Thread: The Future of Obamacare

Latest Obamacare Cancelation

1786 Comments

Census Survey Revisions Will Hide Effects of Obamacare


BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 15, 2014 1:32 pm
The Census Bureau is changing the way it conducts its annual survey on health coverage in a way that will make it nearly impossible to measure the impact of Obamacare.
Hotair.com explains:

As it turns out, the change the Bureau is making all but guarantees that the number of uninsured next year, post-ObamaCare, will be lower than than the number last year, pre-ObamaCare. This drug will work, even if the feds have to tweak how success is measured to ensure it. […]
They’ve been asking people whether they’ve had any health insurance over the past year. Supposedly, that produces a lot of false negatives from lower-income people who’ve forgotten that they were on Medicaid for a time before leaving the rolls. By changing the questions and following up later, they’re going to try to help people remember better by reconstructing a timeline with them for the past 12 months. All of which is fine—but why do it now? Logically, in the interest of preserving a clear comparison of America before and after a massive overhaul of the health-insurance industry, you’d want to hold all variables in a survey like this constant between 2013 and 2014. Unless, that is, the goal here is producing rosier numbers by any means necessary.

An internal Census Bureau paper said that “it is coincidental and unfortunate timing” that the survey was overhauled just as Obamacare took effect.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/census-...-of-obamacare/

Obamacare Beaten by Employers in Covering the Uninsured

Sarah Hurtubise 2 hours ag

Employer-sponsored coverage has accounted for the bulk of a recent drop in the uninsured population, according to a RAND Corporation study released Tuesday, not Obamacare.

When it comes to the previously uninsured, 7.2 million gained employer-sponsored coverage, 3.6 million gained Medicaid and just 1.4 million signed up through Obamacare exchanges through the survey’s conclusion on March 28.

With employer-based coverage providing most of the bump in coverage, it will be difficult to attribute the gains to the health care law, given the two-year delay of the employer mandate.

The in-depth survey’s finding was previewed by the Los Angeles Times, which reported last week that just one-third of exchange sign ups were previously uninsured. The full results of the study are now public and through mid-March, 3.9 million people were enrolled in marketplace plans. Just 1.4 million of those did not have prior health coverage.

The authors collected data through March 28 and acknowledged that the survey didn’t include the surge of so-called enrollments in the final days of the month, which brought the Obama administration’s total to 7.1 million, or the ongoing enrollment that’s available through April 15. But the bulk of the uninsured that highly anticipated purchasing subsidized health insurance on the exchanges would have been more likely to purchase coverage right away. The study did not determine how many enrollees had paid for their health plans.

While the health survey determined that 1.4 million people were newly insured by the Obamacare exchanges , it simultaneously found that 5.2 million people had their health insurance cancelled due to Obamacare and “less than one million” remained uninsured, bringing the net coverage gain for Obamacare’s private plans uncomfortably close.

The study’s net totals found that 14.5 million people gained coverage over the past six months while 5.2 million lost it, for a net gain of 9.3 million people. But the exchange’s came in last place when RAND looked into the reason for the shift. The private insurance market had by far the largest effect, followed by Medicaid.

Fully 7.2 million, or 59 percent of the newly insured, got new coverage through their employer.

Another 30 percent received Medicaid coverage, a welfare program which boosts emergency room visits for non-emergent reasons, such as colds and flus, and which has repeatedly been found not to improve health outcomes. It’s probable that a good chunk of these new Medicaid enrollments are from Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Obamacare exchanges through March 28 accounted for just 11 percent of the newly insured over the past six months.
The study didn’t examine the last several days of March, when Obamacare exchanges saw consumers select another million plans. Enrollment is still open for another week thanks to an extension.

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/2014/04/ob...W9Ch1LfPf1O.99

Remember you had to pass it so you could read it!! What part of "stupid is as stupid does" do we not get yet! Are you exempted! How many deadlines have we had so far???! Remember who voted for this fiasco. Let all get together and thank them shall we???

Court Blocks Obama Admin From Enforcing HHS Mandate Against James Dobson

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/18/14 3:32 PM


Pro-life leader James Dobson is the latest to win a victory against the Obama HHS mandate, that forces companies and organizations to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees.
Alliance Defending Freedom, the pro-life legal group, helped Dobson and hailed the federal court’s order blocking enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against Dr. James Dobson and his “Family Talk” radio show and ministry in Dobson v. Sebelius.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot told LifeNews: “In America, we don’t try to separate what people do from what they believe. Faith-based organizations should be free to operate according to the faith they teach and live out every day. If the government can fine Christian ministries out of existence because they want to uphold their faith, there is no limit to what other freedoms it can take away. The court was right to block enforcement of this unconstitutional mandate against Family Talk.”
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit last year against the Obama administration on behalf of Dr. James Dobson and his “Family Talk” radio show and ministry, a Christian non-profit organization that is currently subject to Obamacare’s abortion pill mandate.
The lawsuit challenges the legality and constitutionality of the mandate, which requires religious employers to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception to employees regardless of religious or moral objections. Dobson and Family Talk object specifically to providing coverage for abortion drugs and devices.
“The government shouldn’t be able to punish Americans for exercising their fundamental freedoms,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Any government willing to force a family-run Christian ministry to participate in immoral acts under the threat of crippling fines is a government everyone should fear.”
“Our ministry believes in living out the religious convictions we hold to and talk about on the air,” added Dobson, Family Talk’s founder and president. “As Americans, we should all be free to live according to our faith and to honor God in our work. The Constitution protects that freedom so that the government cannot force anyone to act against his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. But the mandate ignores that and leaves us with a choice no American should have to make: comply and abandon your religious freedom, or resist and be fined for your faith.”
The lawsuit, Dobson v. Sebelius, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and allied attorneys are also litigating numerous other lawsuits against the mandate. The lawsuits represent a large cross-section of Protestants and Catholics who object to the mandate.
Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that 59 percent of likely voters “oppose the mandate requiring the coverage of preventive care services for women which includes all FDA approved contraceptives, including drugs that can destroy a human embryo, and sterilization services without a direct cost to the patient.”
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient. Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/18/c...-james-dobson/

Half of GA's Obamacare Enrollees Have Not Paid http://ow.ly/2FSvhR



Half of GA's Obamacare Enrollees Have Not Paid

ow.ly
Paid Yet. This seems rather important: Georgia insurers received more than 220,000 applications for health coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s exchange a ...

http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/hal...nrollees-paid/

The article below

Whoops! Half of Georgia’s Insurance Enrollees Haven’t Paid Yet.

By Jim Geraghty
April 21, 2014 6:26 AM


From the first Morning Jolt of the week:

Whoops: Half of Georgia’s Insurance Enrollees Haven’t Paid Yet.
This seems rather important:
Georgia insurers received more than 220,000 applications for health coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s exchange as of the official federal deadline of March 31, state officials said Wednesday.
Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens, though, said premiums have been received for only 107,581 of those policies, which cover 149,465 people.
“Many Georgians completed the application process by the deadline, but have yet to pay for the coverage,” Hudgens said in a statement Wednesday.
Half? Half? Sure, the nonpayment rates will be a lot lower in other places. But this indicates how much skepticism is warranted for the administration’s much-touted enrollment figures.
When Progressives insist that we’re wrong and Obamacare is more popular than it seems, they’ll point to the enrollment numbers. They dismiss the national surveys, but there’s some indication that Obamacare’s meager support in the polls is actually worse than we think, because it’s being artificially boosted by respondents that are eager to declare the whole thing a success, no matter how their state exchange is actually performing.
A couple of lessons from this bit of polling research by Jonathan Easley at the Morning Consult: Healthcare.gov is uniquely and perhaps disproportionately disliked by survey respondents, and some people just tell pollsters what they want to be true, not what is actually true:
In a testament to how political affiliation potentially colors an individual’s view of the law, Morning Consult polling from November through April found that people reported more positive experiences in states with largely broken exchanges versus people who used the federal exchanges. And that includes states where the exchanges never were fully operational…
We separated states into three different groups to do this analysis. The “broken” state exchange group included Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon and Vermont. (While it is an inexact measurement, we put states where healthcare officials struggled throughout the enrollment period to fully launch their exchanges into the “broken” category.) The second group of states—those with relatively well running exchanges—included Washington, Rhode Island, New York, Kentucky, Colorado, Connecticut, California and the District of Columbia. All other states where included in our third group, as they used the federal exchange website to enroll customers.
Among these groups, you might expect the states with barely (or not-at-all) functioning exchanges to rank last when it comes to users’ experiences. But the federal exchanges took that spot in almost every measure. The poll has a margin of error of two percentage points, and approximately 2,000 interviews were conducted in each poll from November through April.
The analysis notes, “In the 2012 election, President Obama won all of our “broken” exchange states. That perhaps explains the rosier view voters in those states have of the law, even though the exchanges in many cases barely worked.” In other words, there’s a strong possibility some Obama voters declared their state health insurance exchanges to be success even when they personally experienced its failure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...t-jim-geraghty

Roadblock to Health Care Reform


Analysis: 2009 GOP health care proposal illustrates the challenges in unifying Republicans




AP



BY: Andrew Evans
April 19, 2014 5:00 am

Despite the Obama administration’s declaration of victory in the Obamacare Wars, Republicans still vehemently oppose the law. House Republicans have voted to repeal the law scores of times, top Republican leaders are calling the law a “disaster” and a “catastrophic failure,” and Republicans are expected to campaign heavily on the law’s flaws in this fall’s midterm elections.


However, the GOP has yet to unify behind a replacement to the law, despite calls from Republican lawmakers for the party to put forward a viable alternative.

An analysis of the last significant proposal by Republicans to be endorsed by the Republican leadership and receive a vote from the full House of Representatives shows why the party is having such trouble formulating an alternative.

Then-Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) introduced an alternative to the Democratic proposal in November 2009, titled the “Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act.” The bill represents what kind of alternative Republicans could unify behind at that time.

The Boehner plan allowed people to buy insurance from other states and medical malpractice lawsuit reform. It also included money to bolster high-risk pools in the states to cover people with pre-existing conditions, financial incentives for states to drive down insurance premiums and decrease the number of uninsured, and rules increasing the flexibility of tax-advantaged Health Savings Accounts, or HSA’s.

The 2009 proposal was a modest plan that made incremental improvements to the health care system in America at that time, said Merrill Matthews, a health policy expert at the Institute for Policy Innovation. He thought that, while flawed, the proposal could form the foundation for a new proposal now.

Lanhee Chen, a health policy expert at the Hoover Institution and the policy director for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, agreed with that suggestion.

“I do think there is a lot in that proposal that is a useful guide as Republicans think about how to replace Obamacare,” he said.

The plan makes small changes that would drive down the price of insurance for some people, especially in the small group and individual markets. The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis of the program projected that it would lower insurance premiums by 7 to 10 percent for the small group market and 5 to 8 percent for the individual market.

The plan would not decrease the number of people without insurance by much, the CBO said. It projected only three million more people would get insurance under the plan, leaving 52 million uninsured.

Chen contended that Republicans were right to focus on driving down costs in 2009 instead of the number of uninsured—and they should do the same now.

Basing a reform around the goal of reducing the number of uninsured is using the wrong metric of success, Chen said. Instead, Republicans should focus on driving down cost so more people can purchase insurance with their current means.

The media’s focus on the number of uninsured creates a messaging challenge for this kind of approach, though. “Republicans have to be careful as they’re proposing these alternatives to try to reframe the debate a little bit,” Chen said.

Other experts contended that the 2009 plan is inadequate given the new insurance environment created by Obamacare.

“For both substantive and political reasons, Republicans ought to aim their sights higher,” said Ramesh Ponnuru, a domestic policy expert and senior editor at National Review. Repealing Obamacare and implementing the 2009 reform today would result in millions of people losing insurance coverage—making the plan an untenable option, he said.

The 2009 plan left out two areas that many conservative experts argue should be incorporated into any reform today: the tax code and Medicare. Republicans have largely coalesced around Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R., Wis.) Medicare reform plan, Chen said.

However, the tax code remains, and reforming it should be at the heart of any Republican proposal today, Ponnuru and others said.

“I think it is impossible to have a credible conservative reform of healthcare that does not tackle tax reform,” Ponnuru said. The tax code right now is biased toward people who receive insurance through their employers, making it more expensive for people who do not receive their insurance through their employer to purchase insurance. However, changing this tax structure could disrupt people’s employer-provided insurance.

This challenge is likely one reason why tax code changes were not included in the 2009 plan, Ponnuru said.

Thomas Miller, a healthcare expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the tax code is “no longer an untouchable area.”
“We’re in a different environment in 2014,” Miller said. “We need to do more and we need to do different.

Both Ponnuru and Miller described the Republican Party as divided into two rough camps: one that wants to dramatically overhaul the health care system in America along free-market lines, and another that does not want to alter it too much, if at all.

A good plan has to involve a tax-credit system that both gives people the opportunity to buy insurance if they do not get it through work and does not disrupt the existing coverage, said Jim Capretta, a health policy expert at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

This approach, while politically necessary, has the potential to fracture the Republican conference, Capretta said.

“Many, many Republicans support that proposal, but some Republicans have a hard time accepting it,” Capretta said.

The 2009 proposal was simply a “lowest common denominator” plan that was designed to unify the conference at that time, Miller said. As a result, it did not contain anything too controversial that could split the party.

But that approach will not work today. To be successful, any Republican plan will have to promise to broaden insurance coverage, Capretta said.

“I don’t think the 2009 plan does enough in that regard, so I don’t think it will be very relevant going forward,” Capretta said.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/roadblo...h-care-reform/

They oppose but they voted for it, they were for it before they were against it!!!! Make sense to me they don't work for America and the American people, they work for corporate interests over the American people...Corporate America wanted out of the yoke of 1. Pensions, and 2. Healthcare!!! Tell me again who do they work for America????

ObamaCare Cannot and Will Not Ever Be Repealed: Period.

Posted by Rodney Lee Conover on Apr 22, 2014

There was a time when ObamaCare could have been stopped, but it’s long over, so stop hoping for it or talking about it. Focus on Amnesty – that’s what Republicans have up their sleeves next for you.

ObamaCare is a done deal.

If you’re looking for the Republicans to get rid of the best thing they’ve ever had to kick the Democrat’s asses with – you’re a special kind of stupid. No matter how many times John Boehner lets House Republicans vote to repeal the ACA, it will never be repealed. Ever. Got it?

Do I have to explain it one more time? Fine:

ObamaCare was signed into law and no one wanted it, so Republicans were swept into the House majority in 2010 by the new Tea Party. The House could have defunded the ACA as per Article One, but they didn’t. They failed. No balls. Mostly a bunch of losers, it turns out. Two-thirds of them turned out to be RINO’s, seduced by DC and now along for the ride – voting like they’re told to – taking the money and giving you the high hard one.
Sure, they voted 47 or 50 times to repeal ObamaCare, but it never came up for a vote or even for debate in the Senate because of Harry Reid being the leader of the Democrat majority Senate. And even if it did, Obama would veto it.

That’s how our Representative Republic works. Defund, or live with it. You’re living with it. They could have funded the entire government except ObamaCare, but they didn’t.

Government didn’t have to shut down, either. Article One of the Constitution allows the House to defund single pieces of legislation while funding the entire rest of the government, so shut up already.

(By the way, will someone tell Bill O’Reilly how our government works? The Senate doesn’t “vote to defund” – the House does you dope. How’s that for pithy?)
Now I even hear my guy Ted Cruz saying he’s confident Republicans can soon repeal ObamaCare… uh-oh.

Even if we take back the Senate in 2014, guess what? Obama is still the President and will veto any repeal of his signature legislation. Duh.

Meanwhile, Republicans couldn’t be happier to have ObamaCare to run on, it being so unpopular with Americans. Forget that we’re suffering everyday with it – the ACA wins elections! And isn’t that more important that cancer patients losing their doctors, their plans, their hospitals, their treatments?

Let’s say there’s a miracle and the Republicans beat Hillary in 2016.. I know, I know, but just stay with me for a minute: The Republicans now have the House, the Senate and the White House. Aren’t we talking February or March of 2017 before they could actually repeal the ACA?

Do you have any idea how deep ObamaCare will have it’s tentacles in your life and the system as a whole by 2017? Repeal an entitlement then? Forget about it.
I just like this photo combo.

Tens of millions, maybe a hundred million will be in the system and it will have been the law for seven years, steadily being implemented and worming its way into the bureaucracy with tens and hundreds of thousands of government employees, hospital personnel, compliance officers, departments, billing, IRS agents – by the tens of thousands..

It’s probably too late now – but three years from now? Pa-lease – too late for sure. Besides, give me one piece of evidence the Republicans will start doing the right thing if they get back in power? In 2000-2005 the GOP had the House, the Senate and the White House:
Did they cut spending a dime? No. Did they eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, the EPA? Uh-uh. The GOP has been bitching about a Fair or Flat tax since I could walk, but did they reform the IRS or eliminate it? Hah! You mean disarm themselves? I think not.. In fact they became the most profligate spenders in the history of the U.S.

What about entitlements, did Republicans get rid of a couple when they had the chance – maybe privatize them? Did they at least reform entitlements? No, because they were too busy creating new ones. The Republicans were the worst stewards of the nation’s economy in the nation’s history… until Reid, Pelosi and Obama came along, of course.
Then all of a sudden, we’re the Party of cutting spending – look we got Paul Ryan!!

Cut me some slack you big-government lovers. Fact is, these guys sit around marveling at Barack Obama for how much money he’s been able to spend.

The GOP is not pissed at the debt, deficits or the spending – they’re just pissed that it didn’t go to their cronies – and now there’s no money left. Boo-frickin’ hoo.

Ridding you of ObamaCare was about defunding and now it’s lost. Done. Ain’t happening. The Republican’s took your money, your votes, your trust and screwed the pooch, friends. Now they have the best political weapon any Party has had since Watergate. You have ObamaCare now and you will always have it. End of story. That ship sailed and you better get used to it.
By the way, if you’re a conservative who believes in small government, the Constitution and individual liberty, The GOP despises you. They want you to go home and STFU.

They demonize the Tea Party and partner with the most evil people, funding campaigns to destroy conservative and Tea Party candidates. The GOP establishment takes money from labor unions, George Soros connections, John Podesta – it doesn’t matter - as long as they can gain power and money.

Republicans love ObamaCare and when they talk about repealing ObamaCare they are lying to you pal. Big time. They damn well know it cannot be repealed. Not now, not ever.

You better drop your concern about ObamaCare and focus on Amnesty ’cause that’s next. By the time 30 million undocumented Democrats are legalized, the current GOPster’s will be long gone.

Sleeping on beds of money.

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/oba...kdP2UUADIdT.99

I am worried that this may be fact!!! None of them are doing anything to repeal Obamacare...

For all of you that didn't listen to reason when everyone warned you about the current "administration" and voted for them anyway..
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE...
That Administration says that Clivan Bundy owes them money, and so they surround he and his family with a 200 man armed Nazi Brigade...
Just wait until you realize how ignorant Obama Care is and decide not to join, and now it's YOU that owe "them" money in the form of a fine.

michael powers's photos

Lawsuit Against Congressional Obamacare Subsidies Gets Support of 38 GOP Lawmakers


Thirty-eight Republican lawmakers came out in support of Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare subsidies for congressional staffers Monday night.

A group of 12 senators and 26 representatives, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Arizona Sen. John McCain, as well as the constitutionalist Judicial Education Project, filed an amicus brief in support of Johnson’s January lawsuit against the Obama administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

“The unlawful executive action at issue in this case is not an isolated incident. Rather, it is part of an ongoing campaign by the Executive Branch to rewrite the Affordable Care Act on a wholesale basis,” the filing reads. “The President of the United States is constitutionally obligated to take care that the law be faithfully executed; he does not have the power to modify or ignore laws that have been duly enacted by Congress and that he believes are constitutional.”

The brief coincided with Johnson filing his response to the government’s motion to dismiss his suit.

“This is just one example of the more than 20 unilateral changes made by the president to his own signature piece of legislation, but it was the one opportunity where I believe I had standing to challenge,” Johnson said in a statement. “Congress was clear: The misnamed Affordable Care Act required Congress and its staff to get its health coverage through the exchange and to do it without a tax-preferred employer subsidy, like anyone else who will lose employer-sponsored coverage.”

Lawmakers and staff are required to purchase health insurance from Obamacare exchanges due to a provision Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley worked into the law. But this required them to pay much higher premiums so they clamored for a work-around allowing the government to pay close to 75 percent of congressional staff’s health care premiums.

After pressure from lawmakers, President Obama reportedly promised Senate Democrats during a closed-door meeting in late July to find a solution. OPM accordingly issued guidance days later that allowed lawmakers and staff to keep their employee subsidies for purchase on the new exchanges.
But employers are prohibited from providing exchange plans to employees as a benefit, Roll Call reports. OPM’s guidelines claim a loophole in the law allows them to.

It appears that the subsidies have been helpful to Washington, D.C.’s Obamacare exchange, at the least. Though complete demographic data has not yet been released for each state’s health care marketplace, the District’s exchange has had the highest proportion of young adult sign ups for months — a feat no doubt aided by Congress’s young staffers, required to sign up and handed hefty federal subsidies.

The amicus brief was filed by D.C. law firm Jones Day. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton were some of the prominent signers.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/la...sV5cJq67uki.99


John McCain what is he the spoiler!!! We will just have to see what happens!!

#Obama



5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America http://ow.ly/2FZNoC




5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America

ow.ly
Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does.








5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America

Posted by Joe For America on Apr 24, 2014

Enter to win the Family Gun Package Giveaway!

When you allow unlawful acts to go unpunished, you’re moving toward a government of men rather than a government of law; you’re moving toward anarchy. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. — John Wayne

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. — George Orwell

Tell me why any American should respect the law?

Because it’s moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it’s not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.

Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the “law” is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people’s lives.

Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you’re prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.

So, what’s left?

Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren’t equally applied and don’t reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the “law” in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we’re likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.

1) Obamacare is whatever Barack Obama says it is: Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does. He simply doesn’t have the legal authority to delay the employer mandate, delay taxes that are written into law, or give subsidies through federal exchanges to places where no state exchange were set up. Yet, Obama has delayed or changed the meaning of the law 19 times as if he were Kim Jong-un, as opposed to the President of a republic.

2) There are different laws for Tea Parties and the Occupy Movement: In city after city, the Occupy Movement was allowed to protest without expensive permits, participants were allowed to illegally camp and in some places they were allowed to break the law with impunity, which is why it’s so staggering that there were still almost 8,000 arrests by the time all the dirty hippies abandoned their tents and rape-free zones to go home and take showers. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups across the country weren’t given any similar breaks.

Tea party activists…accused officials in at least four cities of giving preferential treatment to anti-Wall Street protesters, and one group in Richmond is asking the city to repay $8,000 spent for permits and other needs.

…The Richmond Tea Party said Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ administration sought permit fees, portable toilets and other demands for their events, but has given Occupy Richmond a free pass. The occupation has grown to a tent city, with a makeshift library, a volleyball net and a row of portable toilets. Jones has said that because he is a product of the civil rights movement he has allowed the Occupy protesters to remain since Oct. 17.

“He’s sympathizing with them,” said Colleen Owens, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Tea Party. “We would never, as a tea party, have gotten away with not complying with the law.”

Tea party organizers had to buy liability insurance, hire police and emergency personnel and even keep a defibrillator on site, Owens said.

When groups all across the country are charged thousands of dollars for permits and liability insurance solely because of their political beliefs while other groups are given a free pass, there is no equality under the law.

3) Illegal immigration becomes legal: Admittedly, George W. Bush did a mediocre job of securing the border and enforcing immigration law. However, as a practical matter, illegal immigration isn’t “illegal” anymore. Obama has illegally passed his own version of the DREAM Act, illegally handed out work permits to people who are breaking the law, and for all intents and purposes, has stopped detaining illegal immigrants who haven’t been charged with other crimes. Acording to Senator Jeff Sessions, “at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.” This is despite the fact that being here illegally is a crime and the people who broke that law did so knowing that the penalty was deportation. Tens of millions of immigrants have been welcomed to this country because as EVERYONE is well aware, we already have a “path to citizenship” for non-Americans and it’s called following the law.

4) The IRS illegally targeted Tea Partiers: If the IRS ever comes after you, try refusing to hand over documentation for years and pleading the 5th Amendment and see what happens to you. If you’re lucky, maybe you’ll end up in the same minimum security prison that Wesley Snipes went to after some advisors convinced him he didn’t have to pay taxes. Yet, after the IRS targeted Tea Partiers because they were conservative, tried to refer them for prosecution to the DOJ, and illegally released some of their information to outside parties, the IRS officials have been refusing to cooperate with the investigation. If the IRS wasn’t guiltier than Wesley Snipes, it would be cooperating just like the rest of us are forced to do when we face an audit.

5) Eric Holder encouraged state attorney generals to refuse to defend traditional marriage in court: In other words, if your state passes a ban on gay marriage, Holder wants state attorney generals to undercut the will of the people in order to further his political agenda. So according to Eric Holder, whether the people of a state get to have a representative in court depends on whether or not liberal attorney generals agree with their opinion or not. As John Suthers, the attorney general of Colorado, said,

I have been attorney general of Colorado for nine years, during which time the state has enacted laws that span the philosophical and political spectrum. I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs. But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.

…Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a “litigation veto” may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defanged and the attorney general can take credit — indeed, he can be the hero to his political base and keep his political ambitions intact. But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances, public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend.

….I fear that refusing to defend unpopular or politically distasteful laws will ultimately weaken the legal and moral authority that attorneys general have earned and depend on. We will become viewed as simply one more player in a political system rather than as legal authorities in a legal system. The courts, the governments we represent and, most important, the people we serve will treat our pronouncements and arguments with skepticism and cynicism.

When the “law” becomes little more than politics by other means, it deserves to be treated with the same rich contempt that we hold for politicians in this country. That has already started to happen, it’s not good for the country, and much to the chagrin of the liberals who love this lawlessness as long as they’re in charge, it’s not going to end with Obama.

Rightwingnews.com

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/5-w...AYoDEy27uXy.99