Thread: The Future of Obamacare

posted on February 21, 2014
First Lady: Young People are 'Knuckleheads' Who Need Obamacare


First lady Michelle Obama in an interview on the “Tonight Show” joked that young people were “knuckleheads” who often had unexpected accidents and needed Obamacare.


“A lot of young people think they’re invincible, but the truth is that young people are knuckleheads,” Obama told new host Jimmy Fallon on the late night show.


‘They’re the ones who are cooking for the first time and slice their finger open, they’re dancing on the bar stools,’ she continued to laughter. “But while young people think they’re invincible, they’re not.”


The first lady has taken a prominent role in the administration’s push for more young people to sign up for Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. But the administration is still behind their targets.

Post Continues on washingtonexaminer.com


"Affordable Care Act", "Obamacare" not so good anymore, now it is "Affordable"....No it isn't "Affordable"!!!!!

February 21, 2014 Greta: Democrat Lawmakers Laughing At ObamaCare Fears Is Disgraceful

video at link below

http://conservative50plus.com/blog/g...06c2b5-3065713

Ethnic cleansing in NYC: Almost 50% of 2012 abortions were black

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Margaret Sanger’s grand plan for eugenics is a grand success in New York.

Check it out:
Horrific, horrific, horrific. According to the recently released Summary of Vital Statistics from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, ethnic cleansing is apparently occurring in the Big Apple.

In New York City, there were 56,000 black pregnancies in 2012. Of that total, 31,000 were aborted. That figure represents almost 50 percent of all abortions in New York City, despite the fact blacks represent less than 15 percent of the population. Read the report here.

Post Continues on allenbwest.com


Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/2014/02/eth...pzXgqZ3O34R.99

Minnesota Democrats Laughed at for Trying to Defend Obamacare

By Onan Coca / 25 February 2014


With as bad as Obamacare has gone so far, you’d think that Democrat supporters of the measure would be ready to defend it whenever they spoke publicly. Well, you’d be wrong.
Recently, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Representatives Tim Walz and Collin Peterson, were holding a townhall style meeting when they were asked about Obamacare. None seemed ready to give a defense.

A member of the audience asked, "I thought the Affordable Care Act would save $2500 per family. What happened?"

An uncomfortable moment followed the question as the three Democrats could only exchange glances -- one assumes each was hoping the other had a good response -- they didn’t. The obvious discomfort made the crowd erupt in laughter, as the audience seemed to finally understand just how bad Obamacare must be.

Representative Peterson was first to respond, to the chagrin of the other two.

"I voted 'no,' so I'll let these guys handle that," he said.

His fellow Democrats may not have appreciated it, but the crowd loved it. As Peterson finished saying he voted “no” on Obamacare – the crowd exploded in applause and then laughter at his fellow panel mates who had supported the law.

Keep supporting Obamacare, Democrats – it will mean nothing but good things for Republicans in 2014 and 2016.




http://eaglerising.com/4840/minnesot...end-obamacare/

Sebelius Denies Obamacare Reduces Jobs And Uses Obamacare Authority To Reduce Jobs

Posted 13 hours ago by Mark Horne

“There is absolutely no evidence and every economist will tell you this, that there is any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.” –Kathleen Sebelius.

There is a great deal of evidence that Obamacare has resulted in job loss. But Sebelius, while pretending none of it exists, has provided some of her own evidence.

From Fox News:
But Sebelius herself, using discretion granted her by the Affordable Care Act, cut the maximum allowed by law from home health care funds. The cuts were deep enough that officials offered a damaging prediction of the impact saying, it was estimated that approximately 40 percent of providers would have negative margins.

And companies with negative margins don't last long -- or have to cut workers.

Dan Weber, head of the Association of Mature American Citizens, says "forty percent will be put into the red and anyone who has a brain in their skull knows that they're going to have to cut jobs and reduce services in order to make up the money."

In fact, those cuts put in jeopardy 498,000 jobs of home health care workers who work just for that 40 percent of firms that will be forced into the red -- the kind of home health workers who allow Yvonne Wightman, 98, to avoid expensive hospital or nursing home stays by getting care at home.

So once again we have all this great affordable health care promised to us when what is delivered is the reduction in medical care. Once again we have a case where Obamacare destroys jobs and takes away options from people needing medical care. And, once again, we have a major politician lying through her teeth to ward off criticism that is amply deserved. This was Sebelius’ version of Obama’s “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period.”

I’m somewhat curious about why Sebelius made such a hostile move against home healthcare workers. Does she want to see more of the elderly corralled into hospitals and nursing homes? I don’t know yet. As Obamacare progresses (or, rather, degenerates) we will have more opportunities to look at the harmful decisions of our medical masters and try to discern a method to their madness.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/02/...CCs0vD3l2DP.99

I’m somewhat curious about why Sebelius made such a hostile move against home healthcare workers. Does she want to see more of the elderly corralled into hospitals and nursing homes? I don’t know yet. As Obamacare progresses (or, rather, degenerates) we will have more opportunities to look at the harmful decisions of our medical masters and try to discern a method to their madness.

Don't think they like seniors, don't need to know why either!!!

It is all about "Fuzzy Math" They are counting people who enroll but end up being "not" insured for some reason or another, if you go to the site to check it out your counted, it is all smoke and mirrors. All bull crap, just like it's namesake...

Thursday, 03 April 2014 16:57 South Carolina Bill Opposing ObamaCare Rejected by State Senate

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.


A South Carolina bill that would have restricted the applicability of ObamaCare to citizens of the Palmetto State has failed in the state senate. By a vote of 9-33, state senators rejected HB 3101, the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act. As the record shows, debate on the bill in its original form was interrupted repeatedly by the introduction of hundreds of amendments.
One such amendment was proposed by the bill’s primary sponsor, Tom Davis. Davis’s proposal would have relieved businesses of the purported “quandary” of choosing between obedience to state law or federal law. The Morning News Online reports on the legislative wrangling that accompanied Davis’s effort:
Under Senate Rule No. 24, any amendment attached to a bill must have related language or be germane to the bill. President Glenn McConnell ruled that the amendment was not germane.


Sen. Davis attempted to override McConnell’s ruling, but the attempt failed by a vote of 18 to 24. The Senate invoked cloture, which is rare. Cloture is a procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby cause an immediate vote to be taken on the bill.
According to the Associated Press, Davis’ proposed amendment “sets regulations for navigators who help people sign up for health insurance through the federal website. It also requires state agencies to hold hearings before applying for federal grants tied to the Affordable Care Act.”
Earlier on in the deliberations, Davis reportedly said that “he wants to narrow the proposed ban on state agencies aiding Obamacare to exempt those required to carry out parts of the law.” Another story quoted Davis as saying that he “accepts the federal government's ability to enact the law.”
That’s hardly the bold blueprint for state nullification of an unconstitutional federal act, as anticipated by our Founding Fathers.
James Madison, for example, in The Federalist, No. 45, recommended that state lawmakers “refuse to cooperate with officers of the Union” when the federal authority attempted to enforce any act not falling within its constitutionally enumerated powers.
While Davis’ language as reported by MyrtleBeachOnline.com is not as forceful as the Founders would prefer, in another interview he pointed to a solid Supreme Court case that supports his position of a state’s right to refuse to carry the federal government’s water.
Davis named his failed amendment the “Anti-Commandeering Amendment.” In MedCityNews, Davis’s reliance on the anti-commandeering principle was first reported:
According to Davis, his "anti-commandeering" measure is based on a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says the federal government cannot force states to use their resources to carry out laws approved by Congress.
As we have reported on many occasions, the concept of anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”
While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty,” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case of New York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States (1997).
Anti-commandeering, as set forth in the Supreme Court decision in Mack and Printz v. United States, prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”
Writing for the majority, Scalia explained:
The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. As Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [Citations removed.]
According to Davis, then, the House bill he helped re-write for the State Senate relies, at least in part, on the decision handed down in the Mack/Printz case.
Apparently, though, despite taking a stance against Palmetto State enforcement of ObamaCare, Davis does not see his bill as an example of nullification. In fact, he seems not to accept nullification as a valid weapon in the arsenal of liberty.
A report out of South Carolina published earlier this year contains a disturbing statement made by Davis. In a statement published in January on a Tea Party website, Davis reportedly said nullification was not "an available remedy" and then went on to misinterpret Article VI's so-called Supremacy Clause and perpetuate the myth of unquestionable judicial authority.
Island Packet quotes Davis’s denial of a state’s power to nullify ObamaCare: “The conversation really has gotten off the rails a little bit,” Davis said Wednesday, after holding three public hearings across the state that drew hundreds. “Everybody talks about nullification. This isn’t nullification. We can’t nullify.”
But state legislators not only can nullify every unconstitutional act of the federal government, they must do so if they are to faithfully adhere to the oath they swear as mandated by Article VI. What’s more, the Founders of our Republic would expect state lawmakers to stand for state sovereignty.
As James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798:
In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Put simply: State legislators are bound by an oath and by fidelity to the Constitution to nullify every unconstitutional act of the federal government, every time, without exception.
Davis believes, though, that the South Carolina legislature’s only option is to delay enforcement of ObamaCare “as best they can until such time as Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act.”
This tack is moot, now, though, as the bill failed to pass out of the State Senate.
Perhaps it is the failure of the legislation’s own advocates to boldly embrace the nullification of ObamaCare that led to the confusion as to the bill’s purpose; confusion that ultimately led to its defeat.
Concerned citizens aren’t confused, though, and they refuse to wait on Washington to fix a problem Washington caused. Instead, they realize they need to forcibly derail the “long train of abuses and usurpations” and “provide new Guards for their future security” — the states and themselves.
Senator Davis’ opinion to the contrary, nullification is still the “rightful remedy.”
Acts not authorized under the enumerated powers of the Constitution are “merely acts of usurpation” and deserve to be disregarded, ignored, and denied any legal effect.
More state legislators need to learn this. Familiarity with these facts is critical to reclaiming state authority and destroying the threat to liberty posed by the centralization of power in Washington, D.C.
As for Davis, his seemingly self-fulfilling prophecy that “At the end of the day, the ACA will still be the law of the land in South Carolina,” has come true, due in no small measure to his own failure to embrace nullification and unapologetically assert the authority of states to act in all but a few enumerated areas, as protected by the Tenth Amendment.
Perhaps in the next legislative session there can be found in the Palmetto State a lawmaker committed to the Constitution and to forcing the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...48de-287785873


Well folks "you had to pass it to read it"..now tell me who voted for it, is anyone out there awake yet?? Your politicians working for you!!!!

Subject: Obama and Pope

Obamanomics Failing Illinois

Posted on April 5, 2014 by Dave Jolly

A couple months ago, I wrote about the economic policies of Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker are working to reduce the state deficit and increase the overall economic and job growth in his state. Scott, limited union bargaining powers, cut state spending and reduced taxes, all of which have led to a positive turnaround from the failed economics of former Democratic Governor Jim Doyle.
You would think that other states would learn and follow the successful policies of Gov. Walker, but no, the Democrats insist that their way is better. Take Wisconsin’s neighbor to the south, Illinois for example. Illinois is the political home to Barack Obama and is a prime example of just how unsuccessful Obamanomics really is.

Democrats in Illinois believe the way to fix the state’s economy is to tax the people even more. Initially, the tax hike was only going to be a temporary fix to help the state avoid bankruptcy. That’s like telling a creditor the check is in the mail when you haven’t written it nor have the money to write it. This happened back when Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator. In fact, with Obama’s help they increased taxes on personal income by 66% over what it has been. Sound familiar?
That temporary tax has now been made permanent. Gee, no big surprise there is there!
So how have the increased taxes helped Illinois’s economy?

Illinois has gone from having the 9^th best unemployment rate to be tied with Nevada for the second worse unemployment rate in the nation. The state has 376,000 fewer non-farming jobs now than they did when their beloved Barack Obama took office in January 2008.
Illinois is also spending $14,000 per student in public school. For just one classroom of 25-30 students, they are spending $350,000-$420,000 a year. In comparison, some private college preparatory schools graduate college ready students for a lesser cost per student.
Another contributing factor to Illinois’s financial woes is the fact that they have nearly 7,000 local government units, each with their own union contract and there has been no limiting their bargaining powers like what happened in Wisconsin. The more unions the more expense a state has.
There has been little to no effort to reduce spending in the state either as Gov. Walker did in Wisconsin. While Wisconsin sees their economy and jobs growing and prospering, Illinois sees their economy and jobs going down the same pathway to disaster as that of the federal government. But would you expect any different between Obama’s home political state and how he runs the federal government?
I just wonder when the American people will wake up and realize the difference between the economic policies of someone like Gov. Scott Walker and those of Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and President Barack Obama?

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15064/o...cZI6jA7mBYl.99

A New Study Says Obamacare May Be Working — But Not In The Way Anyone Expected

Brett LoGiurato

Apr. 8, 2014, 6:38 PM


AP

A new, highly anticipated study on the effects of the Affordable Care Act suggests the number of Americans without insurance has plummeted since September, lending more evidence to the notion Obamacare is having its primary desired effect.

And according to the study, the uninsured rate dropped due to a development no one saw coming, that had nothing to do with the controversial health care exchanges established by the law.

According to the RAND Corp. survey, which was released Tuesday, a net 9.3 million people have gained coverage since September — something that helped plunge the uninsured rate in the U.S. from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.

The RAND study comes with a big caveat, however. The topline number of 9.3 million contains a margin of error of 3.5 million people. That means as few as 5.8 million people could have gained coverage, or as many as 12.8 million.

Either way, it's still a big deal, said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at RAND and one of the study's two authors.

"All surveys are going to have this margin of error," Eibner told Business Insider in a phone interview Tuesday. "That's to be expected, because we're extrapolating results from a very small sample of the full population of the U.S., but nevertheless, the margin of error is telling us that we can have a high degree of confidence in the direction of our results, in that we've seen an increase in insurance. Because 9.3 minus 3.5 is still a significant increase."

In spite of these eye-popping topline numbers, the most interesting finding from the study might be the reason for the decrease in the uninsured rate. RAND projects it was due to growing enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance — programs that exist outside of the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Enrollment in these ESIs grew by more than 8 million from September through mid-March. This includes a large swath of individuals — 7.2 million — who were previously uninsured.

These numbers seem surprising on their face, but, Eibner said, they make sense.

"One thing that got lost in the discussion — the Affordable Care Act really wasn't just about covering people on the marketplaces," she said. "The law was intended to expand insurance coverage using a whole bunch of different programs, including the existing system, which is heavily based on employer-based coverage."

Eibner also added "any change" in the regulations governing ESI would be the primary factor behind movement in the overall insurance rate since, even with the new "Obamacare" exchanges, ESI remains "the major source of coverage" for most people in the country.

The apparent increase in the number of people insured with ESI identified in this study could be statistical noise that doesn't completely reflect reality. Indeed, few experts predicted the Affordable Care Act would lead to a surge in employer-based coverage. In May 2013, for example, the Congressional Budget Office projected the ranks of the insured through employers would rise by only 1 million. Furthermore, RAND doesn't have any data on possible reasons for the huge surge in employer-sponsored insurance.

However, Eibner offered several ways the Affordable Care Act could actually have led to a surge in the number of people insured with ESI:

• Obamacare's individual mandate and its potential penalty could be providing an incentive for individuals who had foregone coverage to sign up under their employers.
• Some firms could now be offering coverage due to the ACA. However, Eibner also noted the law has created very mixed incentives for employers to do that thus far.
• The slow-but-steady economic recovery could also be a contributing factor. The unemployment rate dropped a half a percentage point from September to March. With more jobs comes the potential for more people covered.

Additionally, another survey released by Gallup Monday came up with a similar number to RAND's 15.8 percent uninsured rate. In fact, Gallup put the uninsured rate even lower at 15.6 percent, its lowest level since 2008. However, while the Gallup survey would seem to support the RAND study's conclusion that the overall uninsured rate had dropped, it did not distinguish between types of coverage and doesn't make clear whether the decrease is due to more people being insured with ESI.

The RAND study was completed through rather unusual methods. The results in the survey are based on a representative sample of 2,425 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 who responded to the survey in both March 2014 and September 2013.

The Obama administration said last week enrollment through the healthcare exchanges had surpassed an original goal of 7 million. RAND's study only takes into account data from September through mid-March, which means subsequent studies should reflect the late surge in exchange enrollment in addition to any growth in the number of people insured with ESI.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...#ixzz2yU1CWBvU

The Charts Obama Doesn't Want You to See


Amy Payne

April 11, 2014 at 6:30 am

Talking about Obamacare’s effects is one thing; seeing hard data is another.
Heritage’s newly updated Obamacare in Pictures has 15 charts that show the law’s effects on Americans—from canceled insurance policies to new taxes, Medicare cuts, reduced choice for plans, and more.

Here’s a quick look at just three of these charts and how Obamacare is hitting three groups.
YOUNG PEOPLE

Obamacare says you can stay on your parents’ health insurance until you turn 26. This chart looks at what happens after that—if you don’t have employer-sponsored insurance and you have to get insured through Obamacare. If you’re trying to save for a car or house—or just paying rent to have your own place—seeing your premiums double is quite a blow.
SENIORS

You may recall Heritage experts’ warning that Obamacare would cut $716 billion from Medicare. That’s still happening.
Despite the Obama administration’s recent walking back of Medicare Advantage cuts for this year, Obamacare’s planned cuts to Medicare are moving forward. This chart shows which parts of Medicare are affected.
Heritage expert Alyene Senger has explained that, instead of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program, Obamacare targets the amounts Medicare service providers are paid. These cuts have ripple effects on seniors. Doctors, nursing homes, and other providers who can’t afford to be part of Medicare any more will cut back or stop participating—and that means fewer options and less access to care for seniors.
ALL AMERICANS

This chart looks a lot like a heartbeat—and it tracks one of Obamacare’s vital signs: public opinion. There has been a 10-point gap between support for and opposition to the law for some time now. That spike in opposition/sharp decline in support? It coincides with the flood of cancellation notices that landed in Americans’ mailboxes last year.
Obamacare remains unpopular because it’s raising taxes, killing jobs, and cutting Americans’ health care choices. We need health reform that reverses these trends.
>>> See the rest of Obamacare in Pictures
Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Quick Hits:

• Stephen Colbert tried to do Common Core homework. Watch what happened next.
• Want to know even more about Common Core? Watch this new documentary.
• What did Rob Lowe say about big government, “rich jerks,” and Vladimir Putin?
• The Obama administration already won on Benghazi, according to Charles Krauthammer.
• Watch Heritage President Jim DeMint on C-SPAN’s Book TV this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET.

Posted in

Amy Payne

• View posts by Amy Payne →
• @Amy Payne

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/11/obamacare-charts-obama-doesnt-want-see/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social


Obamacare is a total absolute fiasco for America. It is all smoke and mirrors, nothing what so ever to do with Healthcare it is all about control of you and yours. What did any one expect from something that you had to pass to read it!! Wake Up America, time is running out.