More Unintended Consequences from Unconstitutional Obamacare

While conservatives know that Obamacare was not about "health care for everyone" or "insuring the millions who are uninsured," there are still some who sing the praises of Obamacare and criticize those who call for its repeal or nullification. Those who have supported the atrocious Obamacare and continue to support it should explain to the millions of individuals who fall in the "coverage gap" how good Obamacare is for the poor when these individuals can barely afford their housing. Portions of Obamacare are holding millions back despite the rhetoric that Obamacare was designed to help the poor and those who could not afford insurance.

President of the Florida based St. Matthew's House, Rev. Vann R. Ellison, is trying to bring attention to the plight of those whom his organization provides assistance. Ellison claims that individuals in the $10,000 to $12,000 per year income range, fall in the "coverage gap." His organization cares for approximately 1,500 individuals, providing food and shelter, who are trying to work their way out of poverty.

According to Ellison, "We generally deal with lower income people trying to get their lives together. These people can't afford their own apartments."

Individuals in this income range earn too much to qualify for assistance under Obamacare, often they make too little to afford coverage or can pay the "penalty" that comes from not having an Obamacare plan. Rev. Ellison is trying to help these individuals who are impacted by this issue. Ellison doesn't believe these individuals should pay a fine calling this an "unintended consequence of a law that was pushed out before it was thought through."

Rev. Ellison should know that Obamacare was not about providing health care insurance for the uninsured, the poor or those who could not afford it; Obamacare was all about control of the people by taking over the health care insurance industry, rationing care, and ultimately leading to a single-payer, socialist system of medicine.

Ellison states the $95 "fee" creates a hardship on these individuals since the ones his organization cares for cannot afford their own apartments and food, much less pay for the Obamacare plans or the penalty assessed for not having coverage. In the meantime, Ellison is trying to help and involving members of the community.

"We're informing our local doctors. We're making sure the medical needs of the people are met," Ellison told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Daily Caller reports:

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 4 million people fall into the coverage gap. As its report notes, the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare was supposed to address the problem, but some states, including Florida, decided not to enact the expansion because it would owe untold billions of dollars to the government after 2017.

Kaiser, in its report, claimed that those who are in the coverage gap would not be able to afford Obamacare coverage without assistance. The report stated that the national average premium for a 40 year old individual who purchased their coverage though the Marketplace was $276 per month for a silver plan and $213 per month for a bronze plan in 2015.

Part of the problem with Obamacare, other than it being unconstitutional, was the intention for States to expand their Medicaid coverage, which States have the option to not comply. Congress, and Obama, expected all States to expand their Medicaid coverage because "that's what they wanted" in order to cover the uninsured poor millions who would not qualify for assistance under the Democratic legislation. It never occurred to these narcissists some States would not go along with their bidding, creating a coverage gap. Now that the coverage gap from Obamacare has surfaced, what will happen to those who cannot afford coverage or who cannot afford the penalty?

Well, that falls under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). You know, that agency who will strip you of everything you own if you don't pay, garnish your wages and totally ruin your life; unless of course, you are a member of Congress, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, an on-air employee of MSNBC, or any number of "protected" elite. Instead of admitting Obamacare is a failure, as it was designed to be, and repealing this atrocity or States taking the initiative and nullifying this act, this atrocity has continued to be unconstitutional law, producing a lose-lose situation for the citizenry. Not only do citizens have to deal with this atrocious law, they have to worry about changes via executive whim, knowing Obamacare is nothing more than the fleecing of America.

Republicans, who dominated both chambers, cannot stand to repeal this act because they also want to "replace" it with their own version of a health care insurance program, which is still a takeover of the industry. Where did any of these politicians get the idea that citizens wanted a federally controlled health care insurance industry or a socialized single-payer system since that is where this all leads? Someone in government should explain it. Unfortunately, we the people are not deserving of any attention whatsoever from the hacks in Washington.

No matter, those who support Obamacare will blame the States for this gap and continue to march in lock step with the government rhetoric despite whatever the unsavory consequences of this law are.

There are so many "unintended consequences" from Obamacare one cannot continue to think it coincidence – just as other "unintended consequences" from other actions coming out of the District of Corruption. American citizens can no longer afford to consider any part of Obamacare as being good for America or having the qualities their rhetoric has declared. It's about control, wealth redistribution, and moving into socialized medicine where rationing of health care resources will perpetrate a genocide/democide of the less productive individuals in the country. It goes hand in hand with the other actions of the government designed to enslave the people.

[By Suzanne Hamner posted on the International Forecaster,  http://www.theintenrationalforecaster.com ]
 

​Good News From the White House

​

Good News From the White House Concerning Pensions,
Health care and Benefits

 نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره
ما نقش سايهدگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت
نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايهدگر نمي دان نور
اگر رفت سايه. ررفت ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت
سايه پيدانيست نقش ديوار و چشمخيره ماسايه
ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدانيست نقش
ديوار و چشم خيرهماپيدانيست نقش

If I Hear Anything Else, I'll Let You Know.

Obamacare = Obummercare

10 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Going to Ruin Your Medical Care and Your Life By Elzabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.



Here are the ten most important points that I tell my patients:

• Your private insurance premiums will cost more and more each year.

• You will lose the choices and flexibility in health insurance policies that we have had available up until now.

• As reimbursements continue to drop, fewer and fewer doctors will take Medicare (for those 65 and older) or Medicaid (people younger than 65).

• Fewer doctors accepting Medicare and Medicaid causes an increase in wait times for appointments and a decrease in the numbers and types of specialists available on these plans. Consumers would be wise to line up their doctors now.

• Studies from various organizations and states have consistently shown that Medicaid recipients have longer waits for medical care, fewer options for specialists, poorer medical outcomes, and die sooner after surgeries than people with no health insurance at all. Yet an increasing number of Americans will be forced into this second-class medical care.

• As more people enter the taxpayer-funded plans (Medicare and Medicaid) instead of paying for private insurance, the costs to provide this increased medical care and medications will escalate, leading to higher taxes.

• With no eligibility verifications in place, millions of people who are in the US illegally will be able to access taxpayer-funded medical services, making longer lines, longer wait times, and less money available for medical care for American citizens, unless taxes are increased even more.

• Higher expenditures to provide medical services lead to rationing of medical care and treatment options to reduce costs. This is the mandated function of the Independent Payment Advisory Board: to cut costs by deciding which types of medical services to allow, or disallow. If you are denied treatment, you have no appeal of IPAB decisions; you are simply out of luck, and possibly out of life. This is a radical departure from the appeals process required for all private health insurance plans. Further, the IPAB is accountable only to President Obama, and cannot be overridden by Congress or the courts. IPAB is designed to have the final word on your health.

• Under current regulations, if medical care is denied by Medicare, then a patient is not allowed to pay cash to a Medicare-contracted physician or hospital or other health professional. Patients who need medical care that is denied under Medicare or Medicaid will find themselves having to either: 1) look for an independent physician or hospital (quite rare these days); or 2) go outside the USA for treatment.

• Expect a loss of medical privacy. Beginning in 2014, if you participate in government health insurance, your health records will be sent to a centralized federal database, with or without your consent.

The bottom line is that Americans are losing more and more of their medical freedom. By 2015, so many workers will be trapped in the government-run health insurance exchanges that there will be no going back to the private plans we have today.

At this rate, single-payer proponents will drive private insurance companies out of business, which has been their intention all along.

Americans need to become far more proactive about taking charge of their health. The healthier you are, the less vulnerable you are to our degrading healthcare system. It's also wise to consider proactively planning for medical treatment options outside the US.

Don't Fund Obamacare

Please go to this website and sign the petition. Help Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) to de-fund this stupid program.

www.DontFundObamacare.com

With Giant Rate Increases, Californians Hating Obamacare

Now Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64 to 146%, from Forbes.com

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own.

This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance “rate shock.”

Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.”

A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand. Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. “The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.” That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

Obamacare to double individual-market premiums.

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By “average,” I mean the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent. Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan.

In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the median cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent. For both 25-year-olds and 40-year-olds, then, Californians under Obamacare who buy insurance for themselves will see their insurance premiums double. Impact highest in Bay Area, Orange County, and San Diego

In the map below, I illustrate the regional variations in Obamacare’s rate hikes. For each of the state’s 19 insurance regions, I compared the median price of the bronze plans offered on the exchange to the median price of the five cheapest plans on eHealthInsurance.com for the most populous zip code in that region. (eHealth offers more than 50 plans in the typical California zip code; focusing on the five cheapest is the fairest comparator to the exchanges, which typically offered three to six plans in each insurance rating region.)

As you can see, Obamacare’s impact on 40-year-olds is steepest in the San Francisco Bay area, especially in the counties north of San Francisco, like Marin, Napa, and Sonoma. Also hard-hit are Orange and San Diego counties.

According to Covered California, 13 carriers are participating in the state’s exchange, including Anthem Blue Cross (NYSE:WLP), Health Net (NYSE:HNT), Molina (NYSE:MOH), and Kaiser Permanente. So far, UnitedHealthCare (NYSE:UNH) and Aetna (NYSE:AET) have stayed out.

Spinning a public-relations disaster

It’s great that Covered California released this early the rates that insurers plan to charge on the exchange, as it gives us an early window into how the exchanges will work in a state that has an unusually competitive and inexpensive individual market for health insurance. But that’s the irony. The full rate report is subtitled “Making the Individual Market in California Affordable.” But Obamacare has actually doubled individual-market premiums in the Golden State.

How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.

But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.

Obama attacked insurers in 2010 for much smaller increases

That Obamacare more than doubles insurance premiums for many Californians is especially ironic, given the political posturing of the President and his administration in 2010. In February of that year, Anthem Blue Cross announced that some groups (but not the majority) would face premium increases of as much as 39 percent. The White House and its allies in the blogosphere, cynically, claimed that these increases were due to greedy profiteering by the insurers, instead of changes in the underlying costs of the insured population.

“These extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “[Anthem’s] strong financial position makes these rate increases even more difficult to understand.” The then-Democratic Congress called hearings. Even California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a Republican running for governor, decided to launch an investigation.

Soon after, WellPoint announced that, in fact, because of lower revenues and higher spending on patient care, the company earned 11 percent less in 2010 than it did in 2009. So much for greedy profiteering.

So, to summarize: Supporters of Obamacare justified passage of the law because one insurer in California raised rates on some people by as much as 39 percent. But Obamacare itself more than doubles the cost of insurance on the individual market. I can understand why Democrats in California would want to mislead the public on this point. But journalists have a professional responsibility to check out the facts for themselves.

Challenges to Obamacare Still Not Done

We're not done yet. More challenges to Obamacare are lined up not to mention the State's nullification process. SCOTUS opens door to a new Obamacare challenge, by Sarah Kliff

It feels a bit like deja vu all over again. The Supreme Court has ordered an appeals court to reopen arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate and contraceptive coverage provisions, opening a potential path back to the highest court by late 2013.

The case at hand is one filed Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia. The university had filed one of the earlier suits against the health care law, which was among the dozens dismissed by the Supreme Court when it ruled the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to be constitutional.

The Liberty University case also is unique in that it was the only one where the appeals court decided it couldn’t even make a ruling, given that the provisions it was supposed to rule on hadn’t come into effect. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act precluded any rulings about the mandate’s constitutionality before the mandate actually took effect and individuals began paying penalties.

The Supreme Court sided against that viewpoint. In its decision, the justices said that it was within the court’s power to rule on the health law now. That leaves Liberty wanting some answers on the provisions it challenged in court. The Obama administration also agreed that these issues should go back to the Fourth Circuit. Other courts are already hearing new challenges to the health care law, too.

Liberty University doesn’t want to challenge the individual mandate as a tax; we already know what the Supreme Court thinks about that. But it does want are answers whether the individual and employer mandates in the law violate religious freedoms, by forcing Americans to pay for abortions. “Petitioners’ remaining claims should be subject to adjudication by the lower courts,” Liberty University’s lawyers wrote in a July 2012 petition for re-hearing.

The ever-helpful Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog, who has covered the Supreme Court for decades now, observes that this is a pretty rare move:

Ordinarily, the Court simply denies rehearing pleas with routine orders. The other side in such a situation is not even allowed to react to the rehearing petition unless the Court explicitly asks it to do so. The Court held onto the Liberty rehearing plea over the summer — a period during which it routinely denied a host of other rehearing petitions, without comment. The Justices took up the Liberty plea at their September 24 Conference, resulting in Monday’s order asking the Obama Administration to file a response — within thirty days – with advice on what the Court should do with the Liberty case. While not signaling what the ultimate disposition might be, that was a sufficient break from the normal practice that it carried at least potential significance.

It’s hard to know at this point what would happen if these two provisions of the health care law were overturned. Health policy experts don’t tend to consider the employer mandate as crucial to the health law’s success as the individual mandate. The vast majority of employers already provide insurance coverage, with no mandate at all.

If the mandate were to fall and employers were not to provide coverage, workers could potentially head to an insurance exchange and purchase coverage there, some with subsidies. Research suggests this coverage would end up costing employees more, but the option would still be there.

As to what happens next, the Fourth Circuit Court in Virginia must go ahead and rehear Liberty University’s arguments against the employer mandate and mandated contraceptive coverage. Jennifer Haberkorn notes that this circuit court moves quickly, meaning oral arguments could happen as soon as spring 2013. And that could lay the foundation for a repeat performance in front of the Supreme Court late next year – just before the major parts of the health care law are expected to kick into gear.

SCOTUS opens door to a new Obamacare challenge, by Sarah Kliff
It feels a bit like deja vu all over again. The Supreme Court has ordered an appeals court to reopen arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate and contraceptive coverage provisions, opening a potential path back to the highest court by late 2013.

The case at hand is one filed Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia. The university had filed one of the earlier suits against the health care law, which was among the dozens dismissed by the Supreme Court when it ruled the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to be constitutional.

The Liberty University case also is unique in that it was the only one where the appeals court decided it couldn’t even make a ruling, given that the provisions it was supposed to rule on hadn’t come into effect. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act precluded any rulings about the mandate’s constitutionality before the mandate actually took effect and individuals began paying penalties.

The Supreme Court sided against that viewpoint. In its decision, the justices said that it was within the court’s power to rule on the health law now. That leaves Liberty wanting some answers on the provisions it challenged in court. The Obama administration also agreed that these issues should go back to the Fourth Circuit. Other courts are already hearing new challenges to the health care law, too.

Liberty University doesn’t want to challenge the individual mandate as a tax; we already know what the Supreme Court thinks about that. But it does want are answers whether the individual and employer mandates in the law violate religious freedoms, by forcing Americans to pay for abortions. “Petitioners’ remaining claims should be subject to adjudication by the lower courts,” Liberty University’s lawyers wrote in a July 2012 petition for re-hearing.

The ever-helpful Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog, who has covered the Supreme Court for decades now, observes that this is a pretty rare move:

Ordinarily, the Court simply denies rehearing pleas with routine orders. The other side in such a situation is not even allowed to react to the rehearing petition unless the Court explicitly asks it to do so. The Court held onto the Liberty rehearing plea over the summer — a period during which it routinely denied a host of other rehearing petitions, without comment. The Justices took up the Liberty plea at their September 24 Conference, resulting in Monday’s order asking the Obama Administration to file a response — within thirty days – with advice on what the Court should do with the Liberty case. While not signaling what the ultimate disposition might be, that was a sufficient break from the normal practice that it carried at least potential significance.

It’s hard to know at this point what would happen if these two provisions of the health care law were overturned. Health policy experts don’t tend to consider the employer mandate as crucial to the health law’s success as the individual mandate. The vast majority of employers already provide insurance coverage, with no mandate at all.

If the mandate were to fall and employers were not to provide coverage, workers could potentially head to an insurance exchange and purchase coverage there, some with subsidies. Research suggests this coverage would end up costing employees more, but the option would still be there.

As to what happens next, the Fourth Circuit Court in Virginia must go ahead and rehear Liberty University’s arguments against the employer mandate and mandated contraceptive coverage. Jennifer Haberkorn notes that this circuit court moves quickly, meaning oral arguments could happen as soon as spring 2013. And that could lay the foundation for a repeat performance in front of the Supreme Court late next year – just before the major parts of the health care law are expected to kick into gear.

Political Conversation with a Young Woman

I was listening to Mark Levin last night when he admonished everyone to get out and talk to people about what is at stake in this years Presidential election. So he gave me the idea to recount a conversation I had with a 29 year old young lady. The conservation started about the argument to legalize drugs or NOT!,....the Tea Party,.....illegal immigration,.....and then into alternative fuels, where I pick up the conversation.....

Me: "You're right, we need to be able to use waste products to create bio fuels. I fully support research into that."

Young Lady: "Yeah but, the technology is current. Lots of people make biofuels now for diesel vehicles."


Me: "You are correct, but the production costs are so high to manufacture bio fuels is that conventional petroleum products are infinently cheaper."

Young Lady: "Well at least you can say that Obama is on the right track developing solar and wind power so we don't have to pollute so much."


Me: "Obama hasn't done anything except give away tax payers money to solar firms that have all failed, and failed to pay back the government, again tax payers, money."

Young Lady: "Well, Obama is also drilling more oil, so I guess he is hedging his bets. I heard or read that under his leadership there is more drilling than ever before."


Me: "First of all, leadership is a contradiction in terms when used in the same sentance with Obama unless you also use an adjective such as failed. Secondly there is more drilling being done, but all on private lands despite Obama's efforts and efforts of his Justice Dept and the EPA to keep these drills from being struck. Thirdly, there is much less oil drilling on public lands and waters than every before since Obama through up EPA road blocks to drilling. Plus the price of gasoline is twice as high now than it was under Bush. That's energy progress?"

Young Lady: "If this is true, then how come I haven't read about this or see this on the news?"


Me: "Well,......try this experiment. Listen to CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and NBC objectively and see how many pro Obama and pro-Romney and how many anti-Obama and anti- Romney articles or news segments there are. I think a rational person will conclude that all these legacy news sources will be decidely slanted towards projecting favorable coverage of Obama and un-favorable coverage of Romney.

Young Lady: "How is the average person supposed to know what is truth or not?"


Me: [What I wanted to say: "If Obama's or a liberal's lips are moving - they are lying"]....what I did say: "It is up to you to become an educated voter. You have an obligation to vote and you have an implied obligation to be educated before you vote."

Young Lady: "Yeah, you're right. I need to be informed on the issues. How do I go about doing that?"


Me: "I look at all different sources. I suspect the sources that use judgemental verbiage as opposed to just reporting on the news. I am also a conservative and identify myself with the tea party so some of the news sources I follow may not be as diverse as you would like. Fox News, hands down, is the most objective. Do not confuse their commentators such as Hannity with objective reporting. While I feel Hannity tells the truth, he is a conservative commentator.

Young Lady: "Well, I just don't want to watch nothing but people tearing Obama down."


Me: "Fair enough,...but can you give me one,....just one thing that Obama has done to make this Country better other than become the first black President and therefore seemingly overcoming the racial ceiling?"

Young Lady: "Passing Obamacare has to his premier accomplishment."


Me: "Bear with me a minute,.....I am going to ask a couple of questions then give you the answer.......When the Obamacare bill was finished and went before Congress was it published on the internet for 48 hours so the public could read and provide comment? and Who actually passed Obamacare"?

Me: "The Obamacare bill was passed by a Committe missing any Republican representation. The Democrats shut the Republicans out of the process. Then sent the bill to Congress for a vote. The republicans asked to read the 2,700+ page bill before they voted. The Democrats would not allow it and demanded an immediate vote. This is where Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, declared that 'we must pass the bill to find out what is in it'. The Democrats had a majority in both houses,...passed the bill, then sent it to the President for signature. The rest is unconstitutional history."


Young Lady: "Well, I don't know that to be a fact."


Me: "You have to educate yourself,......continue to bear with me a minute,.....Does Obama say that Romney is going to destroy Medicare for Seniors?"

Young Lady: "Yes".


Me: "Romney and Ryan declare they will leave Medicare alone for seniors and those 55 years and older, but need to fix Medicare because it is going broke. Did you know that Obama took out over $700 Billion dollars from Medicare to fund care for welfare recipitants and illegal aliens under Obamacare?"

Young Lady: "No. I haven't heard that."


Me: "Well, I guess you have some work to do".

I said goodbyes and left. This young lady talked to wife afterwards and said "your husband gave me a lot to think about. It seems that the truth is hard to find."

My wife replied " Indeed it is.........if you're a Liberal"

Best Primer on Obamacare

Sometimes, somebody makes a concise argument presenting undisputed facts and figures to clearly present the truth. The below video is as short and clear, not to mention factual, as you will find on obamacare and the timeline for it's implementation. I wish all AMericans, especially Seniors could see this.

The Outrage Piles On

In the Are You Kidding Me Catagory
President Barack Obama says his biggest mistake since getting to the White House three and a half years ago has been his tendency to tackle the job as national policy issue rather than continuation of the inspiration he brought out in the 2008 campaign. What?!?!? Obama say's: ".........the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times." Mitt Romney said it best when he said: "Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead." Well, you can't lead from a golf course nor while on expensive tax payer funded vacations.

16,000 New IRS agents to enforce Obamacare
Why in the world would Obama need to hire 16,000 more IRS agents to enforce a law that is supposed to be good for us? The truth is simply because the law is an anchor around the collective necks of American citizens and small businesses. People are going to revolt. If Obama gets re-elected, after 4 more years of his marxist-socialist bent policies and usurpations of the Constitution and massive over reach of executive power, one of two things wil happen: 1 - The American people will be s pissed that the election of any Democrats in the new two decades will be impossible, or, 2 - this Country will be no more.

Small Businesses should thank the Government for their Success.
In Roanoke, VA this past Friday, Obama declares small businesses shoud be thanking the government for their successes since "you didn't build it, someone else did". WHAT?!?! His class warfare rethoric picks up speed, pulling the entitlement chain on people and rallying the Democrat base who are the people who demand everyone else pay for them. The problem is that under Obama these people have grown to a large amount of the American population.

Obama touting Jobs Created. Obama and some of this administration flunkies were talking about the 80,000 jobs created in the past month. With 23 million Americans out of work and the real unemployment rate at around 18%, these numbers are dismal. What they don't want you to know is that 30% of these jobs are temp jobs without benefits! And around 25% of all the jobs created since 2008 are Government jobs,.....and remember these government jobs do not create any product or commodity.

Obamacare: Pass It To Find Out What's In It

Remember when Nacny Pelosi urged the passing of the Obamacare Legislation in order it find out what's in it? Who can forget? This was a pivotal moment in American Government when all doubt was removed about the inmates running the asylum. Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas - highlighted several completly egregious pages of HB 3200.

Page 50/section 152:
The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are here illegally.

Page 58 and 59:
The government will have real-time access to an Individual's' bank account and will have the authority to make Electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

Page 65/section 164:
The plan will be subsidized (by the Government) for all union members, union retirees and for Community organizations (such as the Association Of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Remember when Obama granted waivers and allocated grants to Nebraska and Louisiana to get delegations from those States to vote for Obamacare? In otherwords a bribe, and a thinly disguished one at that. Since then Obama has direct that hundreds of wiavers be granted to special interest groups that write checks to the Democratic campgain coffers.

Page 203/line 14-15:
The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Yet, the Adminstration's lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that this is a tax!

Page 241 and 253:
Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all Doctors's fees.

Page 272. Section 1145:
Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. At age 76 you are not eligible for cancer treatment.

Page 317 and 321:
The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

Page 425, line 4-12:
The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (This is the infamous "Death Counseling")

Page 429, line 13-25:
The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to Members of Congress. Members of Congress are already Exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded Private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
- Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas

Obama on Obamacare and the Supreme Court - Arrogance, Intimidation or Ignorance?

In the aftermath of closing arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of Obamacare and perhaps with the sinking feeling that his signature legislation is going down the tubes, on Monday 2 April President Obama said "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

Nevermind the thinly veiled attempt to chastise (or threaten?) the Supreme Court,.......now you be the judge,....Obamacare passed in Congress by a 219-212 margin,...this is "a strong majority?"

This comment of Obama prompted critics to accuse the president of trying to intimindate and bully the nation's highest court. One of those critics was Judge Jerry Smith, out of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who with two other judges on Tuesday to ask the Justice Department to issue a three-page, single-spaced letter affirming the federal court's authority to rule on the case.

Which we think is appropriate since Obama's Justice Department serves more like an Obama support group than an independent entity enforcing the laws of this country indiscriminantly like they are supposed to. But, adding fuel to the fire, regarding Judge Smith's request, Attorney General Eric Holder went public, defending the President's attempt at intimindating the Supreme Court by stating that Obama's comments were "appropriate."

I think Rusk Limbaugh got it right when he said Obama's strategy is to inflame the uninformed masses, using the theme that the Supreme Court is "taking away your health care rights" in order to get these hand out, entitlist's engaged (and enraged) for the November election.

P.S. I was going to mention how Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, was totally inept in defending President Obama's comments on the Supreme Court, during press conferences, but this butt clown needs no flogging,....he did it to himself with the comment that what the president said was "the reverse of intimidation."

"Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen." - Ben Stein

Obamacare Arguments Continue

With all the news programs analyzing arguments at the Supreme court over Obamacare and with past and present politicians interviewed for their slant on the issue and which direction the Supreme Court will rule, a new low was "achieved" when Fox News interviewed Arlen Specter (D-PA) who of course used to be Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Specter, whose total commitment is to himself, his status and of course his golden benefits from being a U.S. Senator, said that Obamacare was totally legal and justified and that since (he thinks) the Supreme Court is the most politicized court in history, they may rule against Obamacare,..blah, blah, blah.

Here's a hint you old dried up, selfish butt clown of a Senator,......the issue IS NOT what you think is good for the American people - that's an arrogrant position to take anyway,...you and the Dems, who passed this into law without even reading the damn thing, think you know what is best for the American people. That's not your end state anyway. Your goal is to grab power for the central government and turn the population dependent upon the Federal government for simple existence.

Some will argue that the issue pertains to the destructive nature of Obamacare on the economy and business. While this is true, this is a very destructive law, the issue of it's effects on the economy is not a concern for the Supreme Court.

Make no mistake about it, the issue IS the constitutionality of Obamacare……whether the Federal Government can mandate/require the People to purchase a product.....and the Government can leverage a penalty if we don't purchase the product. What's next? Requiring the People to buy a electric car?

Obamacare - Challenged in Court

Today, Monday 26 March, begins the arguments at the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of Barack Obama’s signature freedom killing legislation. Pro-Constitutionalists and Entitlists both will be watching this very closely. Most predict that in any case the ruling will come from a slim 5-4 majority.

And then of course, no national issue, especially one that is disrediting the democrats so badly would be complete without Nancy Pelosi running her mouth. Nancy’s statement: ”I appreciate my colleague's leadership on helping us honor what our founders put forth in our founding documents, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”……..“and that is exactly what the Affordable Care Act helps to guarantee.”

Pelosi continues: ”A healthier life, the liberty to pursue happiness, free of the constraints that lack of health care might provide to a family,”……“if you want to be photographer, a writer, an artist, a musician, you can do so. If you what to start a business, if you want to change jobs, under the Affordable Care Act, you have that liberty to pursue your happiness.”

Well, what can you say about Pelosi? Nobody thinks of her as having cognitive function. She is mostly referred to in terms like village idiot.

All this coming on the heels of Obama trying to take religious freedoms away by mandating religious institutions to provide birth control against their religious and moral objections.

It has been two years since the Democrats crafted the Obamacare law behind close doors then passed this monstrosity without reading it.

The law was quickly challenged by states' attorneys general from multiple states, while congressional Republicans vowed to "repeal and replace" it. The new regulation also galvanized the tea party movement, which was credited with changing the political landscape and driving home a Republican-swinging 2010 midterm election which gave the Republicans a victory of historic proportions.

Of course, Americans being Americans, and having several other more pressing issues such as paying bills (and playing sports) have long since put Obamacare on the back burner, especially since various parts of the law take effect at different times. But that sure did not keep a butt load of organizations from getting “waivers” from the Administration. Mitt Romney had it right when he said as President he would direct his Attorney General to grant a waiver to every state, effectively nullifying Obamacare.

A recent Gallup poll found that only 1 in 7 respondents said they had experienced something positive from the law.

A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimated that 5 million people may lose their employer-based insurance between 2019 and 2022. The CBO also found that 2 million fewer uninsured Americans would gain coverage by 2016 than previously thought.

The reason for the front loading of the more benign parts of Obamacare and delay on the more controversial parts was no accident. Obama knows that Americans have short term memories and he wanted to secure a second term before the really asinine parts of Obamacare take effect, plus he doesn’t want a lot of obstacles, nor popular dissent, when he really starts taking away our freedoms.

Lets hope from clarity and the right decision from the Court.

A Young Doctor's Opinion

This was sent through the patriot e-mail net. This Physicians is going to be a folk hero as well as no doubt recieving scorn from leftist in his profession.
Pictured at left is a young physician by the name of Dr. Starner Jones. His short two-paragraph letter to the White House accurately puts the blame on a "Culture Crisis" instead of a "Health Care Crisis". If you doubt any part of what Dr. Jones says, go visit your local hospital emergency room as an observer for an hour or so some Friday or Saturday night. Diagnosis, prognosis and cure in just three (3) short paragraphs! It's worth a quick read:

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"!

During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses.

Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me."

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,

STARNER JONES, MD

Rush Limbaugh's Slur and the Rest of the Story

Everyone has heard about Rush Limbaugh insulting the young Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, after her testimony to Congress about the implications and effects on students, mostly women, not having contraceptives included in their student health plans. Well, Rush is a big idiot who runs his mouth. Even though he takes up conservative causes, he is someone I do not listen to at all. I just can't stand his
tone of voice or his rethoric.

But what is being lost in the whole "Rush called her a slut" news event, if the actual testimony from Sandra Fluke. Warning - this is not going to be politically correct! But I'm a tax payer and I'm damn mad!

She, Sandra, has seen the "emotional, mental and physical" toll that lack of contraceptive care has on the women of Georgetown. She say's that without insurance, contraceptives can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. She goes on to say that (the costs) is "practically an entire summer's salary." Fluke also reports that 40% of the Georgetown women say they "struggle financially" due to the burden of providing their own contraceptives.

Wow,....it just breaks my heart that students, women in particulary, are getting the short end of stick because the Government, previous to Obama unconstitutional directive, failed in a so-damn-hard-hearted manner to provide women with a tool to live their lives in a chosen manner. I am not alleging excessive prosmicuity for these Georgetown co-eds, it's just amazing how far this Country has fallen to have our adult children, being educated in our best institutions, think they are entitled to have the rest of us taxpayers fund their lifestyle. How dare you Sandra Fluke!

I don't know what made me sicker,......listening to a young American think the trest of the country owed her,..or seeing Nancy Pelosi's face close up.

It's Not a Social Issue!

Recently I was listening to Talk Show radio covering the upcoming Michigan and Arizona Republican Presidential Primaries, mainly between former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA). The host was saying that these two candidates as well as the Republican leadership in Congress are making a mistake when they call out Obama on social issues, where in the host’s view, they should be concentrating on the economy.

The host saying it was a losing strategy to bang on Obama for trying to make religious institutions pay for birth control for the employees, and of course Obama rapidly backed up on that saying that instead the (evil) insurance companies will foot the bill to provide free contraceptives. For one point none of us believe that this is free in the first part – the insurance companies will pass of those costs in higher premiums to all, including the people who religious beliefs are contrary to birth control. Before you know it, it’ll be mandatory “free’ abortions.

But here’s a thought I heard on a different talk show,…..what if medical researchers found a “gay gene” which unborn babies could be tested for? Whould these liberals still be for open abortions for all? Or would they further expose their radical leftwing agenda and make some rule where abortions are okay as a means of birth control except where you want an abortion on a unborn child who has a Gay gene.

But I digress,…..the point is that the Conservative upset on Obama’s call for religious institutions to directly or indirectly fund the pill against their religious beliefs it not necessarily a social issue. It is a Constitutional issue because of, one – the direct assault on the first amendment, and two – a usurpation of powers to the executive office which are, frankly, like a Central American dictatorship.

And this is not like the first time it has happened in the last three years or since Obama took the oath of office. Obama has unconstitutionally created Czars; used stimulus funds to run conservatives out of the retail car market; ordered and/or allowed the Justice Department to let federal criminals go unpunished (such as the Black militants threatening voters in PA) and instead focused on suing the states who won’t accept either Obama’s incompetence or attacks on the Constitution. Obama gave us Obamacare,….you have to pass the bill to see what’s in it? Are you kidding me? Now we have see some of what is in it and are disgusted by it.

We have seen anti-business regulation after regulation; Obama putting this country's very security at risk with his anti-drilling and anti-pipeline positions he takes. He gave us Solyndra,….$550 million for a bankrupt company. Obama’s further violations include declaring himself, absence of congress'es approval, when congress is in session or not, then making appointments of his anti-business buddies to run the Consumer Protection Agency.

For God’s sake now we have USDA inspectors in elementary school telling mothers what makes a nutritious lunch?

Nope.....these are Constitutional issues. One man or one branch of office does not have these powers. The Democrats controlled Congress for his first two years, and who now control just the Senate, are allowing him to do this. Damn right we need to make this an issue come the late summer.

Federal Diet

You have heard of the Atkins Diet,..the Longbeach Diet,...the Sicilian Diet,....now get ready for the Federal Diet.

Watch Will Cain of Glenn Beck TV on Obamacare. He lays out many questions and historical perspective on Obamacare and the issues that will be before the Supreme Court this coming sping. Worth watching to the end where there is a clip on now Supreme Court Judge Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing,....Senator Colburn (R-OK) ask a plain question: "Can the Government force the People to eat certain things everyday." Kagan did not answer because she could not without giving away not only her support for Obamacare, but where her philosophy on big government knowing better for the people.

Amazing and scary times we live in.



For additional reading go to the GBTV site, here, and see the reader comments from this clip.

Obamacare - More than Medical Malpractice

There is increasingly talk around the nation as elements of Obamacare make their way into people's consciousness. Nancy Pelosi was right when she said “we have to pass the Obamacare Bill to see what is in it.”

Separate Physician's conferences, in Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL made it clear that the seniors are going to suffer under Obamacare "support care" mandates as opposed to the current status of treatment plans developed between the patient, the patient’s family and the Doctor’s.

Sarah Plain was right when she said Obamacare has “Government Death Panels” in the ladder of medical care. The Independent Physicians Advisory Board (IPAB), is a 15 person panel appointed by the President, to review what kind of health services Medicare should and should not provide as a way to save money. What that means is that, inevitably, significant numbers of people on Medicare won’t get the care they need, and thanks to the single-payer system, lack of Government use of existing free enterprise medical insurance providers (read individual choice) and the fact that the government has received money for those Medicare premiums. Most people, particular the elderly, will have little choice but to suffer more and die more quickly.

But make no mistake about it,…this is not a medical issue,…this is a freedom issue. And choice between the America we have established and enjoyed, paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of patriots, to an America ran by bureaucrats. This is simply an issue of a select group of people (read Democrats), who see themselves as elite, seizing control over the population. More control than what is allowed, or enumerated, by the Constitution.

Obamacare must be re-called…… Individual freedoms restored…….the the Government must embrace the Constitution once more. Many prominent Republicans and Patriots see this clearly and have published works outlining the core issues and solutions. It is imperative we select a conservative to the Executive Office and restore a Republican majority to the Senate. The latest, and not so latest, works by Conservatives who are defining the cause:

Obamacare Top Item on Supreme Court Term Agenda

Obamacare will be on the agenda in the new Supreme Court term that opens today, setting the stage for one of the most important decisions in decades.

We'll also see cases argued including using Law Enforcement use of GPS tracking devices without a warrant; prisoner rights issues with strip searches in jail; and free speech arguments involving radio broadcasters and television "excited utterances" with expletives.

Additionally, there are several other important cases that may make their way to the Supreme Court including racial set asides for college admissions; homosexual-lesbian adoption rights; Arizona Illegal Immigration law.

The Obama healthcare law, which of course not counting Obama's rapid and historical depletion of this Nation's treasure through gigantic debt spending, is his top signature accomplishment (too bad both "accomplishments" are destroying this nation), and after being ruled unconstitutional in many states, the Supreme Court challenge sets up one of the most important tests of the powers of the Federal
Government vice the states, as well as the U.S. Constitution possibly ever to be decided by the Supreme Court.

note: There are 26 states with lawsuits against the federal government over Obamacare.

The latest pre-Supreme ruling on Obamacare came from U.S. appeals court ruling in Atlanta that struck down the law's mandate that all Americans have health insurance. Of course, Obama's defense is that Congress adopted the law to address a national crisis that put health insurance costs beyond the reach of millions of Americans and denied coverage to millions more. But we know that's a lie. The
Democrats, and the Democrats alone, jammed this bill down the throats of Americans, pushing aside Republicans during the what? 12 hours of analysis before the bill was voted on? Remember Nancy "the babbling idiot" Pelosi saying that "we'll have to sign the bill (and enact it into law), to find out what's in it".

A Quote from an Anonymous American

From an Anonymous American,....

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."