https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8...26-h562/14+-+1
Printable View
Wednesday, 16 July 2014 15:55
House Slashes IRS Enforcement Budget Almost 25 Percent
Written by Bob Adelmann
http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/...7a073c0f_M.jpg
Earlier this week the House of Representatives took up the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act to fund the government for the next 12 months. In the process it took advantage of the opportunity to savage the IRS by cutting its funding severely, specifically its enforcement budget dedicated to “assisting” taxpayers to stay in compliance with its 74,000-page tax code.
Thanks to Lois Lerner (former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS and potential future inhabitant of a federal penitentiary for her role in ordering the illegal scrutinizing and delaying of conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status and then covering up those orders by conveniently losing potentially incriminating e-mails), members of the House had a field day piling on amendments to the bill. Along the way they relieved themselves of some of the frustrations they have felt as the IRS has rebuffed and stalled them during various House committee investigations into those matters.
To start with, the House Appropriations Committee passed the initial bill, cutting some $340 million from the budget of the IRS compared to last year. When that bill hit the floor, however, the emotions hit the fan. The first bid to open came from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who offered to cut $350 million from the $5-billion enforcement budget of the IRS. He declared, "The use of a government agency to harass, intimidate, and threaten lawful, honest citizens [is] the worst form of authoritarianism."
When it passed overwhelmingly by voice vote, Gosar exulted: "I am ecstatic that the House of Representatives supported my efforts today to pass a vitally important amendment which will save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars."
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) upped the ante by proposing to cut another $780 million from that same enforcement budget. He added:
The IRS has been targeting American taxpayers, as we’ve learned, for their political beliefs for the last four or five years. During this period, a culture of shading the truth was fostered and developed by directors [such as Lerner] and administrators throughout the IRS.
That proposal also passed overwhelmingly by voice vote. Once those first olives were out of the bottle, the others came more easily. Amendments from Reps. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to make further cuts passed by voice vote. When the bidding ended late Monday night, a total of $1.144 billion had been cut from the agency’s $5-billion enforcement budget — a slash approaching 25 percent.
There were protesters, of course, but their plaints were modest and flimsy. The Democratic floor leader favoring the bill (before the amendments, that is), Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), didn’t oppose the motion to call for a voice vote on the amendments, but insisted that "the answer is not to cut the IRS to bare bones.… The deficit will continue to grow because we won’t be able to do the proper collecting of tax dollars in this country."
The Huffington Post predictably chimed in as well, with its complaints that the House cuts will reduce further the number of IRS employees enforcing its labyrinthine laws. Wrote HuffPo:
The IRS has about 10,400 (11 percent) fewer employees than in 2010, even as its workload has grown. For instance, the number of individual income tax returns has grown by an average of 1.5 million each year over the past decade.
Many of those former employees used to be in the enforcement division, too, complained the Post, and so there will be fewer audits, and thus, less money mulcted from taxpayers:
The number of IRS staff devoted to enforcing tax laws has dropped by 15 percent since 2010. As a result the IRS is conducting fewer audits. The annual audit rate for individual taxpayers is now below 1 percent, the lowest since 2006, and revenue collected through IRS enforcement actions has fallen by more than $4 billion over the past four years.
Weakening IRS enforcement ultimately hurts the entire budget.
The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) issued a report in late June explaining in detail why the IRS needed more money rather than less. It listed the reasons, and then expanded on each of them. Here’s a summary:
- Even with full funding per the Obama administration’s proposed budget, the IRS would still be below the level it enjoyed back in 2010. After adjusting for inflation, full funding would be more than 7 percent below where it was five years ago.
- The IRS has already been forced to cut back training for its existing employees.
- Its computer system is very old, so old in some cases that Microsoft isn’t supporting the software that’s on them.
- The IRS plays “a crucial role," according to the CBPP, “helping taxpayers comply with the tax code and ensuring that the nation’s tax laws are enforced fairly and credibly.” Nothing was mentioned in the report about Lerner’s contribution to that effort.
- It’s profitable to hire more enforcement people because the return on investment is so great: for every $1 spent in enforcement, the IRS is able to squeeze $6 out of the unfortunate taxpayer caught in its web.
- Cuts to enforcement result in increases in the deficit.
- Without additional funding, efforts by the IRS to match 1099s with individual tax returns “to help track down underreported income” will be stalled. And its plans to replace its outmoded “Return Review Program” with its fancy new and costly “Electronic Fraud Detection System” designed to search for and seek out “fraudulent” returns will also be delayed.
- Without additional funding the IRS will not be able to handle effectively the additional responsibilities piled onto it by ObamaCare and FATCA. The passage of FATCA has already resulted in more than 77,000 financial institutions in 70 countries around the world now acting as de facto data collection centers for the IRS. (The details on FATCA and its impact can be found at The New American here.)
In its plea for more funding for the IRS rather than less, the CBPP concluded:
Collecting taxes is one of government’s most essential functions, yet budget cuts in recent years have made it harder for the IRS to enforce tax laws, and the ACA and FATCA have added to the agency’s responsibilities.
Policymakers should give the IRS sufficient resources to carry out its mission.
Thanks to Lois Lerner, however, the House has overwhelming cut the enforcement budget of the IRS. The matter now goes to the Senate, where Democrats are no doubt waiting to restore much of the agency’s funding. If the Senate fails to do so, the president has promised to veto the bill as it stands, putting the matter right back where it was on Monday morning before the bidding opened. So this is the first inning of a nine-inning game, with the final score indeterminate. What’s likely, however, is that the IRS will have to muddle through the best it can with less funding — perhaps significantly less — than it had last year.
Thanks to Lois Lerner, that disingenuous loser of e-mails and enforcer of illegal scrutiny of conservative groups, audit ratios are likely to diminish further, enforcement will suffer, and compliance with ACA and FATCA will be delayed.
These are all unblemished advantages to the beleaguered taxpayer, are they not?
A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at .'; document.write(''); document.write(addy_text23829); document.write('<\/a>'); //-->\n
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...7660-287785873
Could this also mean the end of Obamacare too????
#Allergies
Amish children are remarkably immune to allergies! http://www.naturalnews.com/046055_na...iry_farms.html
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-C...3-6e477d0f2b77
DOCTOR'S ORDERS
Top lawmakers: 'Beginning of end' for Obamacare
Court gives conservatives fresh hope and new ammo
Published: 20 hours ago
http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/07/obama-angry.jpg
WASHINGTON – Conservatives appeared to smell blood in the water after a big ruling by a federal court against Obamacare, and they unleashed a fresh torrent of scathing indictments of the beleaguered law.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said the adverse ruling exposed Obamacare as a “bureaucratic nightmare” that “has been a disaster since Day 1,” and it is clear “Americans do not want this socialistic-driven agenda.”
Obamacare actually scored both a win and a loss Tuesday, with two federal appeals courts reaching opposite conclusions after looking at one set of facts.
But that makes the glass half-full for many conservatives, and a cause for celebration, because the contrary rulings mean the health-care law is now almost certain to go to the Supreme Court for another big showdown.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., zeroed in on the significance of the discrepancy, saying, “The very fact that we could have two contradictory outcomes on the same day is testament to how overly complicated and convoluted the Obamacare law is.”
http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/06/110...28-150x150.jpgRep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., also saw the divided opinion as a sign the law cannot stand, saying the conflicting rulings “reaffirm my belief that this law ultimately will fall apart.”
As do many conservatives, Rubio believes the law is doomed because it “was poorly conceived, poorly written, and has been poorly executed by an Obama administration that believes it can just make up and change the rules as it goes.”
The stage was set today when, first, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the federal government can give subsidies only to people enrolled in the state run health-care exchanges, not the federal health-care exchanges.
Just hour later, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, came to the opposite conclusion, ruling the subsides are legal.
A full 4.7 million of the 8 million people the administration claims have signed up for Obamacare are using the federal exchange and receiving billions in subsidies. But the appeals court ruling wouldn’t just affect them; it would also prevent tens of millions from being able to afford Obamacare under the employer mandate when it kicks in at the end of this year.
Bachmann called it a “bombshell day for Obamacare” because the appeals court ruling showed it was “written by a lawless president for politically desired outcomes,” and she expressed hope that the day would mark “the beginning of the end of this unworkable, unaffordable law.”
Also calling the law unworkable, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said the ruling was “a clear reminder of why legislation should never be shoved through Congress without input from both parties and a clear understanding of what exactly is in the bill.”
Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said, “With today’s rulings the courts have dealt yet another blow to Obamacare – this time relating to federal subsidies. The Obama administration’s double-speak on enforcing this law might finally be coming to an end. This law is coming apart at the seams. The D.C. Circuit Court was clear in its determination that the IRS rule making went beyond their authority and it is looking more and more like this will go to the Supreme Court, where we believe that opinion will prevail.”
http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/07/130...05-150x150.jpgRep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.
A broad front of GOP lawmakers, from the House to the Senate, focused like a laser on what they saw as the law’s shoddy design.
“Democrats did an awful job writing this law – and have done an even worse job implementing it … The court rightfully refused to allow the president to continue ignoring and redefining his signature law,” opined Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
He added, “The president and Democrats in Congress have no one but themselves to blame for the ongoing legal implications of their decision to force this unpopular and unworkable law upon the American people. ”
The D.C. Appeals Court did “exactly what our judicial system is meant to do,” according to Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz, because, “Their ruling highlights the sloppy drafting that went into crafting the law.
“The Obamacare ‘death spiral’ will continue to get worse until this law is replaced with a free-market, patient centered health care system free of government overreach,” he added.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was thrilled, calling the decision “a repudiation of Obamacare and all the lawlessness that has come with it.”
“This decision restores power to Congress and to the people and if properly enforced, should shield citizens from Obamacare’s insidious penalties, mandates, and subsidies,” he added.
http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/02/ted...13-150x150.jpgSen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said the ruling is another instance of the courts holding the Obama administration accountable for ignoring the rule of law, because the president has “has demonstrated time after time his desire to unilaterally change the laws passed by Congress.”
“We need to set politics aside” and scrap this law, said Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., noting that, “Just weeks ago we learned the government awarded billions of dollars in subsidies without any way to verify eligibility.”
“It is time for the nonsense to stop. This administration is too busy doling out dollars to see the train wreck ahead for American families.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the ruling exposed just another example, in which, “As it has on so many occasions, the Obama administration simply ignored the law and implemented its own policy instead.”
Also focusing on the president’s penchant to act without Congress, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said the ruling meant, “The Obama administration cannot unilaterally ignore or change the plain wording of laws passed by Congress.”
House Speaker John Boehner focused on the big picture, calling the ruling “further proof that President Obama’s health-care law is completely unworkable. It cannot be fixed.”
http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/01/Jen...in-150x150.jpgTea Party Patriots President Jenny Beth Martin
Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, made a unique legal argument, stating it was critical to understand the purpose of the challenge.
“[T]he plaintiffs sued to prevent an illegal tax from being collected. In order to prevent the illegal tax from being collected, the illegal subsidies had to end. By ruling that the subsidies are illegal, the Court is simultaneously ruling that the taxes are illegal.”
If the Supreme Court were to tackle that argument, it could give Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts an opportunity to revisit his pivotal opinion, reviled by conservatives, that Obamacare imposes a tax, not a penalty.
It was Roberts’ decision to call the penalty imposed by those who do not sign up for Obamacare a tax, and that allowed him to join the liberals on the high court in finding the individual mandate in the health-care law to be constitutional.
In an interview with Radio America’s Greg Corombos, Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, said, “This is a hugely important decision. The government has now lost a case that really addresses the heart and soul of what this law is supposed to do.”
She added, “The law specifically says, at least seven times, that the subsidies are only allowed through an exchange established by a state. It was part of Congress’ coercion to try to get the states to set up their own exchanges. The states basically called their bluff and said, ‘Nope, we’re not doing this.’ So when the law says seven times that tax credits for health insurance can only be distributed through an exchange created by a state, the court said, ‘The law must mean what it says and we’re going to rule that way.’ Congratulations to them for upholding the rule of law.”
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Grace-Marie Turner:
video at link below
The administration is appealing the decision of the three-judge panel to the full D.C. Circuit, which includes seven Democratic appointees and four selections by GOP presidents. According to Turner, precedent suggests the full, or en banc, court will not be interested in second-guessing three of their colleagues, but she said there is a tinge of politics on the bench that did not exist until recently.
“The judges really respect each other. They don’t want to overrule one another, although the Obama administration has been stacking this court with several new appointees. They very likely would have the votes to overrule the three-judge panel, but it would look very, very political and would likely discredit future decisions,” said Turner, who noted it is vital for one full appeals court to rule in line with the three judges.
“It is consequential, because in order for this to go to the Supreme Court, you would then have to have different rulings in the different appeals courts. There are four similar cases going through the courts. So you’d have to have another court decide the same as the D.C. Circuit Court panel has today for the Supreme Court to hear it. If there are no conflicts in the appeals courts’ decisions, then the Supreme Court would less likely take it up,” Turner said.
If the Supreme Court were to declare subsidies obtained through the federal exchange illegal, Turner said it would give great incentive for lawmakers to take a smarter approach to health-care reform.
“Congress would then have to go back to the drawing board. I think people that opposed this law all along would actually have more bargaining power now to be able to move to a place where we can actually get subsidies that are structured the right way, not this ‘mother may I,’ 159 new government rules and commissions that are basically running our health sector,” Turner said.
She said urgent action would be needed to help people trapped in a system where they had to buy health insurance but could not get any help in paying a much higher than expected price tag.
“They’re not going to leave the millions of people who’ve been thrown out of their coverage out in the cold,” she said. “They’re going to try to figure out how to come up with a better solution, but one that gives people and doctors choices, not government bureaucrats and politicians.”
Follow Garth Kant on Twitter@DCgarth
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/beginning...6HOvThDgotH.99
A Huge Day for the Rule of Law
Posted on July 23, 2014
http://conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-c...IX-300x204.jpg
A judge who can read. Amazing!
Check it out:
Yeah, it’s big. It’s very, very big, but what the heck? Obama could just rewrite the law again if he wants to. He’s already done that 71 times. That’s the official count. It’s either 41 or 71. I’m not sure, one of the two, probably 71. All the waivers, all the delays, all the rewrites, 71 executive changes to Obamacare, if you count the IRS and their interpretation of things. Anyway, it’s a big ruling, if it holds, ladies and gentlemen.
How are you? Great to be back with you. Rush Limbaugh here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
“A federal appeals court –” it’s a DC circuit “– on Tuesday struck down the subsidies available to consumers in states where health coverage is purchased on insurance exchanges established by the federal government.” Here’s the way the law, as written in the LA Times — it’s just a glitch in the wording. Come on, people.
It’s not a glitch in the wording! It is the way law was written. The only way you can get a subsidy for purchasing insurance for Obamacare is through a state exchange. Well, not all the states set up exchanges. Some of the states opted out. They didn’t want anything to do with Obamacare. They were trying to do what they could to stop it, delay it, and so the Feds came in and started their own exchanges, and that’s what HealthCare.gov is. And it is not a state exchange.
So everybody who has purchased Obamacare through HealthCare.gov, the federal exchange, essentially, and has gotten a subsidy is now disallowed. That’s it, in a nutshell. And that’s the law. This is a huge day, at least temporarily, for the rule of law. Folks, the law couldn’t be plainer. And this poor writer at the LA Time (imitating writer), “It’s just a glitch in the wording. Come on, people, it’s just a glitch.” Glitch in the wording? The law is the law and Obama hasn’t liked it 71 different times and has changed it, in order to protect Democrats at election time. Everybody that’s paying scant attention knows this.
It’s a huge day for the rule of law here. The DC circuit, 2-1 vote — now, there are a number of different ways this can go. It’s by no means over. The losing side, in this case the Regime, can ask for an en banc ruling or hearing. That means ask for every judge to hear and vote on the case at the DC circuit which would — I don’t know how many judges are on that circuit, usually 12, 13, it could be up to 20, I just don’t know the number. But every case starts with a three-judge panel, and then the losers can ask for en banc, and then after that you go to the Supreme Court, if they take it.
Continue Reading on www.rushlimbaugh.com ...
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/...6BEi6VgwQ3K.99
Stunning Setback to Obamacare
by Phyllis Schlafly
July 30, 2014
Obamacare has proven again to be the biggest legislative failure in history, with last week’s ruling that its subsidies are illegal. These subsidies induced some 5 million Americans to sign up for Obamacare, but are prohibited by law as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell.
This humiliation to the Obama Administration was a devastating setback to legislation already disfavored by a 59-40% margin among the public, according to the latest CNN poll. Twice as many Americans say they are being hurt rather than helped by Obamacare.
Officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare is neither affordable nor protective of patients. It promised subsidies for millions of Americans to buy new health insurance and to pay costly premiums that have driven insurance company stock values to record highs.
People in households making between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line (between $11,670 and $46,680 per year for one-person households) have been getting subsidies to buy insurance on health insurance exchanges. A staggering 90% of those who signed up for this Obamacare insurance did so in reliance on these subsidies, which the Court just ruled are illegal.
These health insurance exchanges are much more than marketplaces, like Travelocity or Expedia, to make it easier to shop for and buy health insurance. They are also the vehicle for dispensing subsidies and imposing penalties, while also building Big Brother-like databases about Americans.
The liberal central planners inside the D.C. Beltway thought the 50 States would comply with Obama’s demand that they set up these health insurance exchanges, at costs estimated to be as much as $100 million per exchange. As an incentive for States to set up these exchanges, the law provided substantial subsides to people who sign up for a State-established exchange.
The central government planners thought the subsidies would coerce States to establish their own health insurance exchanges, similar to how the federal government coerces States to obey D.C. commands in other fields such as education. But States balked after they saw how much control they would be giving to the federal government by establishing a State exchange, and how expensive they would end up being.
Nearly two years ago, noted patient advocate Twila Brase, R.N., explained why “a state-established exchange is a federal takeover center.” State exchanges would be required to obey federal regulations, report annually to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and comply with a list of federally mandated Essential Health Benefits as dictated by the Secretary of HHS.
Her conclusion: “Just say no” because “refusing to build the state exchanges is key to stopping Obamacare.” More than 2/3rds of the States – 36 of them – have done just that.
States do not work for Barack Obama, which he has been slow to figure out. Democrats were crushed in the landslide midterm elections after the passage of Obamacare in 2010, and a repeat performance looms large with the next midterm elections barely three months away.
Back in 2010, Obama was riding high and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded passage of Obamacare by declaring, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it!” But now Democrats are angry at what the D.C. Circuit told them is really in the bill.
Perhaps Obama and his lieutenants should have read the bill before railroading it through Congress. The text of Obamacare expressly states that the subsidies for the purchase of health insurance on an exchange are available only for an “Exchange established by the State,” and the Obama Administration broke the law by subsidizing the purchase of health insurance over federal rather than State exchanges.
The D.C. Circuit admirably upheld the law as it was passed, and properly rejected attempts by the Obama Administration to rewrite it now. The Court admitted that “our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly,” but confined its ruling to interpreting the law rather than rewriting it as Obama seeks now.
Adding to the chaos, on the very same day as this defeat of Obamacare in the D.C. Circuit, another federal appellate court upheld it. That is like one umpire calling a pitch as a “ball” after another umpire had declared it a “strike.”
Chief Justice John Roberts testified during his confirmation hearings that a judge should limit himself to the role of an umpire, calling the balls and strikes without changing the rules of the game. It is refreshing that a panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit did exactly that in applying the law as it was written, not rewriting it as Obama now wishes he had written it.
http://www.eagleforum.org/publicatio...obamacare.html
Ellison Barber Explains Obamacare Premium Confusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVNUV4vS6l8
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
August 5, 2014 1:11 pm
The Washington Free Beacon’s Ellison Barber appeared on Fox News to discuss new rises in insurance premiums, and how they will affect people who enrolled in insurance through Healthcare.gov.
Although premiums typically rise, Barber explained, people may not realize that their subsidies have also changed at the same time, leaving them open to unexpected charges at the end of the year. “Say you saw that your plan was increasing and you were in one of those states, Virginia or Maryland, you thought, ‘okay well I see that my plan is increasing, but I have a 20% subsidy, so that’s fine. I like my plan, so I’ll just keep it and pay maybe a little more.’ But the problem is, if you’re basing that on what your percentage now is for your subsidy, then that wouldn’t be accurate.”
In order to find out what their subsidies are, Barber said, people will have to go back into Healthcare.gov and redo the process of enrolling. “They are not automatically notified that their subsidy is changing.”
“Otherwise the IRS is going to bill you at end of the year, and say either you paid too much or you paid too little. And you’re going to owe them money, or maybe if you’re lucky you’ll get a check back.”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/ellison...ium-confusion/
also
Ellison Barber: Medicare Advantage Cuts will Hurt Dems in Midterm Elections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVNUV4vS6l8
Published on Apr 1, 2014
Ellison Barber: Medicare Advantage Cuts will Hurt Dems in Midterm Elections
April 1, 2014
www.FreeBeacon.com
But wait here we go again
Medicare Advantage Cuts Cancelled Due to MidTerm Elections Coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6FsZE1ytA
Published on Apr 9, 2014
http://SeniorSavingsNetwork.org
Medicare Advantage was set to be cut due to the Affordable Care Act.
However, due to strong lobbying from the senior lobby , no thanks to AARP, the cuts have been delayed.
AARP actually calls Medicare Advantage payments "excessive" and lobbied FOR the Affordable Care Act which cut funding to Medicare. See: http://www.aarp.org/health/health-car...
A postponed tsunami of discontent awaits ObamaCare, just around the time the president exits office.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr..._w=w426-h255-p
The Looming Tsunami of Discontent with Obamacare
Reason
Win or lose Halbig, Obamacare wars will continue.
The Looming Tsunami of Discontent with Obamacare
Win or lose Halbig, Obamacare wars will continue.
Shikha Dalmia | August 5, 2014
http://cloudfront-assets.reason.com/...pg?h=188&w=250
Halbig's odds of being upheld are low, not because its legal argument is "stupid" or "criminal," as its opponents claim, but because of courtroom politics. Halbig was issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but the full court tilts heavily liberal, and it is likely to reverse the decision.
Opponents of the law petitioned the Supreme Court last week to rule on the legality of the subsidies while the lower courts are still split. But the politically squeamish Chief Justice John Roberts might prefer to let matters play out at that level rather than jump into a partisan mud fight. (Theoretically, the four conservative justices would be enough to grant certiorari, but unless they know that Roberts will rule with them eventually, they wouldn't risk egg on their face.)
But that doesn't mean that Obamacare supporters can take a victory lap. The program's biggest vulnerabilities are still down the road. And that's no accident.
The administration postponed implementation of the more painful aspects of the program till after the president is safely out of office—partly through the original law and partly by altering the law through executive fiat.
Thanks to lobbying by labor, the law delayed taxing so-called Cadillac Plans, which benefit union households, till 2018. Likewise, it doesn't require states participating in the Medicaid expansion to pick up any of the tab for their added costs till 2016.
The penalty for the individual mandate, which starts at $95 per individual and $285 per household, will soar to $695 and $2,085, respectively, by 2016.
But the real danger is the "risk corridor" provision that was meant to backstop the losses of insurance companies so that they don't pull out, prompting Obamacare's collapse.
"Risk corridors" essentially cap both the profits and losses that insurance companies can make. A company whose profits are higher than the capped amount has to fork over the excess to one that incurs losses.
In theory, this program, which is also due to expire around 2017, is supposed to be financed by the insurance industry. But the problem is that if the industry as a whole doesn't make enough profits to offset its losses, then a federal bailout may be necessary when these programs are phased out and their final bill comes due.
The likelihood of a bailout is not as remote as liberals claim, given that 71 percent of the exchange enrollees are older and not as healthy, about 11 points more than optimal according to the administration's own projections. Indeed, even before many insurers reported lower-than-expected earnings this week, Moody's had downgraded its outlook for the industry to "negative."
But the insurer bailout is not the only appropriation battle brewing. In the fairytale that the president told the public, Obamacare wasn't going to cost taxpayers a "dime" because all of the necessary funds would be obtained from drastic Medicare reimbursement cuts to doctors and hospitals. How drastic? So drastic, notes Forbes analyst Chris Conover, that by 2030 Medicare would be paying providers 60 percent less than what private plans do.
But everyone knows this will never happen. Congress has avoided these statutory cuts for 15 straight years. So at some point, Obamacare diehards will either have break this streak and make the cuts—or ask Republicans for the necessary funds from elsewhere in the budget.
And then, of course, there is the impending reckoning over the two dozen or so illicit changes, as per the Galen Institute's count, to the law that the president has unilaterally made.
In the face of the massive public outcry, he allowed insurers to reinstate canceled policies for two years that don't comply with Obamacare's requirements. And for two years in a row he has suspended the employer mandate requiring companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fine if they don't offer prescribed coverage.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/0...with-obamacare
Democrat Says Obama Knowingly Lied to People about Obamacare
Posted 7 hours ago by Dave Jolly
In 2013, Barack Obama was awarded Lie of the Year by PolitiFact for telling the American people that they could keep their existing healthcare policies and doctors.
When Obamacare kicked in last October, nearly 10 million people receive cancellation notices from their healthcare providers. They were informed that their existing policies failed to meet the minimum requirements established by the Affordable Care Act.
Obama reacted to the news of the massive cancellations by declaring that existing policies should not be cancelled and that the insurance companies had to work to keep the policies in existence for another year. His actions presented three huge problems.
First, it was illegal as only Congress can make changes to a law that they passed. Secondly, over 4 million people’s policies had already been cancelled and third, insurance companies had already changed their entire systems at great expense and could not easily change back to keep the cancelled policies.
Obama apologized and acted like he was completely unaware that this would all happen. But according to former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), a staunch Obama supporter, Obama knew in advance that millions of policies were going to be cancelled and that Obama just handled the matter poorly.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Frank said:
"The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled – I don't understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis, but frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people."I almost choked over Frank’s statement about telling the truth all of time. That’s not exactly his track record in Congress.
"He should have said, 'Look, in some cases the health care plans that you've got are really inadequate, and in your own interests, we're going to change them,' but that's not what he said."
"Any smart political adviser would have said, 'Don't lie to people, because you're gonna get caught up in it and it's gonna have this tsunami that you now have.' My political motto, very simple. I have always told the truth, and nothing but the truth. But I don't volunteer the whole truth in every situation."
I was surprised to see Frank speak out so negatively about his hero Obama. However, I disagree with his statement that Obama should have told the American people that their health plans were inadequate and that it was in their best interest to change them. In the vast majority of cases, the changes imposed by Obamacare meant that people had to take coverage they didn’t need or want, have a higher deductible, less access to their preferred doctors and all at a higher cost. Not exactly what I would describe as being in the best interest of the people.
Frank is just another in the growing list of Democrats that have spoken out against him and Obamacare. Many are doing so in hopes of winning votes from dissatisfied voters. They believe if they speak out against Obama and Obamacare that they just might be able to win in November, but hopefully the uninformed and gullible American people will wake up and see through their ruse.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16562/d...hfCsje7skOb.99
Liar in chief doing what he does best....LIE!!!!
Like Your Healthcare Plan – Keep Your Healthcare Plan, But It’s Going to Cost You Big Time
Published on: August 16, 2014
Filled Under: U.S. News
http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/wp-con...e4-752x490.jpg
We’re all aware of Obama’s lie concerning being able to keep your insurance plan if you liked it. We’re also aware of the fact that he attempted to hoodwink the American people and lied to them again, once it became a reality that insurance companies were dropping original insurance plans. However, some insurance companies kept consumers’ healthcare plans, but as a result, they could see massive spikes in their premiums next year.
Politico Pro reports:Major carriers there in part blame such increases on the administration’s response to the furor that erupted when millions of Americans received notice last fall that their health policies would be canceled because they fell short of Obamacare requirements.Apparently the average premium is going up by 7.5 percent across the nation. However, some customers may see their premiums rise by as much as 18 percent.
Facing a barrage of criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, who accused him of breaking his promise that people could keep plans they liked, President Barack Obama relented. He told insurers they could continue offering those plans if states agreed. About two-thirds of the states took him up on the offer.
But the president’s decision is now having an impact on upcoming rates, insurers say. Many younger, healthier Americans — the category companies had counted on enrolling when they set their initial prices — stuck with their existing coverage. In states with the biggest numbers of these “transitional” policyholders, their absence from the Obamacare market is pushing premiums higher.
Is that really “affordable care” America?
While many Americans are looking for work and struggling to make ends meet, the Obama administration has done nothing but help to put a greater burden on them via their health insurance premiums. Furthermore, if they don’t purchase health insurance, the federal government is going to seek to tax them for not purchasing a product, and that is not only unconstitutional, but will cost billions and cost jobs. On top of that, since things didn’t go so well for the insurance companies in this socialist scheme, guess who will pick up the tab for the failed Obama policy? That’s right, the American taxpayer.
And what is the best conservatives have to offer? Apparently, it’s no longer to repeal Obamacare completely, but to replace it with something else. It’s the same tired mantra we heard from 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. However, it fails to realize the federal government has absolutely no authority morally or constitutionally to force the American people to purchase such things.
In fact, virtually every piece of welfare and overreach legislation of the federal government advanced by socialists has appealed to the “general welfare” clause, and the Affordable Care Act was no exception.
However, as Publius Huldah has pointed out, “Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of legislative power to Congress.” She went on to explain, using these men’s words how the Constitution‘s “general welfare” clause should be understood.In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that,I do not hear the loud cries from American conservatives anymore regarding repealing Obamacare anymore. Why is that? Are you buying into the RINO governor’s argument that you just can’t defeat it? Or are you willing to fight to see this thing go down in flames, despite what faithless leaders say and do? It’s time to get our second wind and push for the full defunding and repeal of Obamacare before it puts us all in the poor house.
…the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….In refuting this “misconstruction,” Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify,” by a “recital of particulars,” the general terms. Madison also said:
…Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare,” is “an absurdity.”
In Federalist No. 83 (7th para), Hamilton said:
…The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [boldface added]
Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...jxAZ7lxzTRH.99
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...TL4A=w426-h241
Liar in Chief now wants to be your Doctor, he just wants to be your everything!! But notice the politicians, family, and their friends are all exempted, isn't that special! Is anyone out there awake yet????
Key ObamaCare official likely deleted emails now sought in House probe
Published August 08, 2014
A key ObamaCare official involved in the rocky rollout of Healthcare.gov likely deleted some of her emails that are now being sought as part of an investigation into the problems by a House committee, Fox News confirmed Thursday.
The Department of Health and Human Services informed House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa in a letter Thursday that some of the emails belonging to Marilyn Tavenner, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, may not be “retrievable.”
The missing emails belonging to Tavenner, whose agency runs the ObamaCare exchanges, were first reported by msnbc.com.
Issa, whose committee is also dealing with a missing email problem in its probe into the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups, said it “defies logic” that multiple Obama administration officials are “ignoring” federal rules on records-keeping.
“Yet again, we discover that this administration will not be forthright with the American people unless cornered,” he said.
HHS also informed the National Archives, which preserves government records, about the missing emails from Tavenner in a letter.
In that letter, the HHS said that since Tavenner receives as many as 12,000 emails a month, she would sometimes delete emails after either forwarding or copying the email to her staff to keep. However, some of these emails never made it to her staff, but the department believes that was due to sloppy records-keeping not an attempt to conceal information.
An HHS spokesman told Fox News that the department has confidence that the “vast majority” of Tavenner’s emails can be retrieved, and they have already located more than 70,000.
“There are no significant chronological gaps and we are working to compile the most complete email record possible for her,” the spokesman said.
The HHS discovered the missing emails when gathering documents to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last year, as part of its investigation into the problems with the rollout of Healthcare.gov.
FoxNews.com
video at link below
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...n-house-probe/
OH NO SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!
August 25, 2014
Why Do the People Abuse Themselves by Empowering Government?
By Ron Lipsman
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the authority to regulate the health care industry, much less the right to actually administer any portion of it. Of course, the same statement can be made about education, disability, retirement, insurance, employment, housing, and so many other key aspects of our society and the U.S. economy. That hasn't stopped the feds from assuming control of these enterprises – sometimes partial, increasingly total. Moreover, all three branches of the government have colluded in the lawlessly unconstitutional usurpation of the people's rights in these matters.
But the people are complicit. By repeatedly electing politicians who boldly proclaim their intention to enhance federal power, the people knowingly empower those who rob the people of their rights. By not recalling judges who ratify the government's implementation of unconstitutional authority, the people acquiesce in the curtailment of the rights granted to them in our founding documents. By supporting statist policies and programs that assign responsibility for managing the mundane details of their lives to Uncle Sam, the people surrender the liberties envisioned for them by their forefathers and enjoyed by their ancestors.
Why do people do these things? Three reasons: greed, laziness, and ignorance. Perhaps greed is too strong a term. But people want stuff – be it quality and affordable health care, a nice home, an outstanding education, a good job, or a comfortable retirement. It can be difficult to secure these things. If the federal government is willing to help, doesn’t it make sense to allow it? Or even to encourage it?
Again, perhaps laziness is too strong a word. But life is hard. Aside from the high cost of obtaining the aforementioned items, the act of doing so is often impeded by difficult family matters, incidental illness or injury, haphazard crime or natural disaster, and unsympathetic friends and co-workers. It's enough to discourage one from even trying. A little help from a benevolent government can make a difference.
And that is where ignorance comes in. All of these obstacles were anticipated by our Founders. They knew, therefore, that our system of government – structured for a free people to govern themselves – would work only if the people were moral, disciplined, well-educated, responsible, self-reliant, modest, and respectful of their neighbors. Alas, the progressives, who have taken control of all the opinion-molding organs of American society over the last century, have done their best to undermine in the populace all of the virtues required by the Founders' recipe. Too many people no longer understand that relinquishing to the government the responsibility for running their own lives leads to tyranny. As the famous saying – mistakenly attributed to Jefferson – goes, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take from you everything you have." (The actual Jefferson quote is "The natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.") It is in the natural order of things for governments to take far more than they give – for they have nothing to give John but what they take from Sam.
And so through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the VA, and, of course, ObamaCare, the government has taken nearly complete control of the health care industry in America. The polls say that most people are unhappy about that development. Well, they have only themselves to blame. They put Obama and the Democrats in a position to impose on us the Frankenstein monster known as ObamaCare. It’s not like Obama and the Dems hid, before the 2008 election, their intention to do it. The people elected them anyway. Greed, laziness and ignorance!
We are told that ObamaCare was modeled after its precursor Romneycare in Massachusetts. Now, several state governments have decided that ObamaCare does not go far enough in controlling the people's health care. For example, there is Martin O'Malley, the governor of Maryland. O'Malley has deemed that even though individuals are now dependent on government for their health care, they are still behaving in an irresponsible fashion. They eat too much, get fat, become sick and then spend too many health care dollars. Or they ignore health warnings (like high blood pressure, diabetes, or a family history of cancer) and fall prey to expensive illnesses. Worst of all, they don't follow the instructions of their physicians. Well, O'Malley will put a stop to that nonsense. Henceforth, all health insurance policies for state employees and retirees (and others soon, doubtless) will entail a contractual agreement among the state, the health insurer, and the insuree. Everyone will have to undergo an initial medical assessment – presumably by a doctor of his or her choosing. The doctor is obliged to perform a health evaluation on the insuree and then provide a plan of health care maintenance. If the insuree adheres to the plan, various discounts for medical services will ensue. If the insuree violates the doctor's plan, then fees and financial penalties will be assessed on the individual. How often the assessment must be performed is unclear.
The mechanisms for administering and enforcing this government diktat are buried in a document, which, although not as long, is just as obtuse and impenetrable as the ObamaCare bill. One more layer of individual freedom is peeled away by a supposedly benevolent but, in fact, misguided and ultimately insidious government.
"But," say the new mandate's supporters, "this is for your own good, and anyway, government has to do something to rein in health care costs." Well, it is not Big Brother's place to tell me what is good for me. As long as I don’t harm anyone else, my health concerns are none of government's business. And if the government were not running health care, it would not be incurring any costs that it felt the need to control.
If we are to halt government's increasing encroachment on our freedoms, we must find a way to overcome the greed, laziness, and ignorance instilled by the progressive-controlled opinion-molding organs of society. If conservatives do not contest the liberal cultural hegemony and ultimately reassert control of those organs that drive the culture, then you can kiss the good old USA goodbye.
Ron Lipsman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Maryland, writes about politics, culture, education, science and sports at http://ronlipsman.com. Follow him on Twitter @rlipsman.
Sick of Obama
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pr...0Y=w426-h255-p
Medicare May Begin Covering 'End-Of-Life' Discussions - Tea Party News
teaparty.org
Medicare May Begin Covering ‘End-Of-Life’ Discussions
Share this Tweet this Google +
August 30, 2014 9:41 pm
(NY Times) – Five years after it exploded into a political conflagration over “death panels,” the issue of paying doctors to talk to patients about end-of-life care is making a comeback, and such sessions may be covered for the 50 million Americans on Medicare as early as next year.
Bypassing the political process, private insurers have begun reimbursing doctors for these “advance care planning” conversations as interest in them rises along with the number of aging Americans. People are living longer with illnesses, and many want more input into how they will spend their final days, including whether they want to die at home or in the hospital, and whether they want full-fledged life-sustaining treatment, just pain relief or something in between. Some states, including Colorado and Oregon, recently began covering the sessions for Medicaid patients.
But far more significant, Medicare may begin covering end-of-life discussions next year if it approves a recent request from the American Medical Association, the country’s largest association of physicians and medical students. One of the A.M.A.’s roles is to create billing codes for medical services, codes used by doctors, hospitals and insurers. It recently created codes for end-of-life conversations and submitted them to Medicare.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, would not discuss whether it will agree to cover end-of-life discussions; its decision is expected this fall. But the agency often adopts A.M.A. recommendations, which are developed in meetings attended by its representatives. And the political environment is less toxic than it was when the “death panel” label was coined; although there are still opponents, there are more proponents, including Republican politicians.
If Medicare adopts the change, its decision will also set the standard for private insurers, encouraging many more doctors to engage in these conversations.
“We think it’s really important to incentivize this kind of care,” said Dr. Barbara Levy, chairwoman of the A.M.A. committee that submits reimbursement recommendations to Medicare. “The idea is to make sure patients and their families understand the consequences, the pros and cons and options so they can make the best decision for them.”
Now, some doctors conduct such conversations for free or shoehorn them into other medical visits. Dr. Joseph Hinterberger, a family physician here in Dundee, wants to avoid situations in which he has had to decide for incapacitated patients who had no family or stated preferences.
Recently, he spent an unreimbursed hour with Mary Pat Pennell, a retired community college dean, walking through advance directive forms. Ms. Pennell, 80, who sold her blueberry farm and lives with a roommate and four cats, quickly said she would not want to be resuscitated if her heart or lungs stopped. But she took longer to weigh options if she was breathing but otherwise unresponsive.
“I’d like to be as comfortable as I can possibly be,” she said at first. “I don’t want to choke, and I don’t want to throw up.”
With reimbursement, “I’d do one of these a day,” said Dr. Hinterberger, whose 3,000 patients in the Finger Lakes region range from college professors to Mennonite farmers who tie horse-and-buggies to his parking lot’s hitching post.
If Medicare covers end-of-life counseling, that could profoundly affect the American way of dying, experts said. But the impact would depend on how much doctors were paid, the allowed frequency of conversations, whether psychologists or other nonphysicians could conduct them, and whether the conversations must be in person or could include phone calls with long-distance family members. Paying for only one session and completion of advance directives would have limited value, experts said.
“This notion that somehow a single conversation and the completion of a document is really an important intervention to the outcome of care is, I think, a legal illusion,” said Dr. Diane E. Meier, director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care. “It has to be a series of recurring conversations over years.”
End-of-life planning remains controversial. After Sarah Palin’s “death panel” label killed efforts to include it in the Affordable Care Act in 2009, Medicare added it to a 2010 regulation, allowing the federal program to cover “voluntary advance care planning” in annual wellness visits. But bowing to political pressure, the Obama administration had Medicarerescind that portion of the regulation. In doing so, Medicare wrote that it had not considered the viewpoints of members of Congress and others who opposed it.
Politically, the issue was dead. But private insurers, often encouraged by doctors, began taking steps.
“We are seeing more insurers who are reimbursing for these important conversations,” said Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association. The industry, which usually uses Medicare billing codes, had created its own code under a system that allows that if Medicare does not have one, and more insurance companies are using it or covering the discussions in other ways.
This year, for example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan began paying an average of $35 per conversation, face to face or by phone, conducted by doctors, nurses, social workers and others. And Cambia Health Solutions, which covers 2.2 million patients in Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington, started a program including end-of-life conversations and training in conducting them.
Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield of New York does something similar, and its medical director, Dr. Patricia Bomba, has spearheaded the development of New York’s advance directive system. Doctors can be reimbursed $150 for an hourlong conversation to complete the form, and $350 for two hours.
Dr. Hinterberger learned of Excellus’s coverage when he called recently to ask about end-of-life discussions, but even if he undergoes Excellus’s training to qualify for reimbursement, most of his older patients have only Medicare.
End-of-life planning has also resurfaced in Congress. Two recent bipartisan bills would have Medicare cover such conversations, and a third, introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, would pay Medicare patients for completing advance directives.
But few people think the bills can pass.
“The politics are tough,” said Dr. Phillip Rodgers, co-chairman of public policy for the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. “People are so careful about getting anywhere close to the idea that somebody might be denying lifesaving care.”
Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, said in a statement that many doctors believed in “hastening death for those deemed to have a ‘poor quality of life.’ ” If Medicare covers advance care planning, he said, that plus cost-saving motivations will pressure patients “to reject life-preserving treatment.”
Doctors deny that.
“Honestly, sometimes I’m making an argument that treatment is not as bad as you think because of our ability to mitigate side effects,” said Dr. Thomas Gribbin, a Grand Rapids, Mich., oncologist who recently persuaded two Michigan insurers to cover end-of-life conversations.
It is unclear if advance care planning saves money, but some studies suggest that it reduces hospitalizations. Many people prefer to die at home or in hospices, so cost-saving can be an inadvertent result, said Dr. William McDade, president of the Illinois State Medical Society, which asked the A.M.A. to create codes for the discussions.
The conversations do not lock people into decisions, and studies show that some change their minds in a crisis.
But evidence suggests that discussions can make a difference. One studyfound that cancer patients who previously discussed end-of-life preferences with doctors more often received care matching those wishes. Other studies suggest planning lowers stress in patients and families.
Reimbursement rates for talking are much lower than for medical procedures. But doctors say that without compensation, there is pressure to keep appointments short to squeeze in more patients. “Not to be crass about this, you’re just giving that service away,” Dr. Rodgers said.
Recently, Dr. Hinterberger took time from other patients and his duties at Schuyler Hospital in Montour Falls, N.Y., to conduct end-of-life conversations in his frank, casual style.
He told Ms. Pennell that if she experienced severe pneumonia or a serious accident, doctors might consider putting her on a ventilator or inserting a feeding tube. She could stipulate that she wanted only pain relief, essentially instructing doctors to “just kiss me and tell me you love me,” he said. Or she could ask for short-term interventions in case “you perk back up.” Or she could indicate, “I want everything. Just do it, do it,” he said.
“The middle option,” she eventually decided.
When Janice Ryan, 89, a former protective services worker with a bone marrow disorder, said she wanted nothing “unless I can recover and feel wonderful,” Dr. Hinterberger gently suggested allowing doctors to try.
“Give the doc some options,” said her husband, Dick, a retired professor. She agreed, but added, “I want quality of life; I don’t want to just be a vegetable.”
Dr. Hinterberger spent 40 minutes with Helen Hurley, 83, whose lung disease requires her to use nasal tubes connected to an oxygen tank she carries in a flowered bag. Then she tired, asking to finish the discussion in future visits, “a little at a time.”
But Mary Ann Zebrowski, 75, a retired vineyard worker with diabetes and arrhythmia, had a lot to say. She described her husband’s collapse in 2008, saying she was glad he had been resuscitated, but felt pressured to agree to a feeding tube because a doctor said, “What are you trying to do, kill your husband?” She eventually decided to remove the tube and let him die.
She said she wanted no feeding tube for herself, but short trials of other measures. Afterward, she seemed relieved, saying, “I just don’t want to put my kids through having to make these decisions.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/he...-politics.html
- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/medicare-may....6RuWjm4W.dpuf
How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It!
Published on: August 31, 2014
We are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way. Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“obamacare”) unconstitutional; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1 and since a democrat-controlled U.S. Senate will not repeal obamacare, we must find another way.
There is another way. Here it is, and it comes from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence.
Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures1. Resolved, That The States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only. That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.
That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
That to these Principles, each State agreed as a State, and as The Parties to the Constitution.
That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution; and as the mere creature, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; since that would have made the creature’s will, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers. That as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each State has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether the creature has committed infractions, and as to the mode and measure of redress.
2. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of The State of Tennessee acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
3. Resolved, That in the Constitution of the United States, THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Federation of Sovereign States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce and relations; and domestically the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery and road building. That the 10th Amendment to the Constitution also declares that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That nowhere in the Constitution of the United States was any power granted to Congress to make laws respecting the medical care of THE PEOPLE; and that nowhere in the Constitution are powers over this matter prohibited to The States.
4. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative Powers granted by that Constitution are vested in CONGRESS; therefore, Departments within the Executive Branch are forbidden to make any “rules” or “laws” of general application whatsoever.
That administrative rules being promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the executive Departments of the federal government, to be set forth in Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and which pretend to regulate the medical care of THE PEOPLE throughout the several States; are altogether void, and of no force, as in violation of Art. I, Sec.1, of the federal Constitution.
That as matters pertaining to the “medical care”, “health”, and “human services” of THE PEOPLE are nowhere delegated to the federal government by the federal Constitution; but are among the countless multitudes of matters reserved to The States or THE PEOPLE; the federal Department of Health and Human Services is itself an unlawful Department, and its mere existence an affront to the Constitution; and all of the powers it exercises are usurped powers as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by our Constitution.
That if the pretended “rules” of this spurious federal Department should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that unelected bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of the federal government may force upon The States, THE PEOPLE, the medical profession, and The Churches their own ideas of what others must and must not do in the area of medical care; and may force upon them their own ideas of what medical treatments each person shall be provided or denied.
That this spurious federal Department will further send out swarms of officers to trespass upon hospitals, doctors’ offices, other places of provision of medical care, and premises of religious institutions, to harass providers of medical services, dictate to them as to what specific medical treatments they must provide and are forbidden to provide to their patients.
To this abomination is added the additional affront that the objects of these pretended “rules” are altogether outside the scope of the enumerated powers THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government in our Constitution.
That the Departments within the Executive Branch of the federal government have established a pattern of unlawfully functioning as legislators, when they write “agency rules”; as executives, when they investigate and prosecute violations of “agency rules”; and as judges and juries when they decide whether violations of their “agency rules” have occurred and impose punishment. Thus the Executive Branch unlawfully functions as legislator, accuser, judge & jury, in violation of the Constitution and of the Principles of Separation of Power and of Checks and Balances.
5. Resolved, That all aspects of the medical care of THE PEOPLE, not being anywhere delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by The Constitution to The States, are reserved to The States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE. Therefore, power over this matter is reserved solely and exclusively to the respective States and THE PEOPLE, each within its or their own territory.
6. Resolved, That to take from The States all the powers of self-government and to transfer all powers to a general and consolidated national government, in defiance of the Constitution which was ordained and established by THE PEOPLE, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of THE PEOPLE.
Therefore This State is determined to refuse to submit to undelegated powers exercised over them by the federal government; and rejects altogether the notion that the federal government may exercise unlimited powers over them.
That in cases of an abuse of the delegated (enumerated) powers, the members of the federal government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy.
But, where powers are usurped which have not been delegated to the federal government – when the federal government acts outside of, and in defiance of, the federal Constitution by exercising powers not delegated to it by that Constitution; then a nullification of the unlawful act is the rightful remedy.
Thus every State has a natural right – which pre-dates & pre-exists the federal Constitution – to nullify of their own authority all such lawless assumptions of power within the boundaries of their State. That without this pre-existing natural and original right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whoever in the federal government chooses to exercise tyrannical powers over them.
The States alone are The Parties to the compact; and thus are solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch are not parties to the contract; but are merely the creatures of the compact (Federalist No. 33, 5th para). As mere creatures, they may exercise no powers other than those enumerated powers specifically delegated to them.
7. Resolved, That the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government to the so-called “taxing,” “general welfare,” “interstate commerce,” and “necessary and proper” clauses, to the effect that these clauses bestow unlimited powers on the federal government, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the federal Constitution. That the true and genuine meaning of those clauses is as follows:
a) The “taxing” and “general welfare” clauses: Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.1, employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. It is “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; thus, to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” is “an absurdity” (Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras).
The federal Constitution declares that “the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars…excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended…” (Federalist No. 83, 7th para).
b) The “interstate commerce” clause: “Commerce” is the buying and selling of goods – only that and nothing more. Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) says “commerce” is:
“an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals… by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick… inland commerce…is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.”Federalist No. 22 (4th para), Federalist No. 42 (9th &10th paras), Federalist No. 44 (at 2.), and Federalist No. 56 (5th & 6th paras), explain the two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause: (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.
Article I, Sec. 8, cl.1; Art. I, Sec. 9, cls. 5 & 6; and Art. I, Sec.10, cls. 2 & 3, of the federal Constitution give express effect to these two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause.
c) The “necessary and proper” clause: This clause merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a “tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3rd para). Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, at 1.).
The clause merely permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the federal Constitution. No additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.
8. Resolved, That contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)
“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects…” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)
“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para)
“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [those made by Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para).
That The Federalist Papers – and not the U.S. supreme Court – is the highest authority and evidence “of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning”. 2 The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 1) – usurp powers, as they did with their lawless opinion upholding Obamacare, they must be impeached and removed from office (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).
9. Resolved, That those within the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the federal government are sweeping away all the barriers of our Constitution; and that no ramparts now remain against their unbridled and insatiable lust for power over THE PEOPLE except for The States.
That if The States do not now resist all such blatantly unlawful usurpations of power, THE PEOPLE of their States will be delivered into abject slavery subject to the unbridled control of whosoever occupies the office of President. Our Representatives in Congress have shirked their constitutional obligation to support the Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3), by acquiescing in the blatant usurpations by the Executive Branch; and have failed in their duty to impeach and remove those within the Executive Branch who usurp powers (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para, and No. 77, last para). That the supreme Court long ago took the side of those who seek to exercise unlimited control over The States and THE PEOPLE; and that Congress has failed in its duty to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp powers
(Federalist No. 81, 8th para).
That pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 of our federal Constitution, all State legislators, State Officers and State Judges take a solemn Oath to support our federal Constitution. Therefore, they are bound by sacred Oath to protect THE PEOPLE of their States from the usurpations of the federal government whose clear object is the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States and THE PEOPLE.
That our Framers anticipated the dangers we now face and provided wise counsel for such a time as this. Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras) states that when “the representatives of the people betray their constituents”, the people have no recourse but to exert “that original right of self-defense” [The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para], against “the usurpations of the national rulers” (5th para from end).
That in a Federation of States united under a federal government for only limited purposes,“…the people… are…the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…” (4th para from end)
Thus, THE STATE LEGISLATURES are the ultimate bulwark of The People and The Ultimate Human Protectors of our Constitutional Republic:
“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.” (3rd para from end)
The last paragraph of Federalist No. 28 recognizes that when the federal government seeks“… a despotism over the great body of the people … [the people] are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”
10. Resolved, That because men are corrupt and may not be trusted with power, the federal Constitution fixed the limits to which, and no further, the federal government may go. Would we be wise if we permit the federal government to destroy the limits the Constitution places upon its powers? Would we be wise if we permit unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Departments of the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives?
That if those who administer the federal government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal Constitution, by disregarding the limits on its powers set forth therein, then annihilation of the State Governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence.
That the several States, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of infractions to the federal Constitution; and that nullification by those Sovereign States of all unauthorized acts of the federal government is the rightful remedy.
THEREFORE, This State, recurring to its natural rights in matters outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government, declares Obamacare void, and of no force, and will take measures of its own for providing that neither that act, nor any others of the federal government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised in any manner whatsoever within This State.
Notes:
1. The above is patterned on Thomas Jefferson’s various writings on nullification, including The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by him in response to the alien and sedition acts passed by Congress which purported to grant to the President tyrannical powers with respect to aliens & “seditious” words.
2. These Resolutions focus on an Act of Congress and administrative rules being made by a Department within the Executive Branch of the federal government. This Model may be easily adapted to address Executive Orders which are outside the scope of the President’s enumerated powers; and supreme Court opinions which exceed their enumerated powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding Obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to undermine the morals of the People and destroy the residuary sovereignty of The States.
3. Several attorneys, historians, and others who claim special knowledge on this subject have asserted that States have no right to nullify anything the federal government does; that The States and The People must submit to the federal government no matter what it does; that only the federal government may question the federal government; that the federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five supreme Court judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.
Such people may not understand the distinction between abuses of delegated powers (e.g., unwise bankruptcy laws – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.
4), for which election of better Representatives is the answer; and usurpations of powers which have not been delegated and are thus outside the lawful reach of the federal government (e.g., Obamacare), for which nullification is the proper answer. When any branch of the federal government steps outside of the Constitution to make laws or “rules” or issue “orders” or “opinions” which exceed their delegated powers; The States must resort to those original rights which pre-date & pre-exist Our Constitution to nullify such usurpations by the federal government of undelegated powers.
4. Others who claim special knowledge on this subject insist that a single State may not nullify any act of the federal government; that only a majority of States acting in concert may do so.
They overlook (among other things) the nature of the laws protested in the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions. Those Resolutions addressed laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President certain dictatorial powers over “aliens” and “seditious words”. The States have no means of stopping the President from enforcing such laws since the President has the raw power to send out armed thugs to arrest people by night; and then to prosecute, convict, & execute them in secret tribunals and chambers. The States may object – but they can’t stop it. The supreme Court may denounce it, but can’t stop it. Only Congress can put an end to it by repealing its usurpatious law and by impeaching & removing a usurping President (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para & No. 77, last para).
But when Congress by means of a law (which is outside the scope of its delegated powers); or the President by means of an executive order (which is outside the scope of his delegated powers); or federal executive departments by means of administrative rules (which they are altogether prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 1 from making); or the supreme Court by means of opinions which contradict Our Constitution; purport to require THE STATES or THE PEOPLE and THE CHURCHES to do something, or stop doing something, then of course THE STATES – on an individual basis – have both the POWER and the DUTY (imposed by their Art. VI, cl. 3 Oaths of Office) to nullify such usurpatious acts within the boundaries of their States.
These Model Resolutions set forth the Authorities on which they are based, so that State Legislators and Citizens may propose them in their State Legislatures with complete confidence that Our Framers “have their backs”. PH
Endnotes:
1 We can get rid of him earlier if we send enough people to Congress in 2014 with the spine to impeach & convict him and Biden. The Federalist Papers (cited above) are clear that Presidents should be impeached & removed for usurpations of power.
2 See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they voted to make The Federalist Papers one of the texts books for the Law School:
“Resolved that it is the opinion of this board that as to … the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning. 3. the Resolutions of the General assembly of Virginia in 1799. on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the US. 4. the Valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. and that in the branch of the school of Law, which is to treat on the subject of Civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.” [pages 82-83, boldface added]. PH
Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...Mx85lwktzl3.99
There’re No Death Panels Except for the Ones In Medicare/Medicaid
by Sara Noble • September 1, 2014
http://www.independentsentinel.com/w...p-you-out2.jpg
And so it begins.
In the UK, a family trying to get an advanced treatment for their son who is dying of a brain tumor, were arrested by INTERPOL in Spain! They pulled their son out of the UK hospital and fled the country when the treatment they believed their son needed was denied. They are now under arrest and cannot see their dying child. The UK healthcare system makes the government the final decision maker over life and death, even over parents. This is where the US is headed, and to start, US Death Panels are back.
Obamacare will prove to be Deathcare because the government has to dole out the money and they want fewer of the people who cost too much. The Death Panels which Democrats said didn’t exist are being set in stone in our medical system.
Dr. Emanuel, one of the authors of Obamacare, has redefined a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs.
Insurance companies have begun to pay doctors to discuss “end of life” with seniors five years after the Democrats claimed there were no death panels and Sarah Palin was crazy to think there were. They even cover the Death Panel sessions for Medicaid patients in some states.
This is a mindset that will take over medicine. Instead of safeguarding life as long as possible, which was always the clear standard, the government will now get their wish – push the elderly to an early death.
Insurance companies are calling it “advance care planning.”
The Times writes: “People are living longer with illnesses, and many want more input into how they will spend their final days, including whether they want to die at home or in the hospital, and whether they want full-fledged life-sustaining treatment, just pain relief or something in between.”
That is usually the province of lawyers planning peoples’ wills, healthcare proxies and advanced planning, and that is where it belongs, not in the hands of doctors who are supposed to save lives.
While the insurance companies are getting blamed for this, one must remember that they are now government employees and this change had to come directly from the president.
The AMA, handmaidens to Obama, made the request.
If someone is near the end of their life, they can choose the medical treatment, they have always been able to decide that. There is no purpose in these discussions unless they are trying to change the way we all think about the sacredness of life.
Euthanasia can’t be far behind.
In 2011, Dr. Elaina George, a Princeton graduate and board certified Otolarynologist, warned us about Dr. Eekiel Emanuel’s Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research which is changing the way our government healthcare system works. It uses the complete lives system which bases the types and amounts of treatments and medicines on a person’s age.
Obamacare assumes, as Dr. George says, that doctors, in consultation with their patients, do not have the ability to make the right healthcare choices so they appointed a 15-member board of bureaucrats – IPAB or Independent Payment Advisory Board – to make decisions about how doctors and hospitals are paid while ignoring the doctor-patient relationship and the Hippocratic Oath.
Presidential appointees, completely outside of Congress’ jurisdiction, will have power over life and death instead of the physician and the patient.
Deep within the Stimulus was $1.1 billion to set up the framework for Obamacare using the Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. It will use a complete lives system such as the one promoted by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel’s extremist physician brother) or some version thereof.
Basically, if you are very young (under 10, definitely for those under 2) or very old (over 55), you will receive less and less care under this model. The goal is to separate the doctors from the patients emotionally so doctors will be able to ignore their Hippocratic Oath.
Dr. George says, A second board created by the stimulus bill called The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology “will determine treatment at the time and place of care”. They are charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor.
It is clear why there has been a big push towards the implementation of universal electronic medical record use. It becomes a tool to completely control the physician and the patient.
Those physicians and hospitals that choose to practice individualized patient care in consultation with their patients will be punished because they are not “meaningful users of the system over time.”
http://www.independentsentinel.com/w...aper-Curve.jpg
The Reaper Curve is pictured above. Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused. “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” The Lancet, January 31, 2009
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors’ ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care: “Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,” he writes. “This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”
In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient’s needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: “Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs.” (JAMA, May 16, 2007).
Without the Hippocratic Oath, the sacredness of life is greatly diminished.
In 2011, Dr. George told us doctors would either follow the government bureaucrat’s mandates to the letter or they would be fined and /or arrested. The fines are large and the jail sentences long.
People didn’t listen.
We are headed for a merciless system run by politically-appointed paper-pushers.
Say goodbye to Grandma.
John McCain supports Sarah Palin on the Death Panels in the video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqjIt8kUUJo
SOURCE FOR DEATH PANELS: NY TIMES
http://www.independentsentinel.com/t...icaremedicaid/
Shared publicly - 11:31 AM #ACA
There are now multiple indicators that Obamacare enrollment may be lower than reported by the administration—and dropping in the “off season” between sign-up periods.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...Lw=w426-h255-p
More Signs That Obamacare Exchange Enrollment Is Dropping
Reason
There are now multiple indicators that Obamacare enrollment may be lower than reported by the administration—and dropping in the “off season” between
The Taxing Clause, Five Lawless Judges, And Obamacare
Published on: September 5, 2014
Our federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. This means that WE THE PEOPLE, who ordained and established the Constitution, listed therein every power We delegated to the federal government. If We didn’t list a power, the federal government doesn’t have it.1
Furthermore, we delegated only a very few powers to the federal government.
Accordingly, Congress has strictly limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These powers are listed primarily at Art. I, §8, clauses 3-16, and are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & roads. Several Amendments delegate to Congress some power over civil rights.
These enumerated powers are the only areas where the federal government has lawful authority over The States and The People in The States. In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, §10]the States and The People retain supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. Go here for a complete list of all of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.
Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the legislative powers We granted to Congress. Nothing in Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to control our medical care (or to exercise the other fearsome powers in the Act).
I challenge those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court [Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, & Breyer], all other totalitarians, liberals, and parasites who support obamacare, to point to that clause of The Constitution where We delegated to the federal government power to control our medical care.
Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really Means.
Those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court looked at Art. I, §8, cl.1, and found power in Congress and the Executive Branch to take over our medical care – even to decide whether we will receive medical treatment or be denied medical treatment.2
And how did The Lawless Five do this? I’ll show you. But first, let’s see what the Constitution really says. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 read:
Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [boldface added]Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:
Clause 2: “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
- Clause 3: To regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
- Clause 4: To establish uniform laws on Naturalization and on Bankruptcies;
- Clause 5: To coin money & regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights & measures;
- Clause 6: To punish counterfeiting;
- Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
- Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights;
- Clause 9: To set up federal courts “inferior” to the supreme Court [one may well ask how any court can be “inferior” to the supreme Court];
- Clause 10: To punish Piracies & Felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
- Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque & Reprisal, and make rules for Captures;
- Clause 12: To raise and support Armies;
- Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
- Clause 14: To make Rules for the land and naval Forces;
- Clause 15: To call forth the Militia; and
- Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the Militia.
Add to this short list of enumerated powers; the “housekeeping powers” itemized in the paper linked here; the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; together with the Amendments addressing civil rights; and you have the sole purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money for the Country at Large.
And this is precisely what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, says in Federalist Paper No. 41 (last 4 paras). Some people were concerned that
“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. “ (4th para from end).Madison answered the above objection by saying that one would be grasping at straws to stoop to such a silly “misconstruction”. He said:
“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare’ .” (3rd para from end)In the final paragraph of Federalist No. 41, Madison says Art. I, §8, cl. 1 does not vest in Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever: Clause 1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it.
“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? … Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” (2nd para from end)
To put Madison in modern English: Clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2.
THAT is the Constitution We ratified.
What the Lawless Five Assert it Means:
See where it says in Clause 1, “To lay and collect Taxes”? The Lawless Five assert that this phrase authorizes Congress to lay & collect taxes for any purposes whatsoever.
They IGNORED the “specification of the objects [Clauses 3-16] alluded to by these general terms” [Clauses 1 & 2] – the “enumeration of particulars” which “explain and qualify” “the general phrase”.
In effect, they repealed Clauses 3-16. In a nutshell, the Lawless Five asserted that Congress and the President may do whatever they want to us. Just call it a “tax”.
What can WE Do?
First, we must disabuse ourselves of the monstrous lie that the federal government We created by Our Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and that the opinion of five judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers. 3 That is a pernicious ideology antithetical to our Founding Documents and Principles. Once you understand that, our remedies are readily apparent:
1. Impeach Federal Judges who violate their Oaths of Office. The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, §1, cl. 1) – usurp power, they must be removed from office. Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 81 (8th para) of:
“… the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in … [the House] … and of determining … them in the … [Senate] … give[s] to … [Congress] … upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations…” 4We must elect Representatives and Senators who will support our Constitution by impeaching & removing usurping federal judges. We must elect people who will rid of us The Lawless Five.
2. Elect Representatives and Senators who will also repeal obamacare and dismantle everything which has been implemented so far.
3. States must nullify obamacare. Here are Nullification Resolutions States may use to nullify obamacare and the HHS rules.
State officials, legislators, and judges all take The Oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3); and that Oath requires them to nullify obamacare.
4. We the People must stop deceiving ourselves about the motives of people such as obama and the Lawless Five. They are not ‘basically decent people who just have different opinions”. They are Dolores Umbridges who are determined to reduce us to abject slavery. PH.
Endnotes:
1 Contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. E.g.:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)2 There is much more in obamacare than transferring to the Executive Branch power to decide whether we will receive or be denied medical care. It is a parade of horribles worthy of Stalin, Hitler, and Anita Dunn’s hero, Mao. It transfers total control of our lives to the Executive Branch.
“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)
“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para)
3 Our beloved Thomas Jefferson writes in para 1 of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
“1. Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,–delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” [boldface mine]4 With obamacare, the Lawless Five colluded with Congress & the Executive Branch to subvert Our Constitution. Our Framers warned us of such connivances between the branches of the federal government:
Alexander Hamilton tells us that Congress can’t successfully usurp powers unless The People go along with it! In Federalist No.16 (next to last para), he points out that because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, the People, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, must be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”
James Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):
“…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; …” [boldface added]Hamilton and Madison are telling us that We don’t have to go along with obamacare just because Five totalitarians on the supreme Court want the Executive Branch to have total control over our lives. This is where we draw the line. We must Resist this tyranny.
Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Share0 Tweet2 0 Reddit0 Share3 Email0
Previous post:
The American Delusion: Distracted, Diverted and Insulated from the Grim Reality of the Police State Next Post:
About the Author: Publius Huldah
http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/wp-con...ah-150x150.jpg Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...rIiD5QmO5MZ.99
The Commerce Clause: Not a Micromanaging Tool
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...SX=w426-h255-p
The commerce clause to the Constitution is one that is possibly most-often used to justify federal action.
The Congress shall have Power…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.The misapplication of the commerce clause stems from a redefinition of the word “commerce.” The Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of commerce to the point that in today’s legal parlance, it essentially means “all economic activity.” As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent in the medical marijuana case Raich v. Gonzales, under the courts’ expansive definition of commerce power, the federal government has “no meaningful limits.”
To properly understand the Constitution, one must understand what words and phrases meant to the framers and ratifiers. Using modern definitions can sometimes change the meaning of the document, an unacceptable interpretive methodology. James Madison warned against this.
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense!So, what did “commerce mean in the founding era? Simply put, commerce pertains to trade, or the act of exchanging goods. Commerce power also extended to regulation of the transportation system, shipping, and interstate and international waterways. But the Commerce Clause was never intended to give the federal government the power to regulate manufacturing, agriculture, labor laws, health care or a host of other activities claimed by progressives.
Constitutional scholar and author of The Original Constitution: What it Actually Meant and Said Robert Natelson examined the legal constitutional meaning of commerce. He scoured 17th and 18th century case law, legal works and legal dictionaries, as well as lay usage of the word. His research showed commerce was almost exclusively used in connection with trade – not the broader range of economic activities the Supreme Court uses. In a scholarly paper titled The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause, Natelson writes:
Commerce benefited agriculture and manufacture by circulating their products, but it did not include agriculture or manufacture. Jurists compared commerce to an enormous circulatory system, carrying articles throughout the entire Body Politic, as the blood in the human body carries oxygen and nourishment. Thus, like the American Founders, English lawyers and judges understood the tight interrelationship between commerce and other parts of the economy, yet they were careful to distinguish them conceptually.To read more about the founding era meaning of commerce, click HERE.
The construction of the commerce clause makes it clear that Congress has the same commerce regulating power over interstate commerce (trade across the borders of a state) as it does over foreign trade. That means the federal government can theoretically ban trade of a given product across state lines. But the purpose behind delegating Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce was not to restrict trade, but to keep it free and open.
The framers wanted the federal government to possess the power to prevent states from inhibiting trade through levying tariffs on neighbors. For instance, to have the power to stop Tennessee from slapping a fee on bourbon imported from Kentucky. It was a power intended to protect free and robust trade. The commerce clause also gave the federal government the authority to pursue a unified trade policy with other nations, as opposed to each state enforcing its own policy.
James Madison explained the intent of the commerce clause in a letter to Henry Lee dated June 25, 1824.
I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend it all the qualities and incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce.The federal government was never intended to micromanage the economy through wage laws, labor laws, agricultural regulations, industrial regulations, healthcare laws and the like. Those powers were left to the states and the people. When the federal government regulates the economy and it does not directly relate to trade, it is usurping power and violating the Constitution.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...aily+Digest%29
Happy Anniversary: Video Highlights Democrats’ Obamacare Lies One Year After The Disastrous Rollout
If you like your plan, you can't keep it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYI6EK7hO3g
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
October 1, 2014 7:47 am
One year after the debut of healthcare.gov, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) released a video to remind voters of the most enduring lie circulated by President Obama and Senate Democrats about Obamacare: “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
Fact-checking website Politifact dubbed the statement 2013′s “lie of the year” after employers were forced to change or cancel their employees’ plans to comply with Obamacare.
In the video, Democratic Senators Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Jeff Merkley, Mark Begich, and Mark Udall are shown repeating the lie, interspersed with testimonies from President Obama himself, followed by media coverage of the epic collapse of healthcare.gov after its October 2012 rollout.
The NRSC ended the advertisement with a strong message: “Democrats lied about it then, and they’re still lying about it now.”
“Over the past six years, Barack Obama and Washington Democrats have proven that they not only don’t have the right solutions to get America growing again, but they lack the credibility to be trusted to keep their promises,” NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen told The Hill.
A poll released in August 2014 showed a majority of Americans–53 percent–reported having an unfavorable view of Obamacare.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/happy-anniversary-video-highlights-democrats-obamacare-lies-one-year-after-the-disastrous-rollout/
Oh and who could ever forget "You Have To Pass It To Read It"...THEN .. "Our Moron Politicians" allowed this to happen!!!! This is another NEVER FORGET moment they need to pay for!!! Never Ever Forget, either their Incompetance or Attempt at Control of all of us and ours. Term limits are too good for them they all need to be impeached for "deriliction of duty" for their failure of Representation to their constituents, and for working against the best interest of our Country and the American People... There are many things we need to never forget, and this is one of them....
Please forgive my propensity for schadenfreude, glee at harm, or joy about others' misfortunes. It's not that I gloat over bad news, seize upon any shadow in the light, notice only the miscues and wrong notes, or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's just so very hard to be positive, being an electron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
But you do know that many moons - nearly 12, to be exact - after the S.C. House passed H.3101 by a vote of 65-39, a bill sponsored by 37 of 124 Representatives, the S.C. Senate executed a death by a thousand cuts, offering failed amendment after failed amendment, until the momentum for passage passed away.
On Mar. 19, 2014, with 9 P.M. rapidly approaching, and with so many Senators disrespected by their amendments being ruled out of order (6) or soundly voted down (3: y-0, n-39, a-1; y-14, n-25; y-9, n-31), the second of the three required readings failed (y-9, n-33). Of the 17 S.C. Senators who offered amendments, the only one who eventually voted for the bill was Sen. Davis, whose two amendments were complete rewrites of H. 3101. After about four hours of deliberations and an overwhelming 9-33 vote against H. 3101, the S.C. Senate adjourned at 8:59 P.M..
Search for "SECOND READING FAILED" at www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/sj14/20140319.htm#p118 .
CNS News
Judge: IRS Obamacare Rule 'Is Arbitrary, Capricious, and Abuse of Discretion'
October 2, 2014 - 1:10 PM
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Ronald White concluded Tuesday that the IRS rule altering the Obamacare law and providing billions in subsidies is "arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion":
"The court holds that the IRS rule is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.706(2)(A), in excess of summary jurisdiction, authority or limitation, or short of statutory right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalidation of the ACA [Affordable Care Act], and is hereby vacated. The court's order of vacatur is stayed, however, pending resolution of any appeal from this order."
In September 2012, Oklahoma was the first of several states to challenge the legality of an IRS rule that caused billions in subsidies to be paid out, despite Congress having never authorized those payments.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt hailed the state's victory in its lawsuit challenging the implementation of the Affordable Care Act:
"Today's ruling is a consequential victory for the rule of law. The administration and its bureaucrats in the IRS handed out billions in illegal tax credits and subsidies and vastly expanded the reach of the health care law because they didn't like the way Congress wrote the Affordable Care Act. That's not how our system of government works."
Pruitt said the ruling proves that the administration can't change a low by executive fiat:
"The Obama administration created this problem and rather than having an agency like the IRS rewrite a law it didn't like, the administration should have done the right thing and worked with Congress to amend the law. Oklahoma was the first to challenge the administration's actions and today's ruling vindicates what we recognized early on and that is the administration can't rewrite the Affordable Care Act by executive fiat."
He said the victory is just the beginning, because he fully expects the case to, ultimately, be decided by the Supreme Court:
"Today's ruling is a huge win for Oklahoma, but it's just a first step. Since Oklahoma filed the first lawsuit in 2012, others have followed our lead and made similar claims in other jurisdictions. It's likely this issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. We look forward to making our case and continuing the effort to hold federal agencies accountable to their duty to enforce the laws passed by Congress."
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) also praised Judge White's decision, saying that the Obama Administration is trying to fix a legally-dubious law using waivers and exemptions:
"Today's decision is a reminder that the President's broken promises of affordable, accessible health care are the result of broken policy. The Obama Administration has tried to make the law work with waivers and exemptions, but the courts continue to confront the legality of this legislation that was rushed through a Democrat-controlled Congress."
"While it will undoubtedly take time for Oklahoma's case to play out in the federal court system, I am confident in Attorney General Scott Pruitt and that our state's argument will prevail."
Tuesday's decision is the latest in a wave of court losses for Obamacare.
Currently, over a hundred lawsuits have been filed against Obamacare - and Obamacare has lost 91% of the cases decided to-date, (71 losses out of 78 decisions), according to the latest tally by The Beckett Fund.
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-...obamacare-rule
Republicans Eye Obamacare Showdown in Lame Duck
By Niels Lesniewski and Steven Dennis Posted at 11:16 a.m. today
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wp-content...-icon-mini.png 0
http://i2.wp.com/blogs.rollcall.com/...size=445%2C291(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)
A group of Senate Republicans have their eye on another Obamacare showdown in the lame-duck session.
The 14 Republicans, led by Marco Rubio of Florida, wrote a letter urging Speaker John A. Boehner to ”prohibit the Obama administration” from spending money on an “Obamacare taxpayer bailout.”
They point to a legal opinion from the Government Accountability Office that said additional funding authority would be needed to make payments to insurance companies under the risk-corridor component of the Obamacare health care exchanges. The Republicans say taxpayers could be on the hook for bailing out insurance companies that suffer losses.
“Without that appropriation, any money spent to cover insurance company losses under the risk corridor program would be unlawful,” the senators wrote to Boehner, later noting Congress needs to act to keep the government operating past Dec. 11, when the existing continuing resolution expires.
“The American people expect us, as Members of Congress, to fulfill our Oath of Office and defend the Constitution,” the senators wrote. “Therefore, we must act to protect Congress’ power of the purse and prohibit the Obama administration from dispersing unlawful risk corridor payments providing for an Obamacare taxpayer bailout.”
The letter writers are mute on exactly what action they think Boehner should take; the House has already authorized a lawsuit over the delay in the employer mandate. The House could also add an explicit prohibition on risk-corridor spending in the next spending bill, but that could provoke another shutdown showdown — which Republican leaders have sought to avoid after last year’s shutdown over Obamacare failed to garner any concessions from the president.
Rubio’s been joined on the letter by John Barrasso of Wyoming, Mike Lee of Utah, David Vitter of Louisiana, Ted Cruz of Texas, Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John McCain of Arizona, John Boozman of Arkansas, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Full text of the letter appears below:
Dear Mr. Speaker:Roll Call Election Map: Race Ratings for Every Seat
The recently passed Continuing Resolution (CR), H.J.Res.124, is an example of Congress adhering to one of its primary constitutional duties – commonly referred to as the “power of the purse.” As you know, Article I, section 7, clause 1 says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” Moreover, Article I, section 9, clause 7 says, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.”
We write to you out of concern the Administration is planning to spend unappropriated and unauthorized funds through Obamacare’s risk corridor program. In addition to providing financial protection to insurance companies that offered exchange plans through a reinsurance program and a risk adjustment program, Obamacare also contains a risk corridor to distribute money from exchange plans that earned profits to exchange plans that suffered losses. However, the risk corridor program was not designed to be budget neutral and the program, at least as being contemplated by the Administration, puts taxpayers at risk of a large bailout if insurers systematically lose money on exchange plans. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held two hearings this year on the potential Obamacare bailout and released a report which contains the insurance industries’ estimate of risk corridor payments. According to the information provided by insurers, almost all of them expect to receive funds through the risk corridor program for this plan year with an aggregate net receipt likely approaching $1 billion.
The Oversight report detailed how the White House has been actively involved with increasing the size of the bailout, in an apparent attempt to misuse taxpayer money on this bailout regardless of the law. In May 2014, the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of General Counsel wrote a letter to the Government Accountability Office claiming that the risk corridor collections under Obamacare are user fees. HHS argued that as user fees, they have the ability to collect and spend risk corridor collections for insurance plan year 2014 under very broad authority granted to HHS by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion in September that concluded HHS would need an additional appropriation in order to make payments in FY 2015 corresponding with the 2014 plan year. Without that appropriation, any money spent to cover insurance company losses under the risk corridor program would be unlawful.
HHS’s new interpretation also contradicts the statutory language establishing the program while misinterpreting the long-standing definition of user fees. The risk corridor program is clearly defined by Obamacare as a “payment adjustment system.” The federal government does not provide a good or service in exchange for the risk corridor collections, which is the purpose of user fees. Rather, the risk corridors subsidize and redistribute collections to health insurance companies that lose money.
As you know, the current CR will expire on December 11, 2014. Congress will undoubtedly have its feet held to the fire by the American people to pass another stop-gap appropriations bill avoiding a government shutdown. Though Congress will determine the expiration date of the next CR later this year, it is likely the next CR will extend to a date in 2015 when risk corridor payments are reconciled.
Unfortunately, President Obama and his administration have exhibited their intent to disregard the law and ignore the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, our nation’s founders debated ways to ensure that the Executive would not spend money without Congressional authorization. They agreed that Congress should control public funds (not the President or executive branch agencies) because Congress directly represents the people. The President intends to ignore Congress’s explicit and exclusive authority by spending money on the risk corridor program without an appropriation from Congress.
The American people expect us, as Members of Congress, to fulfill our Oath of Office and defend the Constitution. Therefore, we must act to protect Congress’ power of the purse and prohibit the Obama administration from dispersing unlawful risk corridor payments providing for an Obamacare taxpayer bailout.
Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call in your inbox or on your iPhone.
video at link below
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/republicans-obamacare-bailout-showdown/
Diners Upset Over Obamacare Surcharges Added to Their Bills
Posted on October 9, 2014 by Dave Jolly
Eating out is getting more expensive every day. The price of food, especially beef is going up and restaurants naturally have to pass that cost on to diners. Some restaurants are passing more than just the cost of food on to their patrons.
A growing number of high-end restaurants in Los Angeles and San Francisco are surprising customers with an additional 3% surcharge added to their bill. The surcharge is to help cover the costs of employee healthcare which is being mandated by Obamacare.
It’s already bad enough when some restaurants automatically bill you for the tip or gratuity of 15% to 25%. How can it be a gratuity if you are billed for it? I was always taught that a tip is given as a generous way of saying thank you for the service, but I begrudge someone else telling me how much I HAVE to tip.
But add another 3% Obamacare employee healthcare surcharge to a $100 meal and you’re looking at paying a grand total of up to $128, depending on how much they require from you for the tip.
Some diners are not happy about the added surcharge. One unhappy customer used his/her blog to vent some displeasure, posting:"It's basically management saying 'Obamacare made me do it.' If you want to offset costs, try turning up the thermostat. There's your 3%! Now please pay your workers' health insurance and hush."I wonder what the same customer would say if he/she had gone into the same restaurant and found it to be uncomfortably warm. Would they have been satisfied to sit there and sweat during their meal if the management had told them they turned the thermostat up in order to save enough on their energy bill to pay for their employee healthcare?
It also tells me that the complainer has no clue as to how much employee healthcare costs an employer. Most of the figures I’ve seen says it costs $7,500 to $15,000 a year to meet the minimum standards invoked by Obamacare. The penalty for not providing healthcare to employees is only a couple thousand dollars. You do the math.
The American Health Policy Institute conducted a study on the additional costs of employer provided healthcare and stated that the Affordable Care Act:"Imposes additional costs of $4,800 to $5,900 per employee over the course of a decade. The total cost of the Affordable Care Act to all large U.S. employers over the next 10 years is estimated to be from $157 billion to $186 billion.”
"As a result, employers are coping with the high costs of providing healthcare in a number of ways, including changing their employment practices and work-related financial arrangements."
Jot Condie, President and CEO of California Restaurant Association told the media:"Once it starts you are going to see other segments in the industry, whether coffee shops or ice cream shops, dip their toe in if they see it's manageable and customers do not revolt."
Joe Loeb, Co-owner of Milo & Olive and Rustic Canyon Restaurants told the media:"We want our staff to have healthcare. It's not because we support Obama or don't support Obama, or are Democrats or are not Democrats."
Some restaurants have considered the idea of just raising the price of items on the menu by 3% but discovered that it would cost them more to preprint menus and make other changes. It’s cheaper for the customers to just pay a flat 3% surcharge than paying higher prices for the food and drinks they consume.
The American Action Forum, a ‘center-right policy institute providing actionable research and analysis to solve America’s most pressing policy challenges’ stated:“‘ACA has fundamentally changed the healthcare landscape, affecting premiums, small business wages, and employment,’ estimating the costs so far at $22.6 billion in lost income and 350,000 small business jobs. ‘We expect this trend to strengthen as the administration fully implements the employer mandate.’”
The bottom line is that as the employer mandate starts being enforced in January; expect to pay more in surcharges at restaurants and overall higher prices for many goods and services. Employers have to get the extra money from somewhere and the only place available to them is you and me.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/17569/d...6XWJzQKHm5r.99
Administration Lowers Expectations for Obamacare's Second Year
Peter Suderman|Oct. 13, 2014 12:02 pm
http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/m...pg?h=218&w=290Whitehouse.govThe administration's confident, determined approach to messaging Obamacare didn't work out so well last year, at least in the sense that it was proven to be bluster totally unsupported by reality, so this year it's trying a less-aggressive strategy: Don't promise so much.
In a somewhat amusing article, Politico describes the new approach as an attempt to "undersell" the health law prior to its second open-enrollment period, which begins next month:
Gone are the promises that enrolling will be as easy as buying a plane ticket on Orbitz. The new head of HHS is not on Capitol Hill to promise that HealthCare.gov is on track. And no one is embracing Congressional Budget Office projections of total sign-up numbers.What this approach amounts to, then, is a refusal to publicly adopt any performance metrics by which the law and its backers might be held accountable. This administration is more or less explicit about not wanting to be judged by any hard and fast measures, instead preferring assessments based on softer, less easy-to-define standards about the customer experience. Back to Politico:
Sobered — and burned — by last fall’s meltdown of the federal website, the administration is setting expectations for the second Obamacare open enrollment period as low as possible.
Officials say the site won’t be perfect but will be improved. They refuse to pinpoint how many people they plan to enroll, instead describing general goals of reducing the number of uninsured and providing a positive "customer experience" — not exactly metrics that can be immediately judged.
"What we have said is that the experience will be better," Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell told reporters on Thursday. "It will not be perfect. We know that, and we know that there will be issues that will be raised as we go on in the process."Judging by last year's selective approach to publishing health law data—you know, the "results" of the health care law—and the reluctance to say whether it will continue issuing similar reports on the law's outcomes this year, the administration does not seem to be particularly comfortable talking about results either.
Andy Slavitt, principal deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and one of the people responsible for HealthCare.gov’s technology, wouldn’t make any projections on how the website would operate when open enrollment begins Nov. 15.
"We are much more comfortable talking about results than expectations," Slavitt said Wednesday. "We are extremely focused on meeting our milestones. We’re very focused on making sure that everyone has a good customer experience."
The administration's strategy, in other words, is rather like that of a darts player who throws one against the wall, draws a target around where it stuck, and then claims to have hit a bullseye.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/13/ob...s-expectations
Surprise Surprise
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-y...106_103002.jpg
REMEMBER THIS AMERICA!!!!!
The truth of what most doctors think about Obamacare is frightening
http://pshared.5min.com//Graphics/On...ops_bubble.pngRestricted content
We're sorry, but the video you are trying to watch is currently unavailable for viewing at this domain.
http://pshared.5min.com//Graphics/OnePlayer/bubbles.png
The next open enrollment for Obamacare is right around the corner. Are you going to be ready?
on.aol.com
What our doctors truly think about Obamacare may frighten you.
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=KhuQr2RENow that American physicians have seen enough of Obamacare to draw informed opinions, only 13 percent of them agree with AMA support of the law.
Photo by John Moore/Getty Images
View all 10 photos
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=2XPlKsXr
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
Most Americans don’t realize there is good reason that only 14 percent of the nation’s 400,000 licensed physicians are still members of the American Medical Association (AMA).
AMA was long the advocate for the nation’s doctors and “abandoned the needs of the physician years ago and has its own agenda,” states Dr. John Tedeschi, a primary-family care doctor in Robbinsville, New Jersey.
“Doctoring just isn’t the same,” Dr. Tedeschi, who has been practicing medicine for more than 30 year says. “The practice of medicine, its costs and medical policies, are now dictated and controlled by groups that don’t know the first thing about medicine, nor the people it serves.”
The AMA, who for decades made their money from physician dues, has been bleeding profusely with membership decline. Membership has declined by over 75,000 since 2002. But somehow, they are reporting growing revenues. In 2012 it was $239 million, with $70 million coming from “Royalty Revenue.”
The AMA is paid, in their partnership with the government, by the medical coding records system they created that is mandated for all doctors and hospitals. They are required to bill the government or private insurance through this system, but the constant changes of the bureaucracies and politics insures a continuing and ever growing cash flow. Forget that it is bankrupting our doctors, slowing our patient care, and creating a whole new variety of grim medical errors. By changing their position for Obamacare, the AMA may be losing credibility with doctors, but they are certainly earning more money.
“At one time, the practice of medicine in America was the envy of the world. Unfortunately, it has now been radically segmented,” Dr. Tedeschi, who lives in Morrisville, PA, indicated.
Dr. Tedeschi explains Obamacare is all about saving money and “where the money IS ultimately spent, is directed to special interest, profit-making organizations.”
The basis of Obamacare’s financial success depends on a formula devised by Ezekiel Emanuel. Emanuel assigns value to people’s lives to distribute health care money among us.
“Benefit to the patient is secondary,” clarifies the doctor. “And physicians have nowhere to turn for help.”
Dr. Tedeschi explained that this radical change has been so choreographed—“better than a Broadway musical”—it happened so “gradually you hardly notice it at first. It’s a slow and deliberate erosion, targeting your family doctor, someone who will soon become a thing of the past.”
“Thanks to politics, insurance companies, special interest groups and other organizations, medicine is changing: the way it’s provided; who it’s provided to; exactly who the providers are; their qualifications; how much it costs and, literally, ‘who lives and who dies,’” the doctor is adamant. “The old saying ‘follow the money’” has never been truer than it is today.
“We’re moving away from the mission of medicine and more towards the business of healthcare, and these two endeavors are not the same thing,” Twila Brase, President of the Citizens’ Council For Health Freedom states. “We’re moving in the wrong direction.”
“When other people hold the dollars, the mission of medicine is compromised,” Brase reminds people frequently. “Whether it’s the government, or an insurance company, the agendas of the people with the money ultimately take precedence over the needs of the patient.”
Now that American physicians have seen enough of Obamacare to draw informed opinions, only 13 percent of them agree with AMA support of the law. Survey results from Jackson & Coker, a national physician recruitment firm confirm this. The AMA spends about $22 million a year since 2010 lobbying for Obamacare.
Despite 70 percent of U.S. doctors indicated they disagreed with the AMA on Obamacare, the White House used a stage propaganda event in the Rose Garden to lie to the American people in 2011. Obama’s staff actually handed out white lab coats to help legitimize the credibility of the health care plan.
Recent surveys of thousands of doctors indicate Obamacare is having a negative impact on healthcare for their patients. Almost 60 percent of doctors think they will most likely retire in the next five years because of the destructive Obama health plan. Doctors who originally voted Obama in 2008 changed their minds and voted against him by totals of over 15 percent.
“We are now told how much time we can spend with each patient,” Dr. Tedeschi explains. Doctor are mandated “what tests we can and cannot request. We are now forced to re-certify more frequently and answer questions, in many cases, unethically, just to serve their (Obamacare) financial needs.”
“We are told what kind of treatment can be provided to older patients, a type of ‘too old to treat’ approach because of the life expectancy of the patient and the cost to the federal government,” claims Dr. Tedeschi. With Obamacare, age 75 seems to be the magic age of when government healthcare declines for the benefit of the plan and not the patient.
“Even prescription medications that will effectively help the patient are routinely rejected by insurance companies and Medicare in favor of less expensive, ‘generic’ drugs that are archaic and simply don’t do the job,” Dr. Tedeschi states. “And we are aware, of course, of the conflict of interest of insurance companies having stock in the drugs that they do approve. It’s really sad.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-...id=db_articles
Now Remember this, they all voted it in against all our calls, & letters,(which they ignored) all our pleas, all our yells, and everything else we all did to stop this... Remember this, they totally ignored us all of them voted it in, because they had to "pass it to read it"!!!! 2016 is coming!!! Remember that!!!!! Now also ask yourselves this!!!! Who is exempt from Obamacare?????
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-y...106_103002.jpg
Supreme Court Will Hear New Challenge to Obamacare
Nov. 7, 2014 1:00pm
Associated Press
The justices said they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...0/600x3692.jpgAP Photo/Susan Walsh
A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.
The long-running political and legal campaign to overturn or limit the 2010 health overhaul will be making its second appearance at the Supreme Court.
The justices upheld the heart of the law in a 5-4 decision in 2012 in which Chief Justice John Roberts provided the decisive vote.
In the appeal accepted Friday, opponents of the subsidies argued that the court should resolve the issue now because it involves billions of dollars in public money.
The court rarely steps into a case when there is no disagreement among federal appellate courts, unless a law or regulation has been ruled invalid.
But at least four justices, needed to grant review, apparently agreed with the challengers that the issue is important enough to decide now.
In July, a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states.
On that same July day, a panel of appellate judges in Washington, District of Columbia, sided with the challengers in striking down the IRS regulations. The Washington court held that under the law, financial aid can be provided only in states that have set up their own insurance markets, known as exchanges.
The administration said in court papers that the federal government is running the exchanges in 34 states and that nearly 5 million people receive subsidies that allow them to purchase health insurance through those exchanges.
For those federal exchange consumers, the subsidies cover 76 percent of their premiums, on average. Customers now pay an average of $82 on total monthly premiums averaging $346. The federal subsidy of $264 a month makes up the difference.
But in October, the entire Washington appeals court voted to rehear the case and threw out the panel’s ruling, eliminating the so-called circuit split. The appeals argument has been scheduled for December 17, but that case now recedes in importance with the Supreme Court’s action to step in.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-to-obamacare/
Obamacare Architect Admits: Obamacare Wouldn't Have Passed Except for the "Stupidity of the American People"
Posted on November 12, 2014 by Philip Hodges
A key Obamacare architect–who helped design Obama’s signature healthcare bill–admitted that a lack of transparency as well as the stupidity of the American people are what got the bill passed. If people knew and understood the true intent of Obamacare, they wouldn’t have supported it. No wonder Pelosi said that we had to pass it in order to find out what was in it.
The Blaze reported:
In a newly unearthed 2013 clip, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health economist who helped craft parts of the Affordable Care Act, got fairly candid about the tactics used to get the Affordable Care Act passed during a panel at the Annual Health Economists’ Conferencelast year.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”
Better for the American people to be saddled with a law they don’t understand, Gruber claimed, than for them to understand the law and rally against it.
“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” Gruber said, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
The only thing that’s somewhat surprising is how honest he is. We all knew what a disaster of a train wreck Obamacare was going to be. We all knew it was shoved through without anyone having read it.
But voters don’t care what’s in bills before they decide they like them. All they knew was that it was being pushed by the President for whom they voted and by the media, which they watch religiously. And anyone who criticized the bill or the President or the media was racist.
The American voters got fleeced, and now it’s too late to fix anything, because the GOP is totally fine with Obamacare in principle. They just want their own name on it.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/8468/obama...cRMQ4TxAR0j.99
Excuse me .......Don't even go there..... If Pelosi and her,"you have to pass it to read it idiocy" and our Political hacks who were bought and paid for, oh excuse me, "so called officials" who work for us and were elected by us, God forbid and still don't work for us!!!!! Hadn't ramrodded this fiasco through, with out the approval of the American Public, illegally ,and against, all our calls and etc...It wouldn't' have happened.... NOW explain to me again please; why your calling the American Public Stupid ???? This is way beyond me!!!! The words "scape goat'in" certainly comes to mind!!!!! Which of course is normal for you paid degenerates!!!! It is not the American Public that is stupid!!!!! But it is the criminality of those, "bought for and paid for," so called Politicians, that did this. Not US!!!! They are called stupid not us better yet bought and paid for crooked politician's!!!! Paid off!!!!! Can I say it again!!!! Paid Off!!!!!
Wake up America we have a new election coming up vote them all out they are crooks and they work for the highest bidder........Vote them out again and again until they work for us, LOL like that will happen....."Payola" used to be a word in the music industry, now it apply's to our politicians.... They have reached distinction in the highest form all of their own, aren't they impressive, how to destroy a Country in a few easy lessons....
Unconstitutional Obamacare Death Panels Wreak of the Nazi-Style Extermination Process
Suzanne Hamner 2 hours ago
We all remember the passage of the monstrosity called the "Affordable Care Act" or Obamacare. We remember how it was passed, who passed it, and the infamous words of Nancy "we have to pass it to know what's in it" Pelosi. Many spoke out about the so-called independent review board dubbed "death panels" that would be used to ration care for the nation's unconstitutional socialized medical insurance plans. Obamacare proponents labeled those speaking out about such a "panel" as being against medical care for the masses or seeking to deny healthcare to those less fortunate than others. Those same proponents denied there was such a thing dubbed a "death panel" further labeling those speaking out against "socialized" medical insurance plans as fabricating rumors in order to obstruct Obamacare and its namesake.
As it turns out, those warning about the "panel" may not have been far off the mark. As Breitbart reports, there is an independent body authorized by Congress to make "recommendations" on preventive services; and, since 2009, those recommendations have become "less and less generous." Known as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the body has the authority to make recommendations regarding "screenings, counseling services or preventative medications." So, how does this affect the consumer who is enrolled and covered under Obamacare?
- Mammogram screenings
The Mayo Clinic recommends annual mammography for women above age 40 with no limit on end age as does the American Cancer Society. In contrast, the Task Force recommends mammography for women every other year between the ages of 50 and 74. According to the Mayo Clinic's Dr. Sandhya Pruthi, "Findings from a large study in Sweden of women in their 40s who underwent screening mammograms showed a decrease in breast cancer deaths by 29 percent."
A decrease in deaths, along with cancer care, from breast cancer by 29 percent due to mammography screening is significant in the health care industry. As a breast cancer survivor, along with having a mother who is a breast cancer survivor, mammography screenings beginning at the recommended age of 40 made the difference in survival. While my episode occurred when I was in my 30s, mammography, along with ultrasound recommended by my physician based on physical findings, was covered outside the recommended age not only as a screening tool but as a diagnostic measure. The delay in mammography to age 50 and ending at age 75 would certainly miss many women, condemning them to possible death since early detection is the key to survival. In addition, early detection means less costly treatment as well as better emotional, mental and physical health.
- Colonoscopy screenings
How many have heard from their physician that at age 50 it is time for colonoscopy screenings? The answer is every doctor you visit once you reach age 50 since that is the recommended age to begin screening. According to the American Cancer Society and the American College of Gastroenterology, there is no age limit for colonoscopies. The task force, however, recommends against routine colonoscopy screenings for those aged 76 to 85 years and recommends no screenings for individuals above age 85. "Medicare, coincidentally, happens not to cover CT colonography, but fully covers colonoscopies."
While guidelines on ending colonoscopy vary, the rule of thumb is generally no screening if life expectancy is less than 10 years or age 80 as the majority of individuals may not have 10 more years. However, according to Dr. Michael F. Picco, MD of the Mayo Clinic, "At 80, most folks; life expectancy is usually not 10 years so it's reasonable to stop in that case. In general, the guidelines should be followed relative to timing. When people shorten the interval against the guidelines, it's not a good use of resources."
There are many methods to screen for colorectal cancer, some less invasive than others. It is important to find the method that works best for the individual patient, along with a physician recommendation; but, one method is not superior over the other. The important fact to remember is "just because the options can be mind-boggling, that is no reason not to do screening."
- Prostate Cancer screenings
Not surprisingly, the task force recommends againstscreening for prostate cancer. As it stands now, the definitive test for prostate cancer is the prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Many male patients and their physicians work together in determining the need for PSA screening and the Mayo Clinic suggests "offering PSA screening and DRE annually to men ages 50 to 75 with a life expectancy greater than 10 years." Now, with the Obamacare mandate, screening for prostate cancer is out the window.
As Breitbart points out, these recommendations by the USPSTF are just that – recommendations – it gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the ability to add services to Medicare and to remove preventative services as recommended by the USPSTF.
So, while Obamacare was touted to bring health care to the "uninsured masses," it had the unfortunate effect of limiting services under Medicare through the "task force" recommendations that appear to counter current medical recommendations on preventive services. While many may say that the recommendations by the medical community regarding these preventative services are just another way to collect money from individuals and health insurance companies, it has been proven in many studies these preventive screenings actually save lives and health care costs in general. If Obamacare has the side effect of altering Medicare coverage, one can almost assume it will affect any insurance plan that will not have to be compliant with the federal regulations covering health care insurance plans – all health care insurance plans must be compliant with regulations regarding covered services.
Regardless of what the medical community recommends in screening, the USPSTF has "sliced" those recommendations for what purpose – rationing of health care services. No longer will the decision be made between you and your doctor. The decision for screening will be made by the USPSTF under the ACA law thereby affecting payment for services, meaning that if the screening falls outside the USPSTF recommendations, which conflict with medical science, then the screening may not be covered by the plan.
Where is the accounting for family history? Where is the accounting for a number of factors influential in the development of disease processes: gender, race, lifestyle?
It boils down to less individualized health care and a cookie-cutter health care model that will eventually affect every American directly or indirectly. While not wanting to be accused of "fear-mongering" or being "overly dramatic," this almost wreaks of a Nazi-style extermination process of less than desirable individuals without utilizing gas chambers – it will be death by government sanctioned with-holding of vital preventative screening measures.
Still, individuals have a difficult time understanding that "health care insurance does not guarantee health care nor does it guarantee payment for health care services."
The proponents for Obamacare sold this atrocity as "health care for all" or "access to health care for all" and in some cases, "free health care for those who cannot afford health care." As many of us have been pointing out, all of this has been the furthest thing from the truth. From the looks of it, the USPSTF, along with the tenets of Obamacare, operates on the assumption that there are some people that are "disposable," meaning some individuals will not receive certain health care services.
Editor's Note: So, now that the Republicans, who funded all of Obamacare, but claim they want to repeal it and have vowed to do so, have taken control of the House and Senate, there needs to be a full repeal without replacement of this unconstitutional legislation and the States need to reinforce it by nullification.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/un...rUP2lMGyes0.99
Death Panels: Another Obamacare Architect Thinks We Should Die at Age 75
Melissa Melton 6 hours ago
Right now everyone is talking about how one of the Obamacare architects, Jonathan Gruber, said it was the huge political advantage of a lack of transparency in the bill being written combined with the stupidity of the American voter that got the monstrosity that is Obamacare passed.
As reported on The Daily Sheeple, Gruber said quote:
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to passYeah. That happened. Even left-leaning gatekeeper Snopes had to admit it. Why? It's on videotape.
Well, another of Obamacare's architects came out and said something perhaps even more disturbing back in September, in case you missed it.
Rahm Emanuel's brother Ezekiel, former White House Special Adviser on Obamacare and current Director of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health and fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote a whole op-ed in The Atlantic about why he hopes he dies at 75 because… well, that's the optimal age to die.
In fact, society would be better off "if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly" and we all die at age 75.
(The Atlantic describes itself as a partner site with the Council on Foreign Relations CFR.org site, just by the way.)
http://cdn2.freedomoutpost.com/wp-co...ekieldie75.jpg
Wow. Look how happy he is about it, too. Yay, timely (or untimely) death!
Here's a little snippet of what Ezekiel Emanuel had to say in "Why I Hope to Die at 75: An argument that society and families — and you — will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly" about our optimal age to die:
But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.So, about your 90-year-old grandma or your 76-year-old mom?
Sorry. Sad to say, they have lived too long to serve any purpose in the eyes of Emanuel. They are "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic." Their age has rendered them automatically unable to contribute anything valuable to society or the world simply by virtue of being alive. Mr. Obamacare bioethics over there says they should both just go die.
In fact, John Nolte at Breitbart referred to the passive-aggressive article, which Emanuel writes supposedly about himself but it really just sounds like he's making a blanket argument for everyone, as "what decent people would call the mission statement of a death cult" and went on to say it should have been called "Top 15 Reasons No One Over 75 Should Receive Healthcare."
In addition to the passage above, here are a few other loving statements from one of Obamacare's architects, which certainly is not in any way (<–that's sarcasm) a huge argument for prioritizing healthcare and which essentially includes a laundry list of reasons not to give old people medical coverage.
This is basically the essence of a death panel. And yes, he actually said these things:
- Half of people 80 and older with functional limitations. A third of people 85 and older with Alzheimer's. That still leaves many, many elderly people who have escaped physical and mental disability. If we are among the lucky ones, then why stop at 75? Why not live as long as possible?
- So American immortals may live longer than their parents, but they are likely to be more incapacitated. Does that sound very desirable? Not to me.
- The American immortal desperately wants to believe in the "compression of morbidity." … Compression of morbidity is a quintessentially American idea… It promises a kind of fountain of youth until the ever-receding time of death. It is this dream—or fantasy—that drives the American immortal and has fueled interest and investment in regenerative medicine and replacement organs. (Cuz we shouldn't get those if we're old?)
- Living parents also occupy the role of head of the family. They make it hard for grown children to become the patriarch or matriarch.
- How do we want to be remembered by our children and grandchildren? We wish our children to remember us in our prime. Active, vigorous, engaged, animated, astute, enthusiastic, funny, warm, loving. Not stooped and sluggish, forgetful and repetitive, constantly asking "What did she say?" We want to be remembered as independent, not experienced as burdens.
- Of course, our children won't admit it. They love us and fear the loss that will be created by our death. And a loss it will be. A huge loss. They don't want to confront our mortality, and they certainly don't want to wish for our death. But even if we manage not to become burdens to them, our shadowing them until their old age is also a loss.
- And leaving them—and our grandchildren—with memories framed not by our vivacity but by our frailty is the ultimate tragedy.
The guy also goes on and on about how horribly decrepit people get as they get older. To quote Breitbart again, "Emanuel even includes a monstrous but brightly colored graph that is meant to tell anyone over 75 that their 'last contribution' to society likely occurred more than a decade ago. Good God."
Did you know you don't even really contribute to society past age 65? Emanuel also points out that, "The average age at which Nobel Prize–winning physicists make their discovery is 48." So? And? How is that proof no one does anything of value later on in their life?
Emanuel went so far as to say, "Even if we aren't demented, our mental functioning deteriorates as we grow older… It is not just mental slowing. We literally lose our creativity."
Wow. Literally lose our creativity? All of it? Zero creativity after 75?
Guess that means all of these actors are too old, feeble, robbed of creativity and ability to contribute to work, society and the world to continue to live according to Ezekiel Emanuel:
Morgan Freeman (age 77)
Clint Eastwood (age 84)
Judi Dench (age 79)
Jack Nicholson (age 77)
Dustin Hoffman (age 77)
Gene Hackman (age 84)
Betty White (age 92)
Robert Duvall (age 83)
Michael Caine (age 81)
Sean Connery (age 84)
Mel Brooks (age 88)
Sidney Poitier (age 87)
Gena Rowlands (age 84)
Max von Sydow (age 85)
Ed Asner (age 84)
Robert De Niro is 71, so according to Mr. Emanuel, he's got four good years left before he should go. Uh oh, Al Pacino turns 75 in April, so…
Yeah. I know how ridiculous that list I just typed is, but it is simply to illustrate a point about the disgusting, heartless bureaucrats running the show in this country.
Ezekiel Emanuel is only 57. We'll see if he takes his own advice in another 18 years.
Oh, and by the way, how old is David Rockefeller these days? Ninety nine and counting? You don't say…
In the meantime, people keep debating whether or not Obamacare includes death panels or will lead to death panels in the future. If this Obamacare architect's op-ed isn't a raging public service announcement for death panels (complete with a graph and everything!), I'm not sure what is.
They might not openly call it a death panel, but what do you think it means when bureaucrats like this guy argue that life-saving or even life-extending medical procedures like medical screenings or joint replacements are withheld from older folks simply because they are old and it isn't "cost-effective" according to the system?
(Whatever the hell that phrase "cost-effective" even means to a government that's $17 trillion in debt and just keeps finding a reason to go to even more wars…)
In the meantime, my dad died a few months ago. All of a sudden, just like that. He was only 63. Do you think I wouldn't give anything to have him here for another 12 years? More than 12? Do you think I ever once thought of my dad as a creativity-less "burden" who doesn't contribute to society as he got older? Do you think him being 75, 85 or even 95 would've suddenly made me love him so little I stop valuing him as a human being?
What a bunch of evil psychopaths we have running the show. I agree with John Nolte over at Breitbart: These Obamacare death cultists can all go straight to Hell.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/de...lXutq0ToySf.99
Pelosi denies knowing key Obamacare architect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXrRHXviIkc
Published on Nov 13, 2014
Pelosi knows no one,nothing, zip, nadda,Holy Pelosi...Watch her run, after she said "you have to pass it to read it"!!! TWIT got TWITTED!!!!
#Grubergate And Machiavelli: Do These Geniuses Make Me Look Fatuous?
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...ub-300x180.jpg
Written by Donald Joy on November 14, 2014
A man named Rich Weinstein is the latest hero of the new media. About a year ago, his health insurance coverage was cancelled because of Obamacare’s broken promises. A replacement plan would have cost him twice as much. Upset, he turned into a citizen journalist on a mission. His diligent efforts over the past year have resulted in a suddenly huge political and media firestorm.
Weinstein had been an Obamacare supporter, because he had believed in the plan, as it had been so adamantly pitched by Obama and by Democrats — but having lost his health coverage, contrary to Obama’s repeated, solemn vows (“…you can keep your plan. Period.”), he felt utterly betrayed, and annoyed that the media wasn’t really doing its job regarding it all. He started looking for hard evidence as to exactly why the law indeed turned out to be the colossal sham which Republicans have argued it to be all along. He patiently watched and listened to countless videos of the masterminds behind Obamacare pontificating about their plans and designs. He eventually found the evidence he was seeking.
Weinstein’s relentless scouring of video archives unearthed a series of rather damning clips which have, after initial stages of being posted only in blog comments and Tweets, finally broken out like prairie fire all over the ‘web. They repeatedly show top Obamacare spaz, M.I.T. economist Jonathan Gruber, flapping his hands around while excitedly describing the shameless, calculated strategy of chicanery and precise fiscal fraud he and his socialist cronies used to foist the ironically-named “Affordable Care Act” on an electorate “too stupid” to otherwise appreciate the 2,000 pages of wool which was being pulled over their eyes. The videos also show Gruber unintentionally giving ample ammunition to those about to present the next viable challenge to Obamacare before the Supreme Court, regarding the illegality of the massive numbers of federal subsidies issued in violation of the law’s text.
When “Grubergate” first broke into my field of awareness earlier this week, I was instantly reminded of the writings of Renaissance-period Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli. Considered a founder of modern political science and ethics, Machiavelli is best known for his masterpiece titled “The Prince.” Its basic message was that in politics and government, those who are determined to succeed in acquiring and maintaining power, and in wielding it responsibly, really have no choice but to toss foolish, idealistic morality out the window, and get on with the grown-up business of deliberately deceiving the public, and acting ruthlessly wherever necessary in order to govern well. Machiavelli essentially said that wise rulers have to be supremely cynical, using everything from what we today call polite “spin” to outright brutality, in order to keep the masses mollified and under their control, lest opponents thwart one’s plans and/or rivals take one’s power away.
For Machiavelli, and obviously also for countless others in contemporary politics, business, and even romantic intrigues, naive scruples must take a back seat, even to whatever distasteful corruption may be deemed necessary to achieve one’s rationalized goals. “The end justifies the means,” or, “BAMN — by any means necessary!” (as in, the trademark rallying scream from the seething mobs of the current administration’s leftist community organizers, unions, and race agitators).
One thing is for certain in the debate over our federal government’s involvement in health care, as to whether Machiavellian philosophy applies: Jonathan Gruber obviously believes and acts as if it does, as do the entire Obama administration and Democrat party.
As if things couldn’t get any more cynical, now that he’s been virally exposed as one of the chief con-artists behind the ACA scam, the diabolical Dr. Gruber is doubling down on the double-talk: Despite now offering a meaningless half-apology for his manically-delivered comments on how he and his colleagues deliberately tricked people about Obamacare, he’s now accusing Republicans of having a “master strategy” for trying to “confuse people” about the law.
Did you get that? The guy who got caught (the videos were taken at closed-door conferences and never meant for mass public exposure) admitting that he intentionally hoodwinked, flim-flammed, and bamboozled voters in order to allow a cabal of left-wing radicals to take over 1/6 of our nation’s entire economy — our health care system — now lashes out and says that those who are shining the disinfecting sunlight of truth on the whole rotten stinking Obamacare mess are “trying to confuse” the public. My, oh my.
Then there’s that truly creepy psychopath, Nancy Pelosi. Staying rigidly in character, she blatantly lied right in front of the cameras as if it’s the most natural thing for her to do (it is): In a video from within just the last 48 hours, with the tsunami-scandal of Grubergate having broken wide open, Pelosi defiantly insisted that she doesn’t know who Jonathan Gruber is, and that he had nothing to do with writing the Obamacare bill — yet lo and behold, there she is in a different video from 2009, bringing up Gruber by name, singing her high praises of his work on the fiscal details of Obamacare, and directing the press to pay attention to him!
Sigh. This is all just a mere snapshot of the kind of treachery and unprincipled falsehood we’ve seen coming from our elected officials and their agents for as long as any of us can remember. Some are much worse than others, of course.
One wonders: Although generally viewed as a character shortcoming, is lying actually just necessary on the part of anyone who wants to prevail in politics, business, or relationships? Do voters, customers, and lovers really favor only the candidate, salesman, or partner who tells them merely what they want to hear, rather than the cold, hard truth? Perhaps it really is as Jack Nicholson’s character, the commander of the marine base at Guantanamo Bay in the Tom Cruise film A Few Good Menfinally bellowed from the witness stand. Maybe we just can’t handle the truth.
The fact is, everyone should know that deception sometimes is actually necessary, and morally the right thing to do: If ISIS members show up your door and ask you where your wife and children are, there’s plainly something severely wrong with you if you think telling the truth is the best policy at that time. Hypothetical discussions of all kinds of less glaringly simple “gray areas” can follow from such a stark and extreme example.
As for using deceptive strategies and tactics to gain power and advantages, we all know the old saying about how nice guys finish last. The usual way of interpreting that is to say that docile, non-cunning people are really just losers who get left in the dust by the domineering meanies with the sharper elbows. It occurs to me that a different way to interpret it is to say that guileless, non-conniving people are probably going to out-live (hence, “finish last” in a much different sense) those who are always in hyper-stressful, cutthroat competition for the top.
Speaking of folk wisdom and trickery/hustling, there’s also the old tale about nail soup, a.k.a. rusty nail soup or stone soupwhich illustrates a positive, creative, and benevolent aspect to some con-artist type behavior. Look it up if you can’t remember it, or if you’ve never heard it. Though involving deception, the con is creative because it results in something that didn’t exist at all before it was undertaken, and beneficial to all concerned because of the nourishment and enjoyment they would otherwise not have experienced.
Of course, most reading this are likely to concur when I say that Obamacare itself is horrible and wrong in various ways, and that its “architects” and agents who lied about it and rammed it down our throats are beyond merely sleazy. The reasons, well-known already, are far to numerous to detail in the space I’m allotted here. Gruber’s Obamacare-cheering defenders and apologists, however, take the Machiavellian attitude, saying that it’s because we can’t handle the truth that Gruber and Obama and all those other Ivy League geniuses have to lie to us stupid rubes, allegedly for our own good.
Believe it or not, I’d rather pay cash out of pocket for some nurse’s aide with a training certificate from a trade school to take my vitals while frankly telling me that I’m a dumbass disgusting fatbody who needs to wise up, work out more, and eat healthier, for my own good, than have prevaricating Ivy League princes with doctorate degrees presume to insist that they know best, and that all I need to do is get in line, stop opposing Obamacare, and sign up for a stolen subsidy.
Compared to the likes of Harvard Ph.D. Jonathan Gruber and the two Harvard-educated lawyers trying to run our lives like brilliant royalty from the White House, we on the political right may be folksy and relatively unsophisticated, but we’re not so fatuous as to fall for their lies.
About the author: Donald Joy
http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ed24d74...%3Fs%3D100&r=G
Following his service in the United State Air Force, Donald Joy earned a bachelor of science in business administration from SUNY while serving in the army national guard. As a special deputy U.S. marshal, Don was on the protection detail for Attorney General John Ashcroft following the attacks of 9/11. He lives in the D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia with his wife and son.
View all articles by Donald Joy
http://clashdaily.com/2014/11/gruber...-look-fatuous/
Now lets all show them how "stupid the American public is"....vote them all out!! Let those scam artist politician's learn a new word. We need to teach them the word "retribution"!!!
Will Supreme Court uphold ObamaCare’s Typo Fraud?
Rob Cunningham 16 hours ago
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...DP=w426-h319-p
MIT Professor and chief ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber, has been captured on video tape, twice, bragging that he purposely deceived "stupid Americans", the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and all Democrats, in order to enact Barack Obama's "legacy" healthcare legislation.
Professor Gruber has also been captured on tape, explaining how states that decide NOT to establish state-run healthcare exchanges would suffer financial harm by not being eligible to receive federal healthcare subsidies. This "smoking gun", 2012 Gruber videotape is damning evidence that exposes the current administration/media lie that only a "typo" in the current ObamaCare law is preventing the federal government from issuing federal subsidies to the 36 states that elected not to create state healthcare exchanges.Soon, the Supreme Court must issue a ruling on the legality of federal subsidies being issued to the 36 federally created healthcare exchanges. Before issuing this critical legal ruling, surely the court will review the publicly available video tapes of the ObamaCare architect, strenuously arguing that the 36 federal healthcare exchanges being operated in various states are ineligible to receive federal healthcare subsidies, by design. The Supreme Court must choose to "double down" on Jonathan Gruber's admitted ObamaCare fraud or issue a ruling that effectively ends ObamaCare. There is no third option.
The plain language of the ObamaCare legislation, as explained passionately by Professor Gruber, expressly forbids federal subsidies being issued to federally managed healthcare exchanges. Period.
If the Supremes uphold ObamaCare by validating the Obama administration's "typo" excuse, their fraudulent ruling will surely lead to a citizen revolt. The mainstream network media, namely ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, have refused to give even a single minute of coverage to the damning ObamaCare video evidence that has recently surfaced. Apparently, network executives and cable media dinosaurs have adopted the Hillary Clinton mantra of, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Obviously, Barack Obama, the mainstream media, 100% of the Democrat Party that voted to enact ObamaCare, and far too many republicans believe Americans are too stupid to understand ObamaCare.
We the people will have the last laugh.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/wi...JOXIYL74s4l.99
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...47CX=w426-h263
LYING ABOUT LYING: Nancy Pelosi Cited Gruber in 2009, Now Says She's Never Heard of Him | Doug Giles | #ClashDaily
clashdaily.com
LYING ABOUT LYING: Nancy Pelosi Cited Gruber in 2009, Now Says She’s Never Heard of Him
Posted on November 13, 2014
Nancy Pelosi adds insult to injury as she denies even knowing who Jonathan Gruber is. Does she really think Americans are this stupid to believe her? Oh, wait…according to Gruber, yes, she does.
Here is a flashback of her citing Gruber in the push for Obamacare back in 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHFOgjXevdk
Here are her most recent comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpR71aBsmd4
LIBERAL CHICK: ‘Conservatives Want Americans to Die, Gruber Wants to Heal Them’
Posted on November 14, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9_sYI7qRog
Liberal Chick thinks that she knows the logic behind Jonathan Gruber and Conservatives in the Healthcare debate: Gruber wants to heal them while Conservatives want them to be stupid and die.
“Conservatives want Americans to be stupid, Jonathan Gruber made a book so that they could be smarter and learn about healthcare…so conservatives hate Americans…Duh!”
Follow this nutty chick on Facebook and Instagram @libchickdaily.
http://clashdaily.com/2014/11/liberal-chick-conservatives-want-americans-die-gruber-wants-heal/
Well maybe I was a bit toooooooo Hastyyyyy on my Stupid American complaint!!!!!
BREAKING: Here’s Jonathan Gruber’s Health Care Comic Book for Stupid Americans
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...r2-770x420.jpg
Posted on November 14, 2014
By Tim Young
Clash Daily Guest Contributor
By now we all know who Jonathan Gruber is… and if you don’t, turn on the news. The quotes this ‘architect’ of Obamacare gave us on his work were golden:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” and
“If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies, ok? … lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting this thing to pass.”
After those quotes, it makes perfect sense that Gruber’s greatest treatise for the stupid American voters is a comic book… and when I heard this, I had to find a copy and read it for myself so that you, the stupid American voter, wouldn’t have to.
The title of this comic book shockingly isn’t ‘The Adventures of Dr. Deception and the Bullshit Brigade,” instead, Gruber went with the more subtle “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works.” Now I know that that title sounds boring, but when you get into the pile of lies inside, it gets extremely exciting.
When we meet our hero Jonathan Gruber not to be confused with Hans Gruber, the internationally feared German terrorist from Die Hard, he’s rolled out the big guns of the Affordable Care Act… telling us that we’re all going to have health insurance and it’s actually going to lower the deficit. Of course he’s at a theater… the left has the entertainment industry on lock.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...-1-770x510.jpg
We’re introduced to 4 characters, each of which has a different health care and employment condition. **RACE BAITING SPOILER ALERT** The white guy with the tie has the best condition and the Hispanic woman has the worst, followed closely by the black guy.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...-2-770x510.jpg
But don’t feel good about that white guy just yet… he works for an EVIL business in America, which means he could become uninsured because of corporate greed at any moment!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...3-678x1024.jpg
And we learn that although our healthcare is great, it is in the darkness… and we can only be saved by Gruber aka Dr. Deception who brings us the mighty light and smiling sun of socialism.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...2-678x1024.jpg
He then takes us to a land where healthcare is done all wrong. The EVIL STATE OF TEXAS!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...5-678x1024.jpg
Then we learn that Doctors… not all of them, but just enough of them are also EVIL because they get paid EVIL MONEY to treat patients… and the more they try to treat them with, the more EVIL MONEY THE EVIL DOCTORS MAKE!!!!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...-6-770x510.jpg
The commoners, the stupid American voters… they argued over health care reform, because those stupid Americans had never been blessed with the opportunity to live in a magical land of happiness and wealth called Massachusetts.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...-7-770x510.jpg
And you too could live in a land of happiness and cupcakes and heart candy boxes full of decisions made for you, but if you don’t… we’re gonna tax you!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...-8-770x510.jpg
And look at all these non-descript people who chose to live in candy land with Dr. Deception, they love it and want it for the entire country!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...-9-770x510.jpg
If you’re already insured, then don’t worry, Obamacare will make you extra secure in this ring of insurance… I mean, don’t mind the opening where lots of people can fall out, but it’s extra secure!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...10-770x510.jpg
This law that’s going to take away your rights to not insure yourself is the spinach, so some people are gonna have to eat healthy so that other people can eat cake…
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...11-770x510.jpg
And if you don’t want insurance, then you’re like this guy who’s scared on top of this ambulance who the Gestapo have stopped to fine. Also someone please call the Supreme Court and tell them that the architect of Obamacare calls the penalty a TAX!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...12-770x510.jpg
Everybody sing along with this part: If you like your insurance plan… you can keep it!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...13-770x510.jpg
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...14-770x510.jpg
Dr. Deception shall stop EVIL BIG BUSINESS from its evil freeloading ways! Look at that evil businessman who looks like the principal from Beavis and Butthead.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...15-770x510.jpg
Here’s where it gets good. ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE OBAMACARE ARE MONSTERS! But we are protected from their MONSTROUS CONCERNS, by that committee that Dr. Deception tricked, the CBO!
In case you forgot the quote: “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes…If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies, ok?”
Also keep in mind that he just called it taxes a few images ago..
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...16-770x510.jpg
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...6a-770x510.jpg
These ugly monsters have legitimate concerns but Dr. Deception shuts them down with the comments he received from the CBO that he tricked!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...17-770x510.jpg
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...18-770x510.jpg
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...19-770x510.jpg
And most importantly… Dr. Deception says that THIS IS NOT SOCIALISM!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...20-770x510.jpg
Like he said, it’s not socialism, but 7 pages later in the chapter called ‘Picking Up The Check,’ the check is in fact picked up by placing a tax on the rich. So, like he said, “THIS IS NOT SOCIALISM!” Listen to Dr. Deception, he DOESN’T LIE TO YOU STUPID AMERICANS!
Also Miami Vice called, they want their rich 1% stereotype with the sweater tied around his neck back.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...1-678x1024.jpg
Look at these fools as they protest to trust the greedy doctors! You CANNOT TRUST THEM!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...22-770x510.jpg
While they toil in the streets, the bullshit brigade cooks up Obamacare solutions like meth!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...23-770x510.jpg
All while EVIL BUSINESSES hide from Uncle Sam with their EVIL bags of money!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...24-770x510.jpg
EVIL DOCTORS not to be confused with our hero Dr. Deception, give out health care like GREEDY BUTCHERS… telling you that you can eat all the meat you want…
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...25-770x510.jpg
We need the mandate to get to the golden hill! All you need to do is FOLLOW ME!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...26-770x510.jpg
Dr. Deception says that your insurance costs will go down angry corporate white man that cares not about others who aren’t white!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...27-770x510.jpg
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...28-770x510.jpg
And no one shall stop Obamacare, not even RUSH LIMBAUGH with his death panel lies and treachery!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...29-770x510.jpg
Dr. Deception then convinces the stupid Americans to join his Quest where he shall take them to a land of candy and cupcakes just like Massachusetts!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...0-678x1024.jpg
And on the final page, instead of candy and cupcakes, he leads them into the desert that is Obamacare: A future of uncertainty and despair. That’s the left’s kind of hero! Just keep following him into the abyss stupid Americans… Just. Keep. Following.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...31-770x510.jpg
In case you were wondering if the Secretary of State John Kerry knew of or remembered Jonathan Gruber, aka Dr. Deception… he thinks he’s the tops!
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...ge-770x510.jpg
See stupid people? It’s not socialism even though the rich are having their wealth redistributed to the poor… these are all great ideas and everyone is going to be happy and living in Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory if we just believe in Obamacare.
Author’s Note: I want my $6.04 back from purchasing this off a clearance rack.
Disclaimer: This is a satirical opinion piece based on the book, Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works by Jonathan Gruber which was published by Hill and Wang (December 20, 2011) and can be found for purchase and your own analysis on Amazon.com and Barnes & Nobles.com and at other booksellers.
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...1765595_n1.jpgConservative Comedian Tim Young has been a guest on Fox News Channel’s ‘Red Eye,’ Huffington Post Live, RT’s The Alyona Show and dozens of syndicated radio shows.
A respected journalist and pundit, his writing has been featured on the cover of HuffingtonPost.com, Washingtonian Magazine, Patch.com, Voice of Baltimore and other major publications. In 2011, he was Young Member Chair of the National Press Club, representing all media under the age of 35.
Tim’s website is TimYoung.com and you can follow him on Twitter @timrunshismouth.
http://clashdaily.com/2014/11/breaki...pid-americans/
Your “Children Will Be Fined” If You Fail To Sign Up For Obamacare: People Are Going To Be In for A Shock
Mac Slavo 2 hours ago
Free and affordable health care just gets better and better.
In 2015 the government will be activating some new “incentives” embedded in the Affordable Care Act in an effort to get more people to sign up.
But, as is often the case when the government says one thing, they mean exactly the opposite. In this case, when they say incentive what they really mean is that you are going to be penalized if you fail to acquire government mandated health insurance. But not just you. Your children, who apparently no longer belong to you anyway based on a recent court ruling, will be fined for your failure to get them on the insurance rolls:
Penalties for failing to secure a health-insurance plan will rise steeply next year, which could take a big bite out of some families’ pocketbooks.So, that’s your incentive. Either sign up for Obamacare at a rate of roughly $750 a month or more for a middle-class family of four, or pay a $325 penalty or two percent of your income, whichever is higher. Plus, if you have kids, they’ve been incentivized too!
“The penalty is meant to incentivize people to get coverage,” said senior analyst Laura Adams of InsuranceQuotes.com. “This year, I think a lot of people are going to be in for a shock.”
In 2014, Obamacare’s first year, individuals are facing a penalty of $95 per person, or 1 percent of their income, depending on which is higher. If an American failed to get coverage this year, that penalty will be taken out of their tax refund in early 2015, Adams noted.
While that might be painful to some uninsured Americans who are counting on their tax refunds in early 2015, the penalty for going uninsured next year is even harsher. The financial penalty for skipping out on health coverage will more than triple to $325 per person in 2015, or 2 percent of income, depending on whichever is higher.
Children will be fined at half the adult rate, or $162.50 for those under 18 years old.
Source: CBS News
Moreover, if you fail to sign up for Obamacare and subsequently refuse to pay your penalty your house will be raided by armed IRS agents, seized by the government, and you’ll be imprisoned for tax evation.
Welcome to the new America, where the government now has the power to compel you to purchase products from private companies under the threat of imprisonment or death. Yes, death. Because if you run from those armed IRS agents they’re going to use their brand new militarized AR-15′s to ensure your compliance.
At this point the only chance Americans have for the complete destruction of the Affordable Care Act is for a Supreme Court ruling expected in the Spring of 2015. If the court rules against Obamacare over its illegal federal subsidies then the law could fall apart almost instantly.
These days, even democrats who supported the legislation before anyone had a chance to actually review it are up in arms. It seems many have finally realized that free health care isn’t actually, well, free.
Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.
Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.
…
“Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”
Source: Democrat Voters Confused via Mercury News
Suckers, the whole lot of them. Unfortunately, they supported legislative action that will eventually unravel the entire economic fabric of the United States of America unless it is repealed or overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/ch...MiZwz2MPhIV.99