Category Archives: Health Care Reform

National Healthcare Insurers on Path to Merge from Five to a SINGLE PAYER

Many, including CDN, projected that consumer choice would become greatly limited after the imposition of Obamacare – this month is proving all of themhospital room right – and more.

The Economist published an article detailing the turmoil healthcare insurers are experiencing. The remedy they seek is to eliminate competition in an impossible marketplace:

A similar consolidation among health insurers was also predicted. But since the new insurance exchanges set up under Obamacare only went into operation last year, it has taken until now for it to be clear how big the merger wave may be. The largest insurer, UnitedHealth, has approached the number three, Aetna. The second-largest, Anthem, is trying to buy the number five, Cigna—which on June 21st rejected Anthem’s $47.5 billion bid. And the number four, Humana, has been looking at selling itself to either Aetna or Cigna.

Reduced competition is terrible for consumers. Prices inflate wildly and products/services become harder to get.

Once the healthcare marketplace is reduced to UnitedHealth, Anthem and Aetna, United and Anthem will fight over Aetna until just the two remain. With certain politicians in place, United will be allowed to acquire Anthem and there will just be one – a single payer.

It will be so much easier for progressives to regulate a single insurer into oblivion instead of dealing with a herd of cats all doing their own things. A behemoth like UnitedHealth needs the money the government gives it just to survive the weight of Obamacare. If UH doesn’t do what the government wants, that money is gone. And then – it will be gone anyway.

Once UnitedHealth becomes a figment of history, someone has to step in to save the imaginary “working class.” Gosh, who will that be?

Welcome to government healthcare. The crazy predictions from years ago are coming true and there will be no push back. People will just be happy to be getting “free” healthcare – no matter how unavailable or substandard it is.

The US Supreme Court Has Gone Rogue

Many on the Right side of the aisle are outraged. Gay marriage – a social issue at its core – has been validated by the US Supreme Court. The outrage is palpable. And while there is legitimacy to this outrage – especially with regard to the Court’s transgression of the 10th Amendment – the decision on gay marriage is a “bright shiny thing” that serves to quickly file us past an earlier decision that directly threatens the constitutional structure of our government: The Court’s ruling on King v. Burwell; the Obamacare subsidies.

No matter how you feel about the issue of gay marriage, the Court’s ruling on this social issue is an attack on the 10th Amendment, the rights of States to have authority over all things not enumerated in the US Constitution. But comparatively, the Court’s decision on Obergefell v. Hodges is a “mosquito bite” to yesterday’s “beheading” of our balance of powers at the federal level. We are being led away from what is tantamount to a “genocidal slaughter” of the Separation of Powers to gawk at a “highway accident.” With yesterday’s decision we are all – Liberal and Conservative, Republican, Democrat and Libertarian – losing our government to a transformative end stage; a commingling of constitutional branches and a centralized governmental authority in the federal government; something uniquely anathema to our basic governmental structure.

The Court’s King v. Burwell decision is so much more than its Obergefell v. Hodges decision because the former strikes at the root of how our government is supposed to work. By moving on from this constitutional crisis (and this is a true constitutional crisis) to outrage over a social issue when there are still remedies to be affected for said social issue, we are acquiescing to the Court’s decision on King v. Burwell – and the mortal damage it would establish to our system of government. No, with the Court’s King v. Burwell decision we should be fundamentally and exclusively outraged to the point of immediate action, arguing our points effectively and making a singular and cohesive stand for the Constitution.

There are those who argue that the Court’s attack on the 10th Amendment in Obergefell v. Hodges is equally as important as the Court’s direct assault on the Separation of Powers. I vehemently disagree and for good reason. The immediate danger to the Constitution and the survival of our nation – as we face forces that are achieving the fundamental transformation of our governmental structure – is the failure of the government structure itself, not the prior or resulting social issue movements. To make this argument is akin to believing that the crew of the Titanic should have started examining how to better construct a ship’s hull as the vessel was sinking instead of doing everything that they could to keep the ship afloat.

A simple solution to Obergefell v. Hodges is to remove government from the authoritative realm of marriage all together. One way to achieve this is through the utilization of contracts for legal affairs between cohabitants, leaving the sanctity of the institution of marriage to the Churches where it belongs. Regarding the issue of taxation, where marriage is concerned, radically transforming our tax system from one based on income to one based on consumption makes the issue of “marriage” and personal taxation moot.

That social issue solution understood, we can see why King v. Burwell is so much more important. We live in a time when judicial precedent trumps constitutionality, and we are, in real time, witnessing an explosion of the very structure of our government. Precedent is being set – right before our eyes – that would allow the Judicial Branch to directly rewrite legislation via the issuing of judicial edicts from this point forward.

While both these decisions are important, one cements the destruction of our governmental model, while the other is a social issue battle that the Progressives will use to keep the citizenry away from being cohesive on the latter. Should we fail to see this true constitutional crisis then we will witness, in the immediate, the end of our constitutional form of government.

One battle is so much more important than the other. If we cannot see that then we are not worthy of the freedom we pretend to enjoy. Truthfully, I am stunned this has to be explained.

Healthcare Ruling-Government Control Expands With Language

This week the Supreme Court struck another major blow to common sense and the English language. In a ruling upholding the subsidies afforded policies purchased on the federal insurance exchange, the SCOTUS opened a veritable Pandora’s Box of legal interpretation, and expanded power not only of the judiciary, but of the federal government itself.

2015-06-26-b1f429b7_largeSeven times throughout the Affordable Care Act (ACA) references are made to policies or individuals who are “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…” In each case, the context is citing policies purchased through insurance exchanges established and operated by the respective states. But the court ruled the actual legal language, and even the context, didn’t matter. What mattered was the “intent” of the congress. So reading “tea leaves” now has greater weight with our legal system than the literal words of legal documents!

To be clear, the case was brought to the court on that very issue, whether the literal meaning of the words of the statute were legally binding. The decision was not regarding the efficacy of the ACA, or whether it’s feasible. The decision was on whether the law could be interpreted to support federal subsidies for states with no insurance exchange or only those states that had established their own exchange.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, conceded that a strict reading of the Act clearly meant only policies purchased through individual state exchanges were eligible for federal subsidies. He wrote, “While the meaning of the phrase…may seem plain when viewed in isolation, such a reading turns out to be untenable in light of the statute as a whole. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

109044_600The Court has historically ruled on constitutionality of statute. With this decision, however, the Court has clearly become a proactive partner with Nancy Pelosi’s 111th Congress in writing the wholly inappropriately named Affordable Care Act. Seven times the Act described, in context, that subsidies would be available through Section 1311 sanctioned State Exchanges. Yet the Court by a 6-3 majority became a partner in writing the law, ex post facto, by redefining a key component of it.

Obviously, legislative intent is now more consequential than legal wording. This means that even legal documents generated by the government, which establish the rule of law by the selection and utilization of specific words and phrases, will not necessarily be judged based on what they actually say, but what the intent was. And since intent can be interpreted far beyond the scope of actual legalese, taking the government to court on any matter of law will now be a potentially arbitrary and spurious crapshoot.

To illustrate the absurdity of such a notion, imagine if the same principle applied to our legal documents regarding wills, property ownership, and child custody issues. If the Supreme Court’s logic, or illogic, were to be applied to our legal documents, what they say literally becomes inconsequential, for the intent is what is meaningful, not the words. We can claim that we didn’t intend to break the law when charged, but that doesn’t matter. But if we broke the law, what our intent was becomes inconsequential. Yet now the government claims the plenipotentiary authority to claim intent matters more than the actual law, and the language that created it. A government should never be able to do what an individual citizen can’t.

2015-06-26-b8f7c82c_largeIt’s common to take such a cavalier attitude towards what people or organizations say or write. They can say something, and then apologize for it, claiming that wasn’t their intent. But for government, this is a new low. It now has legal precedence to make the same claim with regard to statute and laws, if their intent was different than the actual wording of a law!

Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated the absurdity of the ruling in his dissent. “I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them…

“Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with, other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal Government….Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established by a State…

“The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: ‘Exchange established by the State’ means what it looks like it means.”

This ruling is not dissimilar from the 2012 ruling upholding the mandate of Obamacare. That ruling sustained the Act by identifying the “mandate” as a “tax.” It would appear with two major SCOTUS decisions upholding the Act, the only way it can be deemed constitutional is by the Court’s new precedence of reinterpreting and changing what the words actually say, legally. In other words, jumping through logical and linguistic hoops to make it so. As Senator Rand Paul said, “This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head.”

The omnipotent authority of the government over individual lives is now complete, when words can mean whatever the government chooses to make them mean. Alexander Hamilton, upon the founding of the nation, declared, “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” When government can arbitrarily change, reinterpret, and alter statute, after the fact, it is no longer just, or limited. It is totalitarian and hegemonic!

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Majority Decision in King v. Burwell Eviscerates Separation of Powers

According to the Fabian socialist-based government in George Orwell’s 1984, war is peace and freedom is slavery.

And according to the democratically-conscious Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court, a fee is a tax and state means federal.

The Court’s 6-3 ruling in King v. Burwell upholding the legality of subsidies in states that refused to set up a federal exchange is hardly shocking in consideration of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, but it is nevertheless disheartening.

Even as Jonathan Gruber’s important role in the construction of the legislation becomes more evident, the Court bent over backwards to accommodate the legislature’s supposed oversight in using imprecise language.

Gruber, of course, revealed the unspoken secret of the law- that is was written so states that failed to set up exchanges would be taxed without receiving any of the benefits, a scare tactic meant to raise the specter of public anger and force Republican governors into complying:

Roberts, however, in affirming the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the subsidies were legal, went to great lengths to ignore the public record of fact and accommodate the stated intent of the administration, claiming in his opinion:

“we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

There is absolutely no legal rationale in this decision; there is instead sycophantic sophistry. Yet, the Court’s decision to interpret the Act in a way that clearly goes beyond the plain language of the statute does not respect the role of the Legislature; it supersedes it, continuing a precedent established by the decision to call the individual mandate a “tax,” despite the clear insistence by the Obama administration that this was not the case.

The Court’s decision by itself is troubling, but the majority’s rationale is even more so because it is a complete evisceration of the separation of powers and vastly re-interprets the meaning of judicial review, which was established as the primary responsibility of the Court in Marbury v. Madison.

There has been much talk of the King v. Burwell ruling being purely about statutory interpretation. This was obliterated by the centrality of Congressional intent to Robert’s ruling.

But, the Court’s guidance by statutory interpretation is in itself problematic. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton explained the necessity of the chief judicial body being guided by the Constitution above other duly enacted laws:

“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents..”

The original intent of the judicial branch, as laid out by Article III and further defined by Marbury v. Madison, is strict Constitutional interpretation. Its articles and clauses are the lodestone for the justice’s rationale. But the introduction of case law and precedent caused the Court to drift away from its purpose.

The Court’s two rulings upholding the ACA are a tidal wave, pushing the power of the justices into new territory. They have invested themselves with interpretive powers that too closely mimic those given solely to the legislature.

But then, maybe James Madison was merely imprecise in his language when he laid out the carefully delineated system of checks and balances in the Constitution.

 

Nasty old white guys!

CPAC 2015 Pre-View

CPAC stands for the Conservative Political Action Committee. Big woop! What does that mean? Well, in looking at some of the posts on Facebook and other online services, I can see that the Left believes it’s a bunch of stuffy, old, white, grey-haired guys that think the only good minority is one working for minimum wage.
‘Where did that come from? Can’t be from actual fact. Because leadership in the Republican party is as diverse, if not more so, than the Democrats leadership.
Look at the lineup, Governor Bobby Jindal, U.S. Representative Mia Love, Carly Fiorina, Senator Tim Scott and the list goes on. So how is it we let the Dem’s paint a picture of us as the modern day KKK? Marketing! You can lie about anything as long as you market it to the right people the right way.
To be clear, the Dems voted against ending slavery, against giving women the right to vote, and they started the KKK with the express intent to scare the blacks back into slavery or kill them off all together.
The Democrats have painted a picture that Republicans were responsible for all this. Like Brian Williams’ rescue from the downed chopper, it ain’t so!
President LBJ said he knew how to keep them n*****s voting for Democrats for 100 years. He was right. Keep anyone dependent on the government for food, shelter, money and so on and they will do anything you want them to do out of self-preservation.
Republicans have always fought for the rights of all people. All the misdirection from the Left can’t change that.
And let’s talk about this “war on women.” …
Read more at TRS

The Perfection Known as Obama?

Once again, this week many of Mr. Obama’s failed “policies” started to close in around him; military, economic, healthcare, and immigration to name a few.
Mr. Obama has, again, submitted a plan to defeat ISIS… ISIL… terrorists, I don’t even know what to call them so he will know who I’m talking about.
He wants a 3 year war powers authorization to finally defeat “the enemy.” But it still doesn’t include boots on the ground. Really? Even after many of his military advisors, many retired military advisors, and many of the allies that we have left in the Middle East say it won’t work without boots on the ground. This plan comes from a man who continually ignores the experts, a man who probably hasn’t ever played a game of “battleship,” let alone care about our military as a whole.
His last plan is working so well that 24 Christians were beheaded yesterday by ISIS affiliates and the successful example of his plan working in Yemen (his words not mine) is evidenced by their fall on the very day he claimed victory there.
Let’s pray for our troops in Iraq who are being surrounded as I write this. In the meantime, the White House is “monitoring” the situation. That’s just further proof that the Prez couldn’t care less about our men and their mental state. HEY PREZ… YO! Why don’t you grow a spine and send in our Air Force to wipe out anyone who even smells like they’re going hurt our guys? Show you care about US instead of THEM!!!
He has no problem housing, feeding and providing medical care for all those illegals within days of their arrival across our border, yet he is willing to keep letting our vets die long, slow deaths because they can’t get medical care, there aren’t enough facilities or doctors, and definitely, not enough caring! Apparently, there is no executive order he can sign to speed it up!
Mr. Obama also has decided it would be good to do a “selfie” commercial to get young people to sign up for Obamacare. Please note that Obamacare is woefully low on membership. They are millions of subscribers behind from what they need since they were relying heavily “forcing” young people to sign up and carry the older folks who would be a drain the healthcare system.
It looks like a little more than 10 million have actually signed up “for REAL” and the system, based on early estimates, needs at least 13 million with a large number being young signees. So far, there have been numerous complaints about broken exchanges, cancelled coverage, higher premiums, and unaffordable deductibles. Oh, and let’s not forget that the administration cancelled over 6 million policies deemed to be substandard forcing just under 6 million to have to sign up on Obamacare to get insurance again. Forced healthcare!
Our economy is good? Well kind of!
Read more at: TRS

The Real JV Team Emerges!

Talk about a “haunting comment.” This will go down as one of President Obama’s all time.

Can you imagine how thick the book of “Obama’s Greatest Faux Paus” will be? Or how many volumes it will be?  Do I need to list them all or do we have them memorized as some of us do the “Pledge of Allegiance”? (Notice I said some.)

Mr. Obama called ISIS a “JV Team” but now he says he didn’t quite say that. Just like he now says he didn’t quite say “you can keep your doctor” and he didn’t quite say “your health care premiums would be less than you cell phone bill.” It sure seems like we keep hearing him wrong and the internet records him wrong a lot too!

To continue, he called ISIS a JV Team because he felt they didn’t lack the brain power, resources, and commitment that it takes to go after the Pro Teams, like the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Syria and God only knows who else he was thinking of.

You see the reason you have a JV Team is because the players are younger, less experienced, and need more time to practice together. You don’t usually want them on the big boys team because they would drag them down.

That “JV Team” that Mr. Obama tagged, aka ISIS, is now in control of a very large part of the Middle East. They are responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people. They are part of the reason oil prices are falling as they steal oil, load it up in stolen tankers, and sell it on the open market. They are instilling fear in and around Europe and parts of the U.S. These junior league boys are acting like, and accomplishing, senior league goals.

Why? Because they are committed at all costs, even to the point of death. That’s what makes them senior league. They are willing to give it all for the end game, and when they are up against it, they give some more. Their leaders speak out and stand behind their misguided principles and get the resources they need, by any means, to ensure they win.

Enter the “White House JV Team” (WHJV), the “Coyotes” ( I use coyotes because zoologist say they are the most cowardly animal and only attack when the enemy is well outnumbered.) This administration has gained control of one of the most powerful and feared fighting forces on the planet since the Roman army and has effectively turned them in to the most unreliable fighting force on the planet. And it’s no fault of the capable men and women that serve in the military.

This president knows more about more things than everyone of our great thinkers and philosophers before him. Just ask him and he tell you so!

I say this because he puts together military, economic, and social issue committees and takes little to none of the suggested actions from these committees.

He makes every mistake a first year law or medical student makes. Most students feel they have the answers after their first year in school and are willing to tell you what’s wrong with you before you even ask.

He put together a military commission on how to deal with ISIS and the threats in the Middle East. After they returned with their findings, mind you the committee was made up of seasoned military experts, he decided they were wrong and took it in another direction.  Ignoring the experts. A serious JV move.

To the jobs committee, he appointed the head of G.E. to chair it. The guy who took the majority of U.S. jobs overseas. Makes sense? Not so much. And once again implements almost none of the committee suggestions.

He gathered some well-known economists together for another committee, but none from the opposing side of the economic aisle. And when the committee came back with their recommendations, he implemented some but not the majority.

Read the rest at TRS

Something Wicked This Way Comes

As we approach the dreaded tax filing deadline of April 15th, many Americans are ill-prepared for the news they are going to receive from their tax preparers or tax preparation software. Between three and six million people are going to be affected by penalties, an “Individual Shared Responsibility Payment,” associated with the Affordable Care Act. And most of those affected have no idea how much financial pain they are going to feel.

When the Obama Administration was selling Obamacare to the American people – you remember, “It’s not a tax,” “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it,” “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” etc. – they alluded to the existence of penalties for those Americans who did not purchase ACA compliant health insurance. The amount for the first year non-compliance penalty was routinely quoted as $95. For many the choice was clear: keep the non-compliant health insurance, pay the $95 penalty (read: non-compliance tax), and hope that a Republican-led Congress would affect relief for the taxpayer as soon as they took control in Washington, DC.

But that scenario doesn’t impact this tax cycle. And while three to five million people have received subsidies through the Obamacare marketplaces to offset the cost of ACA compliant health insurance (still many more will qualify for exemptions), the penalty – or Individual Shared Responsibility Payment – for most of the three to six million Americans who opted to pay the fine and go without is going to be substantially more than they think.

Contrary to the commonly referred to fine of $95 for non-compliance, that amount is the least amount that can be imposed on an individual. The calculation used for the overwhelming majority of the non-compliant will be the higher of either one-percent of your household income above your filing threshold or a flat dollar amount up to $285 ($95 per adult, $47.50 per child). The important words to consider here are “household income.”

In the scenario where one spouse is covered by employer-sponsored health insurance but the other spouse is not – where one spouse is non-compliant, the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment is still based on the total of the household income; the compliant spouse is still entered into the penalty equation through the use of the household income as a defining integer. The idea that the ACA compliant individual cannot be adversely affected at tax time is a fallacy.

For example, let’s examine what the penalty (read: tax) would be on a Virginia household consisting of a man and a woman who, combined, made $150,000 for the year 2014. The woman is covered through her employer by ACA compliant health insurance, but the man is an independent contractor and chose to attain what used to be known as catastrophic health insurance, thus acquiescing to what he thought was going to be a $95 penalty. Using the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment calculator from HealthInsurance.org, the assessed penalty would be $1,297. A full $1202 more than the $95 for which they had planned. By contrast, a non-compliant single person making $75,000 in 2014 would have been assessed a $648.50 penalty. This means that the penalty for the “crime” of being from a household earning $150,000 with a single non-compliant spouse is $648.50; the penalty for being married to a non-compliant spouse is $648.50. The irony here is that the non-compliant spouse was still covered in the event of a medical emergency, even if he wasn’t ACA “compliant.”

The reasoning used by the Progressives and Democrats when arguing for the passage of the Affordable Care Act was that relief would be given to the healthcare system by virtue of the fact that everyone would be covered by health insurance; that everyone would be paying into the system. But having “passed the bill” so we can now “see what’s in it,” the reality of the matter is this. Obamacare was never about healthcare. It was never really even about everyone being covered by health insurance. And it wasn’t ever about everyone paying into the system. It was about creating two new revenue streams: one for the health insurance companies who now have a captive client-base, and another for the spendthrift federal government through the extraction of what the US Supreme Court has now identified as a tax.

And a heck of a tax it is…especially for the non-compliant and their compliant spouses.

The Darwin Award goes to Ed Schultz!

merican Sniper is breaking box office records. Those who have seen the movie have great things to say about it. The realities of war and what these guys go through comes through loud and clear, except for a few Hollywood elitists.

The same groups of people who have no problem making movies glorifying hit men, prostitutes, mafia, and “shoot ‘em up, bang-bang” movies seem to have a big problem with American Sniper. It just shows you how full of themselves they really are.

But the guy that really takes the cake in showing the hatred some people have for America is Ed Schultz. Ed believes that if you don’t think like he does as to what American patriotism is, then basically, you’re a moron because he is the all-knowing, all-seeing all… well, he’s god. At least in his own mind!

Where are these cowards (guys like Michael Moore, Seth Rogan, and our buddy, Ed Schultz) when it comes to investigating what is truly taking place in the Middle East? Why aren’t they talking about the stories where, because of us, kids can play in streets again and businesses can actually operate safely and women can go to school again? Where were they when thousands of Christian kids were being slaughtered? When the Boko Haram crew took (and continues to take) kids from schools and sell them as slaves? We hear nothing from these cowards.

However, it’s easy for them to criticize our military. They won’t hunt you down and kill you for criticizing them!

Ed’s recent rant about how bad American Sniper was began with the tired, old, worn out “Bush lied people died” ………

Read the rest at TRS

 

 

May I Present, Our Emperor and Chief, His Highness Barack Obama

L

Last week Mr. Obama declared himself our emperor! Well, at least in so many words.

You didn’t hear it? Of course you did, but it was thinly veiled and you have to do a little work stringing it together. Just like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung before him Mr. Obama has been openly laying out his plan in his speeches across the country. Hitler never said he was going to “kill millions of Jews.” He said, and I quote, “the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world” and “If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition,” and “the heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” Even with these blatant statements, no one believed what was being rumored to be going on at death camps across Germany.Obama_emperor

These quotes were bits and pieces of conversations and speeches over time. But people were too dull or simply afraid to pull it all together. Well, I’m not. And neither are many of my brothers in this battle for liberty, freedom, and the real American way.

My family represents everything that is great about America. We are an interracial, legal immigrant, blended family who worked their way up from living in one of the poorest cities in the country (the area I grew up in was once referred to as the “Bangladesh of America”) to a great middle-class area in California. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Enter Barack Obama… and I quote:

“The problem is that you know I’m the President of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.” – President Obama on Feb. 14, 2013

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.” – President Obama on March 28, 2011

“Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.” – President Obama on March 28, 2011

These are all his speeches in his words as dictated by his teleprompter. On many more occasions he reiterated that he lacked the legal authority to take action on the immigration issue.

Yes, on Thursday he admitted that there were presidents before him that broke that law and that he was going to hide behind them and break the law himself. Because he’s a “take action” kind of guy!

“There are actions I have the legal authority to take as president – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me – that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.” – President Obama from Thursday’s speech

Hello, Mr. President, are you now saying that you have the right to break the law because others before you have done it? Is that what this has been all about? Have you evolved on this issue like you have with gay marriage?

Mr. President, you’re supposed to be a man of integrity. Integrity dictates that you do the right thing no matter who’s watching (or not watching) or what kind of backlash or applause you may or may not get. Not what you think is the right thing… but the right and legal thing.

If my family is hungry because I can’t provide for them, does that give me a pass to steal from the local grocery store? NO! Never. Not for any reason. But what this country allows me the freedom to do is knock on every door of every vendor in the street to see if they will let me do a little work to buy food for my family. Or I can go to the grocery store and offer to do anything to raise money to feed my family. But it never gives me permission to break the law.

Mr. President, you have single-handedly made a mockery of your position and of our country.

When you say “I’m the President of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed….” but then you go on to make or change a law to the point where it no longer resembles the original law, then you have appointed yourself emperor by your own words and deeds.

When you say “… the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed,” then by suspending deportations you have broken the law. Those are your words, not mine.

And when you say, “…Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws,” but then you, sir, change the law to make it unenforceable as passed by the congress, you are once again breaking the law as you stated it is.

This is what makes you a hypocrite. Not the color of your skin. Not you party affiliation. Not your religious affiliation. Not even where you may or may not have been born. It’s just your inability to find the truth and live by it.

An emperor is someone who rules as the highest power in the land. He has all authority to make and execute laws and can change them at any time without penalty.

If this was the position you sought, you came to the wrong place because the “peasants” are on the rise and have had it. A revolution is coming and as in the Russian revolution the people in power chose to ignore the outcry of the “peasants” and the rulers lost.

Keep ignoring us and discounting us your Highest Emperor Obama and it will mean political destruction for you and your team.
Read more at TheRealSide

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

While it still requires a willing suspension of reality to believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), wasn’t the spearhead of the dishonesty campaign when she stood before the American people and professed that Congress had to pass Obamacare before we could all understand what was in the bill, her latest declaration about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber doesn’t. What it does evoke is a legitimate question. Is Nancy Pelosi a habitual liar or is she suffering from dementia?

When asked about Johnathan Gruber’s admitting to the overt deception of the American people where the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was concerned, Pelosi responded:

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill…and…so…with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill…”

Yet, in 2009 when Pelosi and her congressional lemmings were selling the snake oil of Obamacare to the American people, she said:

“Our bill brings down rates…I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill…”

Let’s set aside for a moment that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration that rates would go down was about as wrong as it gets – pathetically and predictably wrong. Are we to believe that the two juxtaposed statements were simply a slip up; just a malfunction of her gray matter? Again, to sign on to that idea requires a willing suspension of reality.

No, it is more likely – and probable – that Ms. Pelosi is demonstrating the Progressive ethic of “ends justifying the means.” Under that ethic, the truth is relative to the outcome desired. To Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gruber, President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, just to name the major players, lying to; deceiving, the American people to achieve the passage of Obamacare was a necessary evil. To the Progressives – who, incidentally, believe as Jonathan Gruber does that the overwhelming majority of American people are a dull, slow-witted intellectually challenged under-class in need of their brilliance, wisdom, and superior stewardship, lest we all revert back to the ethos of the Stone Age – it is irrelevant that deception was used to acquire their legislative goal, after all, we are simply too stupid to know what is good for us; what is good for society.

This understood, it is easy to see that Ms. Pelosi’s flip-flop on the Grubster wasn’t about a defective memory, it was about sticking to the Progressive meme, not unlike John Lovitz’s Saturday Night Live character “The Liar.” The only thing missing was the rhetorical punctuation, “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!”

If Ms. Pelosi were afflicted with dementia rather than Progressivism, I would be sympathetic to her plight. No one can control the ravages of dementia; a tragic and debilitating disease. But she isn’t – to the best of my knowledge – afflicted with dementia, she is afflicted with Progressivism, an ideological malady, and one that a person has to make a conscious decision to foist upon themselves; a malady choke full of arrogance, elitism, condescension and malevolence for your fellow man. I cannot suffer the fools who inflict this malady upon themselves.

As for Ms. Pelosi, the point is moot. Whether it had been dementia rather than Progressivism is irrelevant, both maladies should preclude someone from holding public office. Sadly, not only was Ms. Pelosi re-elected as a US Representative in her congressional district, she was re-elected to party leadership in her chamber.

Do you see how Progressivism rots the brain?

Obamacare Is Based on Fraud, Says Architect of the ACA

imagesWhat the architect of Obamacare said recently was not surprising to those of us who have been critical of the massive legislation from the start. It was clear to anyone who actually studied the legislation, with even a modicum of logic, the smoke and mirrors that were used to mask the true intent and operation of the Act. What is surprising is how obviously truthful he was, and how the mainstream media are ignoring his remarks.

Jonathan Gruber, MIT economics professor, and principle architect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was astonishingly candid in his remarks about President Obama’s signature legislation in not one, but as of this writing, three different recordings.

The first video that surfaced was with a panel of academics talking about the ACA in October, 2013. He said, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay. So it was written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law that said healthy people are going to pay in — if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in, sick people get money, it would not have passed. Okay. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical in getting the thing to pass, and, you know, it’s the second best argument. And I wish Mark was right, we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not. So there are things I’d wish I could change, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

B2bANrICIAAy2bwAfter this video surfaced, Gruber appeared on MSNBC where he made a feeble attempt at an apology. Regarding his inflammatory statement, he said, “I was speaking off the cuff and I regret having made them.” Notice carefully what he didn’t say in his “apology.” He didn’t disavow the statement, say he was wrong, or even truly apologize for his ill-chosen words. He simply “regretted” having made the statement.

Just after Gruber appeared on MSNBC, a second clip surfaced from a lecture he delivered at Washington University in St. Louis a year ago. In this one, he was talking about the taxation components of the ACA. He explained, “For people with expensive health insurance plans, they will no longer get a 40% tax break. What if we instead just levy a 40% tax on the insurance companies that sell these terrible expensive Cadillac plans. Well, that’s pretty much the same thing but why does it matter? You’ll see. They proposed it and that passed. Because Americans are too stupid to understand the difference.” The audience laughed as he finished.

Gruber-on-the-lies-told-to-pass-Obamacare1Finally a third recording emerged, proving that his “off the cuff” remarks were an accurate portrayal of not just the ACA, but that his characterization of the American people was prototypical of those who put the law together. In a presentation from November 1, 2012, Gruber states, “We just take the insurance companies. They pass on higher prices that offset the taxes that we get, that ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, base exploitation of the lack of understanding of the American voter.”

These comments from the architect of Obamacare are revelatory in so many ways. The first is that the healthcare bill was intentionally written in a “tortured” way so that the Congressional Budget Office wouldn’t score the legislation as a “tax.” As Gruber said, if it had been scored that way by the CBO, the bill would not have passed. In other words, the drafters of the legislation intentionally and willfully deceived both the CBO and the American people in order to get it passed. It’s too bad that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts saw through the deception in order to rule the ACA “constitutional” because it was a tax.

lead_largeEqually troubling is Gruber’s admission that they had to avoid transparency in order to get it to get through congress, and to pass muster with the American people. As Gruber referred to it, the lack of transparency is a “huge political advantage.” What does that say of a political ideology, and a party, that employs such nefarious means to deceive and obfuscate in order to achieve their political ends?

Not to be lost in all this is the common thread throughout Gruber’s comments referencing the stupidity of the American people. Like Howard Dean said this week on MSNBC, “The problem is not that he said it, but that he thinks it. The core problem is that this law was put together by a bunch of elitists who don’t really fundamentally understand the American people. That’s what the problem is.”

Obamacare Approval

Obamacare Approval

And it’s obviously not just Gruber’s sentiments, but all those who sold the ACA to us. The disingenuousness, deception, and misrepresentation was by design. The only way the American people could be gullible enough to think it was good for the country is if the drafters used their “huge political advantage” of opacity and mendacity by obfuscating the truth. Based on most recent polls, there is still a large minority who still can be defined by Gruber’s characterization of us, as nearly 40% still think Obamacare is a good law.

It wasn’t just a large percentage of Americans who were “stupid” enough to swallow the party line on the ACA. The mainstream media swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. And they’re apparently still choking on it, as they have ignored these exposing comments from the law’s architect.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Obamacare forces many to avoid preventative healthcare

President Obama promised huge reductions in premiums and greater access to care. Unfortunately, forcing insurers to create plans with easy payments, unaffordable deductibles terrible networks has had dire consequences.

Fox News reports that the White House pushed for low premiums regardless of the fact that they come with high deductibles, reduced benefits and very few doctors in-network because “most people buy only based on premiums.” That pushes Obamacare recipients into community health organizations and often making choices with expensive or dangerous consequences.

When those on the high-deductible “affordable” plans are told that additional treatment, tests or drugs may be needed to identify or prevent their condition from worsening, they often balk at the preventative measures because those costs would not be paid until they hit the huge deductible that their small premium dictates. Now, the politics of Obamacare have created a medical train-wreck out of someone who previously would have just needed preventative medical attention.

To avoid becoming a medical nightmare, many of these Obamacare enrollees are using community health centers, which offer low cost or free care, to deal with their health issues. So, what did these enrollees get for taking the President’s advice and getting enrolled? They get to go outside the standard healthcare system while still paying into it.

Unemployment at All-Time Low 5.9%… Just Kidding!

Government math takes on many forms. I think it’s the basis for Common Core math. In Common Core, 2 plus 2 plus 2 doesn’t always equal 6. Just like 18% of employable people in the U.S. equals a 5.9% unemployment rate.

The 5.9 %number is usually arrived at by simply looking at how many Americans file for unemployment every week, both new and continuing claims. You hear about the numbers of people dropping off the rolls but you never hear why. The assumption is that they found a job.

Do you ever hear them report about the number of people who drop off the unemployment rolls because they ran out of time? Or the ones who got discouraged and gave up looking because they couldn’t find employment. What about the ones who switch to disability because they are now having physical and mental issues as a result of their job search? (Insert crickets sound here.)

Most economists use another set of numbers that the government Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “U-6.” It defines the “total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.”

This number takes into account, by that definition, the underemployed, discouraged, and unemployed workers. This number actually did fall for the first time below 12% to 11.8%. Hey, don’t get too excited yet.

Remember, just before the election period in 2012, we were told unemployment was down. Many government math “adjustments” were made to the unemployment numbers all summer leading up to the November 2012 election. But fudging the numbers shouldn’t be a big surprise. I mean, look at the other “adjustments” that were made : Benghazi was “not” another 9/11 anniversary attack, the Obamacare rollout debacle was really just a few “minor” glitches, much like that whole “keeping your doctor” thing.

Now, back to government math. In September, the unemployment rate dropped by 0.2% to 5.9%. The number of people unemployed dropped by about 329,000 to 9.3 million.
Read more at THE REAL SIDE

Peer Pressure Crushes Silicon Valley Entrepreneur

Monkey bureaucratsAnne Wojcicki is one of those Silicon Valley entrepreneurs that started a “disruptive” company aiming to change how we view an established industry. But she’s not one of those brain–rich, resource–poor visionaries passing the hat among bored World of Warcraft players window–shopping on Kickstarter.com.

No, she and her partners, Lucy Page and Laura Arrillaga–Andreessen — respectively the wives of Internet billionaires Sergey Brin (Google), Larry Page (Google) and Marc Andreessen (Netscape) — didn’t have to do anything so common as asking for money.

Google kick–started the project, so to speak, with an initial investment of $3.9 million and soon other vulture capitalists jumped on the bandwagon. The company, 23andMe, made its debut among the one percent at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, rubbing elbows with the likes of Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and other political or economic plutocrats.

Alexandra Wolfe writes in The Wall Street Journal, that as guests left the annual Google blowout, they were asked by “spit coaches” for a sample of their saliva. (This is one of the major differences between a redneck party and a one–percent party. At the redneck bash no permission is necessary. You just attempt to match the various pools of vomit with the contributors.)

In return for spitting in a cup the guest would receive a free DNA analysis and report. (Yet another aside: No wonder tech companies have zero concept of customer privacy, if management gives a DNA sample to a complete stranger, it’s not surprising they expect to be able to snoop freely in our secrets.)

Whereas in the past captains of industry might have indulged the little woman in a dress boutique or tea shoppe, Internet titans and their wives think bigger. Wojcicki and partners want to “drive this revolution where an individual had more of a say in health care.” Mainly by giving them a complete DNA report and analysis of individual genetic tendencies toward disease.

I don’t have a problem with any of this. It’s Google’s money and I’m not a stockholder. If the board doesn’t see a conflict of interest is funding wifey’s company, who am I to complain? Wojcicki also travels in different circles than I do and networking at the top only makes sense.

My problem is what she’s done after the product went public.

The Sultan of Spit recently made a charm offensive trip to DC and received lavish coverage in the WaPost. Wojcicki explained, “23andMe’s customers mail a test tube containing their saliva to the company, which analyzes their DNA. And for $99 they get back a report detailing any risk for more than 240 health conditions.” Time magazine was so impressed that the product was named invention of the year for 2008.

The Post writes that “celebrities gleefully tweeted their results” letting fans know if celebrity genes made it more likely for them to die of a heroin overdose in a squalid shooting gallery, suddenly change their image from that of clean teen to sex–act–simulating slut or be prone to shouting homophobic insults when surprised by a photographer.

By June of this year Wojcicki was negotiating to sell the results from an amazing 700,000 DNA samples to Edward Snowden because information wants to be free.

And then the FDA struck.

She received a “scathing letter” ordering her to cease all sales of the DNA analysis kit because it had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In the letter the FDA threatened “seizure, injunction and civil money penalties.”

Why were the bureaucrats at the FDA so exercised? The Journal summary said, “The FDA contended that genetic results aren’t always accurate and can mislead consumers. Officials feared that, without the supervision of a physician, users of the service might have unnecessary elective surgery based on inconclusive genetic information.”

And even if they did, what hospital would let a walk–in start ordering medical procedures?

Alberto Gutierrez, head of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics, was quoted by the WaPost, as claiming “Results from questionable tests can be unnecessarily alarming, adding that some women have undergone surgery, for example, based on tests that purport to gauge the risk for ovarian cancer.”

And right here we discover why HealthCare.dud didn’t work. Federal bureaucrats are delusional. The reasoning behind the stop–and–desist order is surreal. I don’t take my car into the shop without talking to the service consultant first. Does the FDA really think there’s a danger of someone getting a DNA analysis and calling the hospital to schedule a mastectomy?

And the worry about unnecessary surgery is politically selective. If a deeply disturbed patient decides he wants a surgeon to vandalize his private parts to turn him into a woman — the definition of unnecessary, dangerous and permanently damaging surgery — the FDA, American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association all have no problemo with that monumentally flawed decision.

I’m wondering when the FDA is going to get around to regulating newspaper horoscopes and palm readers. Gullible consumers make all sorts of life–altering decisions based on these pseudo–sciences, to say nothing of the devastation wreaked in many families by teenage nutritionists deciding to “go vegan.”

DNA results in the mail pale in comparison.

So far I’m in Wojcicki’s corner. She wants to give consumers access to more medical information so they can make their own, informed decisions. As Wojcicki told the Journal, “For example, patients often don’t know how much a procedure at a doctor’s office costs ahead of time. “That’s why I felt we had to drive this revolution where an individual had more of a say in health care.”

Her research has shown that in India hospitals post prices lists for procedures so that patients can see what their cost options are. Rumor has it that in China organ harvesters will even price their products on a sliding scale according to the age of the replacement part.

She’s on a mission and then turf–conscious, unresponsive federal bureaucrats issue an arbitrary decision that eviscerates her business. She’s faced with months of tedious hearings, requests for documents and bureaucrat butt–kissing. And all the while she can’t sell her product. It’s all outgo and no income until the problem is solved.

Prospects for reversing the FDA edict through channels aren’t promising. The Obama administration has issued over 1,800 rules and regulations in less than three years and the WaPost reports that every single one of them are illegal since the rules violate the 1966 Congressional Review Act. Yet none of the rules have been rescinded.

This leaves Wojcicki with three options:

  1. She can file a lawsuit. This is not my favorite because it puts your fate in the hands of lawyers and judges and only serves to increase their baleful impact on modern life. I’ve never had much affection for a process that lets everyone make money from my misfortune, except me.
  2. She can try to put political and media pressure on the bureaucracy and force them to reverse the decision. If you think cockroaches scuttle for the shadows when you lift a rock and expose them to the sun, you should see a bureaucrat in the glare of publicity. For a brief time it looked like this was her intent. The WaPost coverage of her “charm offensive” and her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee looked to be the beginning, but it seemed to peter out quickly.
  3. She can surrender and hope FDA bureaucrats, once they get around to finalizing their decision, leave her a business to operate.

But what Wojcicki choose to do appears to be the worst of all possible worlds. Five days after returning to California from the DC trip, she hosts a $32,400–a–person fund–raiser for the architect of her business problems: Barack Obama!

DC bureaucrats pull the plug on her business and she responds by raising money for the man and the party that support even more crippling regulation and expanding government intrusion. Why not just sign a quit–claim on your investment and give it to the Democrat National Committee?

Evidently being part of the leftist insider tech crowd is more important to Wojcicki than saving her business and striking a blow for the free market. If 23andMe goes out of business it will be bad news for employees and the other investors, but Wojcicki will be fine. Her money comes from a company that started too small for busybody federal bureaucrats to notice and by the time they did, it was too big to stifle.

That company is Google and it can afford to indulge the lifestyle leftism of its founders and support Obama and Democrats like the rest of the cool kids.

« Older Entries