Obama, and in 2010 they still did.  They thought they had created a moment in world history: Electing the first African-American president in a country that had featured slavery in its distant past.  They trusted Obama.  He was gonna fix everything.  He was a new kind of man, a new kind of politician.

But not to me.

Folks, what’s happened here is exactly why we have to go after the credibility these Democrats — this includes Hillary — before they are elected and it demonstrates itself.

We have to go after their credibility.

We have to just because we know we’re right!

We can’t afford to elect ’em anymore.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So here comes Dana Milbank at the fledgling Washington Post, same thing’s happening to them: “Why Obamacare Risks Falling into a ‘Death Spiral’ — So it turns out there is an Obamacare death panel after all.”  See, there is.  There are death panels, but this guy continues to deny the truth.  You’re not smart enough to deal with the reality of what a death panel really is.  Sarah Palin came along and blew the whole thing by correctly naming the advisory board that determines who gets treatment and who doesn’t.  That’s a death panel.  That was one of those truths that the Obamacare architects could not allow out there.  So they had to attack her, destroy her, again, and anybody else that picked up the mantra.

So on the left they continue living in their fantasy world, that Obamacare is not what it is.  And what they don’t understand is the whole country is away ahead of ’em.  This stupid bunch of Americans are way ahead of the Drive-By Media, which is caught twisting and turning in the past trying to save an already ruined presidency.  Well, ruined in the popular way presidencies are judged, presidential approval, blah, blah, blah.  In terms of actual accomplishments that are attached to Obama’s real goal, it’s a very successful administration, transforming the country.  But I don’t want to get too intricate for this purpose here.

Dana Milbank is worried about the Supreme Court.  That’s the death panel for Obamacare.  Oh, yeah.  “It has nine members and it operates out of a marble building directly across the street from the Capitol. When the Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would take up another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in March, it delivered the threat of two mortal blows to the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. First, it raised the possibility that the justices, who narrowly spared the law in 2012, will in June come out with a new ruling that would dismantle the law on different grounds.”

originalYou know what a real threat or fear that the left has about this?  They know that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  They’ve known it since it was written.  Gruber lets the cat out of the bag by saying we had to lie and we had to cover the transparency because of the stupidity of the American people.  In other words, we had to lie in order to get this thing passed, because if people knew what it really was, it wouldn’t stand the light of day, it wouldn’t stand a chance.

The unconstitutionality is the Commerce Clause and the fact that the federal government can’t force to you buy anything.  They can’t force you to buy anything.  So that begot the argument, is it a mandate, is it a tax?  The federal government can tax.  But, no, it’s not a tax.  It’s a fine.  If you don’t buy insurance, we’re gonna fine you.  They can’t!  The Fourth Amendment.  They can’t.  However — and this is the fear the left has — they know that the Supreme Court just didn’t want to go there.  I mean, it was the first black president.  It was a major signature legislation and it was for health care for the poor, and, okay, we’ll look the other way.

So John Roberts did some finagling and found a way to make this thing sound constitutional.  But the left knows that a whole bunch of chicanery took place.  They know they’re hanging by a thread.  They know they’re on thin ice here, and they know that a lot of justices — well, they don’t know, but I suspect they fear a lot of justices have been chomping at the bit for a second go round at this thing, ’cause it isn’t constitutional, folks.  If we were in a totally objective, nonpartisan, sane world, this law would have been struck down inside of three hours of it arriving at the Supreme Court.

The federal government simply cannot demand that we buy things.  It’s right there in the Commerce Clause in the Fourth Amendment.  They cannot do it.  Ways were achieved to mask what is really happening by calling these things fines if you don’t buy it, blah, blah.  So they know they’re hanging by a thread, and they know they may be even on borrowed time.  And now the court, the Supreme Court, decided to hear the case again, this time over subsidies.  This is an area that in an objective, black and white, sane world, the Regime doesn’t have a prayer.

The point of this is real simple.  The only subsidies for Obamacare are available at state exchanges.  Well, as you recall, most states did not set one up, and therefore the people in those states, according to the law, had no way of getting subsidized Obamacare.  And, believe me, subsidized is the only way the vast majority of Americans can afford it, because it’s so damned expensive.  Subsidies meaning taxpayers pay a greater portion of your policy than you do.  So when this eventuated, when the states, Republican governors in these states refused to set up exchanges, that left a whole lot of people out of the subsidies, and that just wasn’t — oh, we can’t allow that politically.  I mean, that would be political disaster for Obama.

He’s out there promising everything’s gonna get cheaper. He’s promising the uninsured are gonna get insured. He’s promising don’t worry about what it costs, gonna be subsidized, except most people don’t live in a state with an exchange.  Oh, no.  So the federal government violated its own law and set up its own exchanges, which, whoever wrote this law, Gruber, stupidly left in that the federal government could not set up its own exchanges.  They had to be set up in the states.

By the way, there was a purpose for that.

That was to shift as much of the cost off to the states as they could to keep the overall final number under that precious $3 trillion figure.  So Obamacare was written in a way to dump as much cost off to the states as possible, and that’s when the governors said, “Unh-uh! We’re not just gonna sit here and accept these new costs.  We can’t print money like you can.”

So they didn’t set up the exchanges.

It’s the unintended consequences. The liberals think the people are just a bunch of sheep and whatever legislation comes down they’re gonna abide by it and not find ways around it.  Well, when they figured out that a whole bunch of people were not gonna be qualified for subsidies, the federal government violated Obamacare and created their own exchanges…

That’s what the Supreme Court’s gonna hear.  The Supreme Court’s essentially gonna hear: Are those subsidies that are being provided by the federal government constitutional? Are they part of the law, or has this whole thing been turned upside down?  As Milbank writes about it, “But even if the justices make no such ruling,” meaning, striking it down, “the very act of taking up the challenge to the law will itself undermine the law.”

So Milbank is in fatalistic, defeatist mode because all the court had to do was take the case and that undermines it.  If they’d have just flat-out rejected it, fine and dandy.  But the Supreme Court has taken the case.  They’re gonna hear it; they’re gonna have an opinion.  It doesn’t matter what the opinion is. The very fact they’re taking the case undermines it.  Why?  Because Milbank and these people know that this thing is a crock.

Gruber and everybody lied about it. They created a bunch of falsehoods in it.  It’s unsupportable economically.  The American people don’t want it! But that doesn’t matter to them.  They want it.  They want you subjected to it, subordinated to it — and the very idea that the court’s gonna look at it again is just gonna create (in the minds of all these stupid Americans) the idea that something’s wrong with the law, and we can’t have that.

“We’ve gotta get people finally accepting this and ignoring this and moving on to other things! The more attention on Obamacare, the greater the opportunity everybody’s gonna find out the fraud that is in it.”  That’s why they’re quaking today. Just the fact that the case is being accepted, taken up by the court, has got them scared to death.  And it has them scared because they know what a house of cards this thing is, folks.

Read more at: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/11/liberals_try_to_cover_up_for_obamacare_architect

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Caught on Camera: Obamacare Architect Admits Deceiving Americans to Pass Law


Video Team / November 09, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site: http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/

gruber

In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. The conservative group American Commitment posted Jonathan Gruber’s remarks, reportedly from an Oct. 17, 2013, event, on YouTube.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

>>> Read More: A Fresh Start for Health Care Reform

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Here’s the Fiery Analogy Boehner Used to Warn Obama Not to Take Unilateral Action on Immigration


Nov. 6, 2014 2:16pm Pete Kasperowicz

URL of Original Posting Site: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/06/heres-the-fiery-analogy-boehner-used-to-warn-obama-not-to-take-unilateral-action-on-immigration/

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned Thursday that any attempt by President Barack Obama to ease U.S. immigration rules on his own would poison his FILE - This March 26, 2014 file photo shows House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaking during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Boehner’s primary races are often about as challenging as a tap-in putt. But, with three Republican opponents on the ballot May 6 and some outside money coming in aimed against him, Boehner’s campaign has run two rounds of television ads amid other voter outreach efforts. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File relationship with Congress, which is already suffering from a severe lack of trust in the White House.

Boehner said the midterm elections show that voters don’t want Obama to act unilaterally, as he’s promised to do, and warned that such a move would be like playing with matches.

House Speaker John Boehner warned President Barack Obama Thursday that going it alone on immigration would be like playing with matches. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

“When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself,” Boehner warned. “And he’s gonna burn himself if he continues to go down this path. The American people made it clear on election day: they want to get things done, and they don’t want the president acting on a unilateral basis.”obama-border-is-open-378x257

On Wednesday, Obama seemed to ignore the huge GOP win on election day, and said he would move forward with some kind of executive action on immigration by the end of the year. The White House is thought to be considering changes that would let it expand the number of green cards available to immigrants and their families.

Obama also said he has already been patient long enough waiting for Congress to act.

“I think it’s fair to say that I’ve shown a lot of patience and have tried to work on a bipartisan basis as much as possible, and I’m going to keep on doing so,” he said.

Boehner said Obama’s comments showed that he hasn’t yet decided to work with Congress on the critical issue of immigration.

“Yesterday, we heard him say that he may double-down on his go-it-alone approach,” Boehner said. “I’ve told the president before that he needs to put politics aside and rebuild trust.”

“Finding common ground can be hard work. But it’ll be even harder if the president isn’t willing to work with us,” he added.comment 02

Little-Dude-3-620x492Outside of immigration, Boehner said it is likely that the House will again pass a bill next year to repeal Obamacare, and see if the new GOP-led Senate can pass it. But he also said Republicans would try to pass smaller bills to repeal objectionable parts of the law.

Those parts include killing the medical device tax, ending the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and eliminating the individual mandate to buy health insurance. Boehner said there are bipartisan majorities in both chambers for passing those bills.

“We need to put them on the president’s desk that let him choose,” he said.Do Not Argue or try to negotiate

He also rejected the idea that Republicans would be poisoning their relationship with Obama by passing Obamacare bills, and said repeal measures are needed because the law is clearly hurting the economy.

Boehner and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have outlined several issues they want to address next year. Boehner told reporters that Republicans want to fix the tax code, address the national debt, reform the legal system, make the government more accountable, and give parents more choices on education.

Carousel image via AP Photo/Cliff Owen

 

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else


MId Term drawing

22, 2014 By

Read More At: http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/

Tyranney Alert

California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

A regulatory change in California has placed abortion in the category of ‘basic health services’ all insurance plans must cover. Even those churches buy. Photo John Ragai / Flickr

For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections.

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.

At the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union, the DMHC concluded that a 40-year-old state law requiring health plans to cover “basic health services” had been misinterpreted all these decades. Every plan in the state was immediately ordered, effective August 22, to cover elective abortion. California had not even applied this test to its own state employee health plans (which covered only “medically necessary” abortions). But this novel reading was nevertheless quietly imposed on every plan in the state by fiat.

The news has slowly leaked out as insurers grappling with this change have begun quietly informing employers of this sudden change in the terms of their policy. This is howCP 01 Kaiser Permanente broke the news to one California church that its insurance policy for its pastors and staff would now include elective abortion coverage:

I want to formally share with you that on August 22, 2014, the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) notified Kaiser Permanente and other affected health plans in writing regarding group contracts that exclude ‘voluntary termination of pregnancy.’

This letter made clear that the DMHC considered health care services related to the termination of pregnancies – whether or not a voluntary termination – a medically necessary basic health care service for which all health care services plans must provide coverage under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act.  You may recall that at the request of some employer groups with religious affiliations, Kaiser Permanente submitted a regulatory filing in May 2012 properly notifying the DMHC of a benefit plan option that excluded coverage of voluntary terminations of pregnancies. The DMHC did not object to this filing, permitting Kaiser Permanente to offer such a coverage contract to large group purchasers that requested it. The DMHC acknowledged that it previously permitted these contract exclusions, but now is requiring health care service plans to provide coverage of all terminations of pregnancies, effective immediately.  To that end, the DMHC requires Kaiser Permanente and similar health care service plans to initiate steps to modify their plan contracts accordingly.

Effective August 22, Kaiser Permanente will comply with this regulatory mandate.

police_stateChurches Can Exclude Chemical Baby Killing, But Not Surgical

Several other California churches have received similar notices from their insurers, and others will follow. While California (like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) exempts churches from its contraceptive mandate, there is no exception to this bureaucratic abortion mandate. This leaves California churches in the illogical and impossible position of being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage.

This California mandate is in blatant violation of federal law that specifically prohibits California from discriminating against health care plans on the basis that they do not cover abortion. Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation have filed administrative complaints with the HHS Office of Civil Rights (which oversees this federal law) on behalf of individual employees and seven California churches forced into abortion coverage in violation of their conscience.

What will be the administration and the Left’s response to this unprecedented attack on religious liberty? If they couldn’t stand with Hobby Lobby because it was a for-profit business, not a church, and because they thought its conscience concern was misplaced on the abortifacient nature of Plan B, will they now demand religious liberty for churches forced to cover elective abortion? If not now for religious liberty, when?

Do the administration and the left-wing commentariat continue to see any life in the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections at all? The Left’s response to California’s abortion mandate will reveal whether their claims of respect for religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case were serious or mere fig leafs for an even more dismal view of religious liberty than they have let on.

Article collective closing

Obamacare Sends Iowa Health Insurance Premiums Skyrocketing


Obamacare

9 Oct 2014

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/09/Obamacare-Sends-Iowa-Health-Insurance-Premiums-Skyrocketing

Thousands of Iowans are now facing double-digit health insurance premium hikes due to Obamacare.

On Wednesday, the Des Moines Register reported that the state’s insurance commissioner has approved Des Moines-based Wellmark to hike its rates between 11.9% and 14.5%.

The premium spike will affect 19,000 Iowans.

“That increase is for individual policyholders who have Affordable Care Act-compliant plans,” reports the Register.

CoOportunity, one of the main companies offering health insurance on the Obamacare exchange, will increase its rates 19%. 19

Nationally, Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. The latest Associated Press poll finds that just 30% of the country supports Obamacare.

President Barack Obama promised at least 19 times that Obamacare would lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 per family.

Repreal Obamacare

 

 

 

 

Hazardous

 

 

Article collective closing

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY MEET? Ebola and Obamacare


Obamacare

Written by Steve Bowers on October 6, 2014

http://clashdaily.com/2014/10/happens-meet-ebola-obamacare/

Bowers Obamacare

Article collective closing

Obamacare One-Year Later: Five Lessons Learned


Obamacare

October 2, 2014 By

ZObamacare
Cartoonist Gary Varvel: Obamacare train wreck delayedOne year ago, every network, every member of Congress and certainly HHS and CMS watched or tried to log into HealthCare.gov. It proved to be a long, long wait.  The collective frustration at the end of the day was the site did not work.
 
Despite repeatedly assuring both Congressional committees and the American public that the new marketplace and this bold new experiment on shopping for government controlled health insurance was to be smooth as silk and easy as pie, the rollout was a colossal failure for the HHS Secretary and her team. Ultimately, she admitted being responsible for the ‘debacle’ but not much has been done to eliminate the problems and clean up the process. HealthCare.gov is still broken.
The rollout was a failure, but my hope is the bureaucracy has learned some lessons. Here are five things I hope we can file away as lessons learned.  
1) The Federal government does not have the ability to build an aggregate web site in order to provide medical care for all Free MedicalAmericans.

In July of 2014, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that HealthCare.gov failed to launch as promised by the Administration. GAO put the blame for this failed launch squarely on the shoulders of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Despite spending $840 million for the development of the website, it is still not working as it should. The GAO report shed light on this when they reported that CMS rushed the job and took shortcuts around critical issues in order to meet the October 1, 2013 launch goal.
Worse yet, the GAO report concluded that if CMS did not take action to improve oversight and adhere to standard contract practice, that this current enrollment period would encounter problems.
depression-obamacare2) The Federal government cannot safeguard personal health information.

When HealthCare.gov was hacked in July of 2014, investigators denied that any personal information was taken. However, the hack demonstrated that the Federal government is not able to secure the massive amount of data that they are collecting.
3) Whenever the Federal government attempts to provide a service, prices go up.

In order to provide a one-size fits all, government-compliant insurance program, people have had their insurance policies canceled.  Government regulations have caused premiums and out-of-pocket costs (including coverage for prescription drugs) to skyrocket, forcing many to chose between healthcare and other necessities.
President Obama promised that under his government-run healthcare that the annual premium for a family would decrease by $2,500.  In fact, Tennesseans are facing double digit increases in their health insurance policies this enrollment period
4) When Federal cost control “experts” weigh in, taxpayers lose choice.Mar 3 13

Narrow network refers to the manner in which insurance companies limit the number of doctors and hospitals that beneficiaries may use in order to save money.  Under Obamacare, these networks have become extremely narrow – excluding some cancer treatment centers as well as children’s hospitals.  Narrow networks are a key central cost controlling idea of the drafters of Obamacare.
 
5) When the Federal government runs healthcare, patients lose the ability to see the doctor of their choice.
In part, because of the narrow networks in Obamacare, patients are finding that their doctor is no longer available.
However, there is another factor at play.  One survey of 700 doctors found that the majority of them have considered leaving practice because of Obamacare.  Doctors understand what Washington bureaucrats do not and that is having an insurance card is not the same as having healthcare. As more and more rules from Washington are placed on our trusted healthcare providers, they will become increasingly discouraged and find other outlets for their talents.

As we all reflect on these five lessons, one thing is clear – Obamacare does not work and must be repealed and replaced with real reforms. American families expect and deserve patient-centered solutions that will provide them with access to more affordable health care coverage. They deserve a health care system that works for them.

Marsha Blackburn is a Member of the House of Representatives serving the Seventh Congressional District of Tennessee.  She serves as Vice-Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is a Member of the Budget Committee.Death and Taxes
Article collective closing

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


 

Obamacare

New WhatDidYouSay Logo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imperial President Obama’s Bus Wheels are Coming Off.

Obama bus

You Can Vote it Out

Article collective closing

 

It’s official: Businesses cutting jobs because of Obamacare


Obamacare

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/09/official-businesses-cutting-jobs-obamacare/#vrLbQ3wzp311EXWB.99

Written by Allen West on September 17, 2014

unemploymentWith all the issues confronting our national security and foreign policy, it’s easy to forget were facing serious domestic policy issues as well. Namely, we are stuck in the worst economic recovery in quite some time and many Americans feel we’re still in a recession — Main Street is suffering.

This past Monday evening I spoke to the Marquette University Campus Republicans on the issue of “Growth, Opportunity and Promise for the Next Generation”. The purpose of my comments was to outline the government policies that are affecting their future hopes to find gainful employment in America upon graduation.

One of the policies that I stressed as being an immense anchor weighing down our economy obamamoney1and its growth is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) – aka Obamacare. It just might be the reason these graduates won’t be able to find a fulltime job.

Fox News says “Businesses are cutting jobs due to ObamaCare, according to surveys by several regional Federal Reserve Banks. Health economist John Goodman noted that “three Federal Reserve Banks in Philadelphia, New York and Atlanta have surveyed the folks in their area and roughly one fifth of the employers are saying they cut back on employment. “Roughly one fifth are saying they’re moving from full time to part time,” Goodman added. “More than one in ten are saying they’re doing more outsourcing – Decline-of-union-590all this because of the new health care reform.”

Regardless of the delay of the employer mandate, it’s still a looming threat to our economy, especially small business owners. There’s also the looming specter of the 50-employee threshold which is preventing business expansion due to the increased fines for providing healthcare.

All this is occurring in an environment where small business owners are having to contend with increased regulatory costs and higher tax rates — remember small businesses operate as S-Corps/LLCs using personal income tax rates.

So when we hear the incessant ranting of progressive socialists regarding spreading the wealth, paying your fair share, and economic fairness, the message is simple: we don’t support small business growth.

And when you have a president whose business acumen is nonexistent and a philosophy centered on the statement, “you didn’t build that” — you can just imagine his care and concern about individual American entrepreneurial investment, innovation, and ingenuity.

I sat on the House Committee on Small Business and heard constantly how the policies emanating from the Obama administration are negatively impacting that which represents almost 75 percent of our economy.

As Fox News says, “according to Doug Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, said “for the smaller employers — those that have between 20 and 49 employees — you get a negative impact on jobs, you get a negative impact on wages in those jobs. What this means for small business as a whole is over $22 billion of earnings gone for their workers and 350,000 jobs.”

Job-CliffAnd with the loss of earnings and jobs, so goes the loss of opportunity for Americans — but hey, they can be added to the growing number on food stamps and fitting into Yankee Stadium 925 times. And just so you know, since Obama’s reign began, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 31 million to over 46 million — it topped out at 47 million.

All this sounds rather purposeful to me and part of the “fundamental transformation” of America — the expansion of the welfare nanny-state and the decimation of our private sector economy, which is being replaced by a government spending economy.

Another aspect of Obamacare that is killing our economic recovery is the 30-hour work week maxim, which is also part of the employer mandate — resulting in more part-time positions and the loss of FTE (full time equivalent).

Cloward Pevin with explanationMerrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation noted, “you have a kind of a natural cliff there, that keeping your employees under that magic number” relieves employers of the mandate to provide insurance. “The 30-hour cutoff is how the administration determines whether you’re full time or part time,” Goodman explained. “And so we see this everywhere that people are restricted, they’re pushed below 30 hours, they count as part time and when they’re part time, the employer doesn’t have to provide health insurance.”

The Obama administration has effectively raised operating costs on employers and is making it harder for them to survive, let alone grow. “Yes we are going to see increased cost to employers who are trying to provide health care for their employees, but employers don’t just take that lying down,” said Tevi Troy of the American Health Policy Institute. Goodman added, “Even among full-time workers, their take home pay is going to go down because one thing that almost all the employers are doing in response to Obamacare is raising the deductibles, raising the co-payments and making the employee pay more of the premium.”

So in order for these struggling businesses to remain viable they have two options — shift new costs to consumers or shift the new burdens to the employees. There however is another option — shut down — and then we have more on unemployment who in turn must seek the assistance of the welfare nanny-state and the dependency society expands.

So I just have to ask, is the goal of Barack Hussein Obama and his progressive socialist disciples one of economic empowerment or economic enslavement? Do they want to encourage and incentivize the indomitable American entrepreneurial spirit or crush the will and determination of producers to build, hire and grow? Does Obama believe in individual sovereignty or collective subjugation?

Yes, these are rhetorical questions, but the answers are evident — to many, but sadly enough not to all — and still this truth is rejected by those drunk on Obama’s kool-aid. Article collective closing

10 Ways Obama Has Failed as President


Obamacare

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/10-ways-obama-has-failed-as-president/

“We are so over with being impressed by this president.”

Robert Tracinski

By Robert Tracinski

September 16, 2014

10 Ways Obama Has Failed as PresidentA poll released last week had some pretty bad news for congressional Democrats heading into the midterm elections. But buried in the poll numbers was a figure that just might constitute an even more important turning point.

Respondents were asked: “On balance, do you feel that Obama’s presidency so far has been more of a success or more of a failure?” More than half, 52%, said “failure.” Only 42% said “success.” And it gets worse. Only 22% were “strongly” convinced Obama is a success, while 39% are strongly convinced he’s a failure. And the American people have pretty much made up their minds on this; only 6% of respondents had no clear opinion.

Other evidence backs up this turn in public opinion. How bad has it gotten? The last president who was widely written off by the American people as a failure, George W. Bush, now enjoys higher net approval ratings than Obama, while Mitt Romney has been going on an I-told-you-so tour.

At this point, the American people are pretty much feeling like this kid. We are so over with being impressed by this president.

On behalf of long-time critics of Obama, let me say to the American people: welcome to our world. As a public service, to help you solidify your sense that he just isn’t up to the job, let me count down the ways that President Obama has failed to live up to his promises and to the responsibilities of his office. The list is pretty comprehensive.

1. He didn’t heal our racial divisions.

The first thing people expected of Obama, the whole reason his presidency was already hailed as “historic” on Inauguration Day 2009, before he had taken a single official act, is because voters thought that the first black president would help America put the ugly history of racially divisive politics behind us.The Great Divider

But from his earliest stumbling efforts—anyone remember the “Beer Summit“?—Obama has proven alternately uninterested and ham-handed in dealing with this signature issue. What he has mostly contributed has been to rush in and pre-judge racially charged cases, like the shooting of Trayvon Martin or the questionable police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, before the defendants get their day in court. When you pre-judge someone on the basis of race, isn’t there a word for that?

So as the recent race riots in Ferguson confirm, Obama has not served as some kind of magical bridge who would promote mutual understanding between whites and blacks. Instead, he has done more to inflame the tensions in these cases than to defuse them.

Our expectations of Obama were overblown from the beginning, but he worked pretty hard to overblow them. Certainly, when voters chose him, they were hoping for the opposite of an unscrupulous race-hustler like Al Sharpton. There was even a joke about Obama sending Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on missions to non-existent countries just to get them as far away from his campaign as possible. Now, Sharpton is being described as Obama’s “go-to man on race,” with a White House source gushing to The Politico that “There’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down.”

For those of us who remember Obama’s previous go-to man on that subject—the Reverend Jeremiah Wright—it’s not surprising. But it’s not what most people thought they were voting for.

2. The stimulus didn’t stimulate.Decline-of-union-590

President Obama was elected in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and his first big act in office was to sign a gargantuan package of “stimulus” spending—financed entirely with debt—that was supposed to jump-start the economy. Congress voted for hundreds of billion of dollars for “shovel-ready projects” which Obama later discovered don’t exist, and the money disappeared without a trace.

How many “recovery summers” have there been in which growth and employment was finally supposed to take off—only to peter out again? (Hint: the first one was in 2010.)

In how many other recoveries has labor force participation—the percentage of people actually working—declined? In what other recovery have poor people emerged deeper in debt than they were at the beginning?

Yes, the economy was in crisis when President Obama took office. But he has presided over the slowest, weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression—and by a good margin.

3. Financial reform didn’t reform.Eco-Formula-590-CI

But surely, Obama saw to it that we would never repeat the problems that led to the financial crisis and the recession in the first place, right? Except that the Dodd-Frank financial reforms didn’t really reform anything. They created a couple thousand pages of new legislation and many, many more new executive-branch regulations, which have helped to muddle the rules rather than clarify them. But these regulations have never really resolved any of the pre-crisis problems.

The old system in which a handful of giant financial institutions were considered “too big to fail” and thus could depend on the rest of us to bail them out? That system is alive and well.

4. ObamaCare is a boondoggle.Complete Message

The disastrous launch of ObamaCare was a reminder of everything that’s wrong with big government. It turns out that when we warned health insurance would be run as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles, we were too optimistic. And no one was ever held accountable for that fiasco.Being sick of Obama

When ObamaCare was passed, we were assured that it would provide insurance for 32 million people who didn’t have any coverage. Four years later, it looks like ObamaCare has covered far fewer new people, between 10% and 20% of what was promised, and about half of those were through an expansion of Medicaid—a burden that will eventually bankrupt the states—rather than through ObamaCare’s insurance exchanges.

Most of the people buying insurance through the exchanges are those who were kicked out of their previous health insurance plans by new regulations. It turns out that if we liked our health insurance, we couldn’t keep it. For some of us, this will be bad. For others, it’s much worse.

You’re still going to hear a lot of commentators on the left arguing that the law is a great success—if you agree to move the goalposts and ignore all the broken promises. But the American people aren’t buying it.

5. Obama failed to reform immigration.obama-border-is-open-378x257

He spent all of his political capital, and then some, on the failed stimulus and the ObamaCare boondoggle, leaving nothing for immigration reform. Having failed to get anything through Congress, he floated a dubious plan to enact amnesty through a unilateral executive authority that he doesn’t have. Then he dropped the idea.

Instead, he has simply failed to enforce the immigration laws, contributing to a crisis on our southern border.

The result: he has managed to enrage the right, the left, and the middle. He hasn’t cracked down on illegal immigration, he hasn’t legalized it, and he hasn’t forged any kind of compromise or consensus on the issue. Nobody is happy and nothing has been accomplished.

6. He withdrew prematurely from Iraq.Stable-Iraq MIssion Accomplished

Obama was so eager to not be George W. Bush that he pulled all of our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, then totally ignored the country, even as a terrorist threat re-established itself there. For most of this year, he foolishly downplayed the rise of the Islamic State. Even as Kurds and the Iraqi government issued increasingly panicked warnings, and the Islamic State took over more and more territory, he let the problem get worse for months without bothering to interrupt his golf schedule.

A few weeks ago, he admitted to having no strategy for dealing with the Islamic State. Last week, he hastily assembled one, but it’s looking like it might be unrealistic and lacks international support.America will NOT be drawn

Bush went into Iraq with multiple UN resolutions, congressional approval, a broad “coalition of the willing,” and (as it turned out) the resolve to use whatever means were necessary to prevent a terrorist state from establishing itself there. Obama is going back into Iraq with none of that. So I guess he really isn’t anything like George W. Bush.

Who could have guessed that he would be the one to suffer by that comparison?

7. He blew the Arab Spring.Coward

When a series of uprisings overthrew dictators across the Middle East, Obama failed to adopt any meaningful policy or to turn the situation to our advantage. He dithered for so long on Egypt that all of the factions there hate him, and most of Egypt’s liberals concluded that he was secretly backing the Muslim Brotherhood. The result is that Egypt went right back to where it was before, except this time the military dictatorship regards America as a useless and irrelevant ally.Who is better off

Meanwhile, the two places where we could have taken advantage of the Arab Spring to get rid of truly nasty dictators who have been hostile to our interests for decades—Libya and Syria—ended in disaster. In Libya, the killing of our ambassador in Benghazi was just the beginning of a slow collapse into chaos and civil war. In Syria, three years of administration dithering allowed the rise of ISIS, which then spilled over into Iraq.7

And let’s not forget about 2009, when Iranians poured out onto the street to oppose their own brutal, theocratic, terror-sponsoring regime—and Obama sat back passively because he preferred to cut a diplomatic deal with the ayatollahs.

8. Obama ignored the threat of a resurgent Russian dictatorship.Stand-Off-590-LA

During a debate with Mitt Romney in 2012, Obama dismissed Romney’s suggestion that Russia might be a threat to American interests, sneering, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Now it’s looking more like the 1970s are calling, with an aggressive Russian dictatorship invading its neighbors, leaving our European allies feeling exposed and unsure whether they can really count on support from the US and NATO. Poland’s foreign minister has been overheard complaining about—how shall I put this politely?—his country’s unrequited love for America.

The president’s response to Russian aggression has been to impose a few more sanctions, make a speech in Estonia, and otherwise ignore the crisis and hope it goes away.Bear

9. He didn’t shut down Guantanamo, keep the NSA from spying, or rein in the drones.

Daniel Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar

Daniel Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar

 

I know people who sincerely believe that all of these are good policies and who will defend them vigorously if asked. Barack Obama is not one of those people. Yet all of these policies have been pursued during his presidency, on his authority.

President Obama came into office having loudly condemned many of the Bush administration’s measures against terrorism. Then he continued them. You can call this hypocrisy or you can call it subversion. But President Obama has achieved a unique combination: managing to morally discredit America’s anti-terrorism policies without actually ending them.

10. He has made America irrelevant.B 09

You will notice that most of Obama’s failures result, not from taking a bold stand, but from taking no stand and just letting events drift. Certainly, in a lot of these cases, Obama has given speeches or press conference to announce his enlightened intentions—then done nothing to plan for how to actually achieve his goals.Change

But if he is irrelevant, that makes America irrelevant. We can look at the Arab Spring, at Ukraine, and at Iraq, but let’s add one more example. For most of his presidency, Obama has declared his intention to “pivot to Asia,” extricating himself from the Middle East and focusing on bolstering our Pacific allies to peacefully manage the rise of China. It’s pretty widely acknowledged that he never managed to do it, letting the Asia pivot die of neglect.80s-called-590-LA

This may fit with the quasi-isolationist mood that has taken hold in America in recent years, but it is yet another case where Obama promised something very different. He campaigned on the promise that America would be more respected in the world after the Bush years—not that we would be considered a useless ally and an ineffectual opponent.Obama Follow Me

I don’t know if you could come up with a more comprehensive list of presidential failures, encompassing foreign policy and domestic policy, economics, race, and immigration. And I’m sure I left a lot of things off this list, not least of which is the targeting of Obama’s political opponents by a corrupt IRS, which continues to announce the oh-so-mysterious loss of potentially incriminating data by its employees.

Combine all of this with his frequent vacations and golf outings and his fascination with the trappings of pop-culture celebrity, and you get the impression that Obama has checked out of the presidency and lost interest in the responsibility he is neither willing nor able to shoulder.

Obama was originally elected on the basis of celebrity, on vague slogans about “hope and change,” on a sense of self-congratulatory smugness about how progressive and enlightened we would all be if we voted for him. He was re-elected on all of that, plus the smearing of his political opposition as racists and mean rich white guys.You Can Vote it Out

If the result is an utter failure of leadership, maybe there are a few lessons we ought to learn for the next presidential election.Article collective closing

‘Shocker’ — Doctors Rejecting Obamacare Patients


Complete Message

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/08/shocker-doctors-rejecting-obamacare-patients/#Lk20UfRSZolOkeQj.99

Posted by Tad Cronn on Aug 6, 2014

Cartoonist Gary Varvel: Obamacare train wreck delayedSaying “told you so” isn’t nearly as fun as it should be when it’s regarding a mess that should have easily been avoided.

But thanks to blockhead dogmatists on the Left, the entire country’s been inflicted with Obamacare, the Socialist-in-Chief’s signature legislation that we just had to vote for before we could find out what was in it.

The latest “discovery” about Obamacare is yet another conservative prophecy fulfilled.

While millions have signed up for insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, a lot of newly insured enrollees are finding it difficult to locate a doctor who will take the plans, according to an article Mar 3 12published by NPR and Kaiser Health News.

That’s because the reimbursement rates to doctors for their services are much lower than they could get from a private insurer and nearly as low as Medicare, which many doctors try to avoid.

It’s not just a case of greedy doctors, either. Private practices are not just a community service, they are a business, and the doctors in charge have to be able to pay their staff, restock the shelves and pay the power bill. After all that, they hope to have enough money to take care of their own families, just like any other hard-working American.

All of that means that there is a bottom line that has to be served even by doctors, and if an insurance plan isn’t meeting a doctor’s business needs, the patient who has that plan doesn’t get seen or has to expect corners to be cut on care.

Dr. Doug Gerard told NPR, “I cannot accept a plan [in which] potentially commercial-type reimbursement rates were now going to be reimbursed at Medicare rates. You have to maintain a certain mix in private practice between the low reimbursers and the high reimbursers to be able to keep the lights on.”

Death Panel-Someone-live-someone-dies-300In Gerard’s home state of Connecticut, there are three Affordable Care Act plans available, but Gerard only accepts one as the other two have reimbursement rates that are too low.

In other states, the story is similar. That has ACA officials worried because as more doctors reject Obamacare plans and more people are forced by government rules to enroll in those plans, a lot of people are going to find they theoretically have coverage but they don’t have access to actual care.

As predicted by many critics long before the ACA was passed in the dead of night, Obamacare is effectively creating a shortage of doctors.

That in turn could cause a broader problem.Free Medical

“I think it could lead potentially to this kind of distinction that there are these different tiers of quality of care,” said Kevin Counihan, who runs  Connecticut’s insurance exchange.

So government involvement in health care is leading to less access and lower quality of medical care. Gee, what next? Death panels that ration care based on costs? Oh … wait a minute. …

Cloward Pevin with explanationJobs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

depression-obamacareImperial President Obama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article collective closing

 

Obamacare Must Be Repealed


National Day of Protest with date

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 17, 2014 By

Obama-SadComplete Message
Imperial President ObamaWhile the issue of immigration is uppermost in people’s minds right now, it is likely at this point halfway through his second term that President Obama will be identified by historians most closely with his signature, namesake legislation, the Affordable Patient Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. 
They will do so for two reasons; that he lied to everyone about it and it has been a failure in countless ways from the moment its website was introduced.


In April PolitiFact, a project of the Tampa Bay Times, announced the “most significant falsehood of the year” and it came as no surprise it was “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” An April Fox News poll revealed that 61% of respondents said that Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues. Only 15% thought he was completely truthful. Complete Message


By July 2 a Quinnipiac University poll announced that its survey had determined that 33% of the respondents believed Obama was the “Worst President Since WWII.”  The poll also revealed that between 54% and 44% believed the Obama administration was not competent to run the government.


If you want proof of that, you need only follow the horror story of Obamacare.
In September 2013, prior to Obamacare’s implementation the following month, Daniel Henninger, a Wall Street Journal columnist, wisely noted that “Obamacare is the biggest bet that American liberalism has made in 80 years on its fundamental beliefs. This thing called ‘Obamacare’ carries on its back all the justifications, hopes and dreams of the entitlement state.”
“If Obamacare fails, or seriously falters, the entitlement state will suffer a historic loss of credibility with the American people” adding that “only the American people can kill Obamacare.”
The great Prohibition experiment was killed by the American people and it took a Constitutional amendment to do it. It was a monumental failure.


I would be remiss if I did not point out that no Republican voted for Obamacare. It was entirely a Democratic Party creation, one it has wanted Complete Messagegoing back to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.


What Americans have learned in the short time since Obamacare has been implemented is that virtually everything they were told about it was and is a lie.


People who were insured lost their health plan—six million had been cancelled by May, nor could they keep their doctor because many health care plans sold on federal and state exchanges have a limited number of in-network physicians from whom to choose. The costs of Obamacare plans are frequently in excess of those from the previous free market and include elements that do not fit the age or sex of those who sign up, such as maternity coverage for women beyond childbearing age.


Obamacare exists because the Supreme Court deemed it to be a “tax”, but it is demonstrably unconstitutional insofar as it represents the mandate of the federal government that everyone buy something that they may not want and, more importantly, cannot afford. When the government can tell you what you must buy, you are no longer living in a free society.


Sharyl Attkisson, writing in Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, reported one source as saying, “In general healthy people are paying more and Complete Messageunhealthy people are paying less.” There isn’t even a “smidgen” of fairness in this.


At no point before or since its inception has the Obama administration told the truth about any aspect of Obamacare, particularly how many legitimate enrollments there have been thus far. In April the number cited was eight million. Attkisson reported that observers immediately pointed out that “the figure is overstated because it counted people who weren’t actually covered because they hadn’t paid their premiums. That actual enrollment was likely closer to between 6.4 and 6.8 million, both below the eight million figure and the stated target of seven million.”


Arnold Ahlert, writing for CanadaFreePress.com, noted in early July that “A pair of reports released by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General reveal ‘internal’ controls for evaluating healthcare applications are ineffective, and 85% of 2.9 million data ‘inconsistencies’ on Obamacare applications cannot be resolved, even after nine months of attempting to do so.” Not only did many of the 39 state exchanges fail to work, but the enrollments are plagued with evidence of both data errors and fraud.”


Obamacare is so flawed that the President has had to unilaterally and unconstitutionally step in to alter the terms of the law thus far. That is an impeachablComplete Messagee offense.

Obamacare is a massive travesty and, hidden below the headlines is the fact that the failures inherent in its implementation are causing some to die because of bureaucratic delays encountered while waiting to receive the care their plans are supposed to provide, if they were even able to secure a plan.

The election in November of enough Republicans to control the Senate and an increase in the House would permit them to act upon the numerous bills the House has passed to end Obamacare and which are blocked in the Senate by Harry Reid, its Majority Leader.  Ending Obamacare would truly be a blessing for all Americans.

Article collective closing

 

Democrats File Bill to “Overturn” Supreme Court Decision Protecting Hobby Lobby


National Day of Protest with datehttp://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/09/democrats-file-bill-to-overturn-supreme-court-decision-protecting-hobby-lobby/

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/9/14America the movie with hyperlink

As promised, Senate Democrats filed legislation today to “overturn” the Supreme Court’s decision protecting Hobby Lobby and other companies from being forced to comply with the HHS mandate that compels them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare. The high court issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.hobbylobby6

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

Now, Senate Democrats want to change the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a way that would force companies to pay for birth control, contraception and those abortion-causing drugs.scotus decision

Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), both abortion advocates, are behind the new legislation and Truth The New Hate Speechthey said, “The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act would ban employers from refusing to provide health coverage — including contraceptive coverage — guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law.”

“After five justices decided last week that an employer’s personal views can interfere with women’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong,” Murray said. “This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period. I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decisions, about their own health care and their own bodies.”

life

Not one Senate Republican has signed on to the legislation, which pro-life groups will undoubtedly strenuously oppose. House Republicans will not take up the bill, making it so the legislation will not reach President Barack Obama, an abortion advocate who would sign it into law.

In their ruling, the Supreme Court indicated Congress could change the law to require businesses t pay for the birth control and abortion drugs.

“There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives,” the opinion concluded.

“The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs,” read the opinion.

muslim

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

But, Americans oppose the HHS mandate and its pro-abortion requirements.

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s decision this week that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

“Half of voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that a business owner should be able to opt out of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate if it violates his or her religious beliefs,” the poling firm reports about its new national survey.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free National death rate percentagescontraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate

 

 

Article collective closing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama health official: The Obamacare ‘bailout’ of insurers will be financed by a new tax on everyone’s health plan


http://www.aei.org/article/health/obama-health-official-the-obamacare-bailout-of-insurers-will-be-financed-by-a-new-tax-on-everyones-health-plan/

2014/06/19/
[1] => 2014/06/19
)
–>

Complete Message

Trigger the VoteFor months, there have been assertions that the mechanisms embedded in Obamacare, designed to offset losses that insurance companies will take this year on their exchange business, amount to a bailout of the insurance industry.

At the same time, it wasn’t clear where the money to pay for these “risk adjustments” would come from in the first place.

One scheme had the Obama Administration using money that it clawed away from profitable health plans to offset the losses incurred by the less fortunate insurers.

This, at least, was the way the so-called “risk corridors” were supposed to work, according to the original legislation. Problem is, it’s not clear that there will be enough health plans this year (or any at all) with excess profits that could be used to offset the losses incurred by insurers who were less fortunate.

Another scheme — the one that gave influence to the specter of a bailout– had the Obama team using taxpayer funds to directly offset the losses

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

taken by exchange health plans. This approach had obstacles as well. Chief among them is that the money for the bailout doesn’t exist. It was never set aside.

Even if the Obama team tried to re-program slush funds that it surfaced inside the Department of Health and Human Services, a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service makes clear that first, Congress would have to separately appropriate the funds in order for any money to be spent on the Obamacare plans.

Now we know where the “bailout” money is going to come from. It will be paid for by a new tax levied on the insurance companies.

Mandy Cohen, the Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Service’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, delivered that message yesterday. Cohen was testifying before the House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs. She said that if funding for the risk corridors can’t be financed off the money that gets clawed away from profitable insurers (therefore allowing the entire scheme to remain budget neutral) then CMS has the authority, if not the intention to impose additional “user fees” on all health insurers to cover the higher losses experienced by the Obamacare plans.

At issue is what’s being referred to as the “three R’s.”

These are Obamacare policy constructs that are designed to offset losses that insurers will take as a result of the mostly older, and less healthy mix of patients that enrolled in the exchanges.

Caution Bailout ImminentThese three R’s include:

  1. A reinsurance fund of about $25 billion (financed off a fee on commercial insurance plans) that compensate health plans that enroll a costlier pool of patients;
  2. “Risk corridors” that substantially limit insurance company losses by shifting these costs to taxpayers;
  3. and Risk adjustment that balances health plans that enroll a disproportionate share of costlier patients.

Cloward PivenThe money drawn off the newly proposed user fees (tax) would be used to finance the risk corridors. This scheme is largely aimed at shifting money between insurers that lost excessive amounts of money, and those that were profitable.

Problem is, almost everyone lost money. Few if any Obamacare plans had excess profits this year, owing to the rocky rollout. So there isn’t any money to shift around — absent, of course, some new cash infusion. That’s where the user fee comes into play.

Since Obamacare health plans were prevented from pricing products to reflect true risk, they were always going to have atypically high cost, and in turn, losses. The red ink was inevitable. Now all of us will be forced to pay for it, whether we have an Obamacare plan or not. That new tax will be passed onto everyone in the form of higher premiums.

Article collective closing

Today’s Politically INCORRECT, Yet True, Cartoon


Just the Tip

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/05/just-tip/#Quv7ChcjPWW1BiW5.99

Just-the-Tip

THE BEST POLITICAL CARTOON SO FAR IN 2014 – JB

Complete MessageVOTE 02

 

 

Tag Cloud