In another ‘unexpected’ consequence of ObamaCare grocery prices are expected to go up. Contained within the 2000 page law is a mandate that restaurants provide nutritional information on their menus. The Food and Drug Administration took a fairly well supported idea and decided to extend this rule to supermarkets and convenience stores.
The proposed regulations will require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad and food bars, delis and bakeries. Grocers say that these regulations will require new and expensive nutritional data software and fear of stiff penalties for errors.
The FDA says ObamaCare just wants to help Americans live healthier lives. But maybe Americans would like to be able to buy their groceries without the government telling them what to eat.
Watch the Fox News story as they detail these new regulations:
This year’s keynote speaker for the National Prayer Breakfast was Dr. Benjamin Carson, a world renowned Pediatric Neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins. Some will recall the movie ‘Gifted Hands’ which was the story about Dr. Carson. As a time when so many believe there is no way out of poverty his speeches provide insight and inspiration.
Using his own personal upbringing as an example, Dr. Carson’s speech tackled a range of issues ranging from education to personal responsibility.
Some of Dr. Carson’s critical remarks were pointed directly at policies approved of by the Obama administration. Using parables, as did his role model Jesus, Dr. Carson shared some of his ‘non-PC’ ways to improve the country.
There are sure to be short clips of this speech but I recommend watching the full 25 minutes and then share it with your friends. We can also hope that the president (sitting off to the left at the dais) was actually listening and perhaps will take some of Dr Carson’s suggestions to heart.
For the past month I have been reading, writing, and then rewriting articles that I haven’t finished. I have been wracking my brain, trying to figure out a way to get the message through to people, so they understand we are rapidly becoming a POLICE STATE and quite literally on the brink of civil war. There are so many factors to consider and so much evidence out there which supports what I am saying, yet, I still wonder why so many Americans remain disengaged or have no interest? Are they just plain stupid or is it they just don’t care? Whatever the reason, if there is one, once the inevitable occurs it will be way to late for many people.
Our President is allowing drowns to spy on its own people, they have cameras already in place, and more importantly — no one can get an answer, from the people you put in charge of your life, as to whether or not it is okay to shoot US citizens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x90cCC1UDWE Perhaps some of you think you that will be safe? I don’t know what what you think? I’m just wondering? It would appear not many people seem interested in the military training that is suddenly occurring nationwide. And what about the fact that SOME police and sheriff depts are reporting they will NOT support any Bills which go against the 2nd Amendment, nor will they infringe on the rights, guaranteed in the Constitution, and take fire on American citizens. Shouldn’t every police dept, sheriff dept be vocal about that? Why aren’t they. Perhaps you might want to look into that by writing, calling, and getting answers from you city, county, and state depts. http://www.news4jax.com/news/Sheriffs-show-support-for-2nd-Amendment/-/475880/18403042/-/xs13brz/-/index.html
I think everyone, well, most everyone can agree the economy is failing. When the feds stop printing the the worthless money they are putting out, as the debt continues to spiral out of control, and as taxes continue to rise by a president who ‘swore’ (lol) he wouldn’t raise taxes I think most of us can agree it is just a matter of time before our economic system fails completely. Some states are already at ways to remedy the inevitable by creating their own currency. http://consumerist.com/2013/02/06/is-virginia-really-trying-to-mint-its-own-money/
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,
shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that
no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate.
“What is Convention USA? Convention USA is an interactive, virtual convention being conducted on the Internet for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States in the manner provided for in Article V of the federal constitution. Who is behind it? Convention USA, Inc. is a Florida non profit corporation organized by Judge Thomas E. Brennan and a few associates. Judge Brennan was Chief Justice of Michigan and the founder of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, which is the largest accredited college of law in America.” https://www.conventionusa.org/
This article touches on some of the issues at stake. I would be here all day if I tried to present more, plus it might already be overwhelming for some people. Nonetheless you have a moral, ethical, and civil duty, not just to yourself, but to every single person in your life, to examine the facts, do some research, and then prepare accordingly.
‘Forty is the old age of youth and fifty is the youth of old age.’
I can’t believe we’re having this conversation. I can’t believe people think it’s okay to have this conversation. It is apparently so, ‘this conversation’ having advanced rapidly since 2009. Of old age Longfellow appropriately wrote:
“Age is opportunity no less, Than youth itself, though in another dress, And as the evening twilight fades away, The sky is filled with stars, invisible by day.”
Most of us know about the $700-billion taken from Medicare seniors to fund one-third of Obamacare; and of its 15-member, unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) bureaucracy coined “Death Panel,” to determine who receives what medical services. Harrowing first-hand accounts of declined senior care have surfaced. The lives and unnecessary, politically determined deaths of America’s elderly are now in play.
On the heels of these cutbacks and under guise of saving an already government-robbed-into-bankruptcy Social Security and Medicare system is the ever-increasing and often misleading conversation about seniors being too costly to the rest of America. That conversation has since expounded into the proposed bullying of those overweight for similar reasons, which I personally find just as indecently unconscionable. For some reason Americans are okay with this?
We’ve been nudged into having these ‘conversations’ casually now, over a cup of coffee, at the water cooler, among friends … even publicly, on television. As if the those affected are not here to see and hear us. As if they are so insignificant we don’t care whether they do. As if by not saying “my grandmother costs too much to keep alive” or “my grandfather does” we’re somehow escaping personal responsibility for what’s really at play. The conversation is inevitably preempted by faux courtesy to make it feel better, like “Well, it is time to have this conversation.”
Uh, no, it isn’t.
“Once a society begins to legislate death, human life becomes less valuable. It is like arithmetic. It just happens. It is inevitable. The German government’s embrace of euthanasia before the Holocaust was no accident.” [Dr. Keith Ablow]
That’s the convenient thing about indoctrinating young minds. They still think their old-years are too far away for concern or they won’t be ailing when they get old or they won’t want to live after they do get old. Surprise. That isn’t true either. And just who gets to say when “old” is? Can it be so simply defined as the moment some stranger determines another stranger’s usefulness has ceased?
Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist in Michigan, commonly known as “Dr. Death” for his assisted suicides. That was back when taking someone’s life – even when they wanted their life taken – was deemed murder. You know, way back in 2009 and in Michigan, one of our most Liberal states. Kevorkian claimed 130-assisted suicides beginning in 1990. Five times he defended himself in courts of law against very public murder charges, by a government just as determined then to tell us what was “right” as they are now in nudging us toward the very opposite. In 1999 Kevorkian was sentenced and imprisoned, released in ill health in 2009 on a promise he wouldn’t assist in any more murders. That was four years ago. Four years. He didn’t die until 2011 at age 83, all the while fighting for his last natural breath regardless of prolonged illness and his own “burden” on society.
“Who does not wish to be beautiful, and clever, and rich, and to have back, in old age, the time spent trying to be any of them.” [Robert Brault]
If I were a Michigan taxpayer I’d be suing for refund of prosecuting those five, very lengthy and costly court cases, as well as what was spent jailing, feeding and medicating Dr. Death for eight-years.
So let me make sure I have this right: Somewhere between this president taking office and now it’s become okay to have this conversation. All of the sudden this is The Conversation to have. And you don’t think you’ve been indoctrinated? (That’s just another word for brainwashed.) What a mockery of fools we make of ourselves. Or is that your definition of rampant “progress?” If so, sadder yet, serving only as glaring evidence of souls waxed cold.
Let us at least understand today’s conversation. This conversation is okay now because now it’s poised as some easy fix for your social security? After eons of honoring our elderly, in 2013 it’s just too expensive to do that any more because a bunch of politicians have run out of tax money to spend? And let’s be serious here, that is the real issue.
How much better to sell it as our vulnerable elderly living too long, costing too much and being too inconvenient because they do live so damned long. They’ve served their usefulness in paying for all they’ve handed down to us, not the least of which was being human guinea pigs for the medical technologies we do so enjoy. It’s time to get rid of them. Feed the tax monster so we don’t have to pay so much for ourselves. Fat chance. That monster isn’t going anywhere if you don’t vote it out.
Americans are allowing self-endowed intellectuals to convince us that we’ve ‘progressed’ so much it’s time to equate value of life to money. That kind of progress will be the end of you and you won’t be wise enough to see it coming because you will have killed-off all of the wisdoms left among you.
Obama Czar Cass Sunstein argues, “people are subject to all sorts of biases and quirks. [He] also argues that this human quality, which some would call irrationality, can be predicted and — this is the controversial part — that if the social environment can be changed, people might be nudged into more rational behavior.“ New York Times, 2010.
Only three-years ago even the Liberal New York Times hesitated, calling this conversation “controversial.” But today they’ve so widely nudged this conversation ‘forward’ even Conservatives are indulging it – out in the open. What’s wrong with us? Are we all kool-aid drinkers?
Let’s assume for a moment that money is a worthy argument. Do you really believe You are going to reap the rewards of any money saved? Do you think for one moment that whatever could be saved would actually run down to your pocketbook or social security account?
Are insurance companies going to do something they’ve never done and lower premiums and copays or will medical providers lower theirs or, even if both did, is government not going to eat up any excess? Do you really think those who’ve paid all of the prices you’re reaping benefit of now are expendable because they don’t keep paying beyond their own paying years – when it’s Your turn? And just what legacy do you plan leaving your children, then? Someone has to leave one if your children are to have any. Common sense alone tells us this sort of short-sighted vanity, in and of itself, spells social disaster.
In a few short years this country has gone from doggedly prosecuting and reprosecuting, convicting and imprisoning those who take lives of the willing to die, to a people of “having the conversation” about taking innocent lives of those who are not willing to die. We already take the lives of newborns. What are we, barbarians? These atrocities are invariably couched so you don’t need to feel any personal responsibility, you’re not really making the decision, right? You’re just ‘having the conversations’ that nudge the consequences ‘forward.’ Uh-huh.
Carl Jung is renowned for his collective thinking, an un-American principle to which I do not adhere. But given the masses who’re rushing to embrace extinction of their elderly on some fraudulent “collective” basis it’s worth reflecting on Jung for just a moment. Carl Jung is said to have spoken of a “Boon Quest,” one’s journey into the realm of unknowns, the boon being fulfilled when we return to share its lessons with others. Chances are he wasn’t referring to 25-year olds. Life is a journey. All the years of life are, not just the first 33, 44 or 55.
“A human being would certainly not grow to be seventy or eighty years old if this longevity had no meaning for the species. The afternoon of human life must also have a significance of its own and cannot be merely a pitiful appendage to life’s morning … .”
“Whoever carries over into the afternoon the law of the morning, or the natural aim, must pay for it with damage to his soul, just as surely as a growing youth who tries to carry over his childish egoism into adult life must pay for this mistake with social failure.“ [Carl Jung]
The value of our elders is not found in money. Nor is it found in some misnomer of “entitlements” for which they’ve paid handsomely and only now stand to benefit – or in what they do or don’t produce during their later years – any more than boon wisdoms can be found in twenty-five year olds. Our elderly years are those of introspection that youth has not had the time, experience or patience to afford and which season a more peaceful and compassionate view of the world than youth are wired to see.
Our families’ elders are the foundations and groundings of our own personal selves. They are our connections to who we have been, who we will be, and what works and what does not in living who we are. Elders tether us among families, to our pasts, in our futures, and among our ethnicities, the losses of which cannot be measured or replaced; and an imbalance of which leads to the worst kind of species extinction. Who among us is qualified to say who becomes extinct, least of all a government propagandizing to sustain and enhance its own wealth? We revere the extinction of animal species more highly than this. What IS wrong with us?
When you no longer have the wise among you, as a society you are doomed to be more vulnerable. The strongest links in your life chain are removed. That’s where an all-consuming government wants you, as should be crystal clear by the mere nudging of these conversations. A government that has, in a few very short years, indoctrinated the belief that everything will be better for you if only you will agree to kill-off your elderly.
You will be the next links of chain taken, whatever that justification may be, make no mistake about it. And it’ll be okay. After all, it’s just a conversation about betterment of the collective good.
Reported yesterday: “[Obama’s] new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens… . Those who will not are being removed.”
Obama is drenched in Americans’ skepticism about potential for martial law. Gun control fanatics have given more rise to what many perceive as an imminent possibility. Americans’ concerns first arose in 2008 when Obama spoke about instituting “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military. Given similar statements he’d made that ultimately were not what Americans believed his words meant (known as “information dominance”) such as “fundamentally transforming America,” Americans are right to remain concerned.
Subsequently in 2010’s Health Care Bill Obama provided for a “Ready Reserve Corps,” dismissed by some as simply being comprised of health care professionals in event of catastrophe. Since then questionable images have surfaced of Obama’s “civilian army” comprising young black chanting thugs quite unlike any military Americans have ever known. That was enhanced by Obama’s official statements defining “Veterans” and “Christians” as “domestic terrorists;” and by now the well known FEMA Camps that make no practical sense. Admittedly, two-years later Americans still know very little about just what is in the Health Care legislation – and why – so these legitimate questions do persist.
A year or more ago it was reported in legitimate Conservative news that Obama was infiltrating our nation’s military with street thugs, changing its composition with characters who’d have less discipline and no particular loyalty to the American People. I find this believable not only because of its source but mostly because Obama has, on many occasions, indulged in and allowed thuggary and, through his silence on a grand scale, has further encouraged it in his governing of America. Those behavioral examples speak loudly, as they should, regardless of the words being used.
Americans have taken comfort in believing our military will stand with us, they having sworn duty to our Constitution, not to any one president or his ideology. The formation of Oath Keepers gave us some reassurance. Oath Keepers had their first annual conference in 2009, understandably so given Obama’s wholly unAmerican handling of the Health Care Bill despite majority demands of The American People in opposing it. From the Oath Keepers site:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore … to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.
On Monday Dr. Jim Garrow, a well-respected man dedicated to rescuing infant girls from China’s one-child policy and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, reportedly posted on Facebook:
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.
When asked who his source was Garrow reportedly answered: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Read Garrow’s Amazon bio here. The Examiner reported on this yesterday, adding:
This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.
Lest we forget the three high-ranking Generals plus an Admiral who were inexplicably and untimely unseated from their positions immediately following Obama and Hillary Clinton’s “stand-down” orders in Lybia; and their nonsensical lies about a little-known “film” that clearly did not lend to that great American tragedy. Reports of inordinately replacing these officials were buried, curiously superseded by the just as suspicious “scandal” surrounding Lybia and our otherwise renown for his ethics general, General Patraeus.
Oh what a wicked web we weave when we seek first to deceive. God bless our Oath Keepers. God bless America.
“For over four years conservatives like me have tried, unsuccessfully, to convince good liberals, you know those who actually love America but are misled by the liberal media, Progressives and socialist about what is in the nation’s best interest, that supporting Obama and most Democrats in Congress was ultimately not in the nation’s best interest.”
This article by David Catron is so well written and solidly founded it speaks for itself. His subject brings to bear the unspoken prospect of medical providers holding patients to similar consequences. That happens. I know. With the onset of Obamacare’s personal bank account access and new IRS agencies set up to enforce it, the prospect becomes even more perilous for American citizens.
Providers don’t typically take rescinded insurance payments laying down, even years later. Those can be passed on to unknowing patients years later. Having experienced that is why I (now) always add beneath my signature on medical financial responsibility forms, “I will not be responsible for provider or insurance errors and/or omissions.” So far it’s not been challenged. After all, that is the purpose of signing for financial liability, clarifying what you do or do not agree to pay.
As dreadful as they are to contend with, coverage glitches are better addressed before incurring unknown astronomical medical costs than being surprised by them years later. This was a not-so-long-ago surprise with my Medicare insurance provider, which I’m still contesting with great fervor and to no avail of my credit rating.
On a different note and determined not to leave my family in insurmountable debt when earlier cancer diagnosis threatened the very real prospect of dying, discussing those glitches brought resolve before it became a problem; and before I paid tremendously more than initially told I had to, to live. Sometimes we have to walk the straight and narrow. Praise God for the strength, it saved thousands of dollars I could’ve otherwise knowingly paid and I’m here to tell of it. That was when private insurance was its own man, how that’s changed since Obamacare is anyone’s guess. Where’s Nancy Pelosi when you really need her?
What’s right is right. What’s wrong is wrong. Despite socialist creeping, right and wrong haven’t changed. Regardless how intimidating big monopoly is, ‘big monopoly’ is all the more reason I will not financially burden our stipend income with consequences of someone else’s insidious negligence – someone whose job it is to know insurance; to whom I pay premiums for that very reason; and who is the most reluctant to relay that information when I ask.
As medically necessary as my recently contested care was I knew I couldn’t afford it; and I would not have agreed to the care without assurances of coverage. A friend used to say, “They can’t eat you.” So far they haven’t, though admittedly at times it feels like I can smell a seasoned pot coming to boil.
Something to consider in the context of Mr. Catron’s article. If you encountered a personal calamity of similar nature, please share it in comments.
… conservatives like me have come to the realization that “good” liberals will only change and wake up to the threats posed by Obama once they have experienced the “sting” of his socialist policies. It appears that is exactly what is beginning to happen.
Next time, be more careful what you wish for.
This unshakable belief in his own infallibility regarding government-administered health care was partly due to his hopelessly naïve view of Medicare, which he called “the most successful government program ever.” Never mind that this “success” had produced a $38 trillion unfunded liability, it was somehow “more efficient than private insurance.” Imagine my surprise, then, when I looked at the byline for this scathing piece bemoaning the depredations of that very program. The outraged author of “Medicare made the rules and now punishes doctors for following them” is none other than the redoubtable Shadowfax.
… a lot of money disappears from the bank account of the hospital. And it gets worse. The recent “fiscal cliff” deal changed the rule so that Medicare can now demand refunds for “overpayments” made as far back as 5 years ago.
… The most ironic feature of this program is that it proves our Beltway masters intend to do what Shadowfax and other advocates of government-run health care claimed they would never do — tell doctors how to practice medicine:
“Medicare is … reviewing charts and claiming that the physicians are fraudulently upcoding because we are documenting complete Reviews of Systems when they were not … medically necessary.”
In other words, the ultimate arbiter of medical necessity is no longer your doctor. This program means that the medical need for an examination, test, or procedure is retroactively determined by the government.
The Democratic Party are masters of deception and illusion. When something sounds too good to be true it usually is. That is how the modern day Democratic Party operates. The left is very adept at hiding their true intentions by misnaming legislation. They can take an unpopular bill and soften its image by giving it a more appealing and inviting name. It is the equivalent of wrapping a piece of coal in a fancy box and putting a bow on top of it.
Here are a few examples of deceptive pieces of legislation:
The American Tax Payer’s Relief Act, also known as the Fiscal Cliff bill does not provide any real tax relief. The way this bill is named one would think it provides tax relief to all Americans. It does not. This bill actually raises taxes on the middle class and adds four trillion dollars to our already 16 trillion dollar deficit. Moreover, it is filled with pet projects and paybacks to people who helped Barack Obama get reelected. This bill does not address the nation’s biggest problem which is spending.
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare makes you think that health care will become more affordable. Unfortunately for the American people that is not the case. In fact, most experts agree that not only does it raise health care costs but it strips away competition and will ultimately lead to a one payer system which was always its original intent. If that wasn’t enough it has had a negative effect on the economy by making it harder for small businesses to succeed due to the mandates, regulations, and new taxes.
The Employee Free Choice Act, also known as Card Check leads one to believe that employees will be given more choices. Once again, the devil is in the details. This bill actually would restrict a worker’s right to choose whether or not they want to join a union. Right now if a company and its employees want to unionize it is voted on by secret ballot. This bill would eliminate a worker’s right to vote in secrecy. By removing the secret ballot process you invite undue pressure from outside groups and union representatives. A more appropriate name for this piece of legislation would be the forced unionization act.
The Respect for Marriage Act once again sounds like it would be respectful to traditional marriage however it is anything but. This bill would completely repeal The Defense of Marriage Act in its entirety. The Defense of Marriage Act states in no uncertain terms the definition of marriage as a “union between one man and one woman.” The Respect for Marriage Act not only changes the definition of marriage, but it also voids other states legislative actions in regards to protecting traditional marriage. It should be named the disrespect for traditional marriage act instead.
These are just a few examples of how the left uses deceptive bill naming to trick the American people. We need to expose this trickery and make sure people are aware of how they operate.
The Democratic Party has remained in power not because of their good ideas or that they are the better choice for America; they have remained in power because they present bad ideas in a good light. They are also much better than Republicans when it comes to political warfare. They are masters at vilifying Republicans as evil, out of touch, and uncaring. They have sucessfully launched a disinformation campaign and convinced enough Americans that they are the party of the working class. The left goes around telling Americans that Republicans want to restrict individual freedoms while they force you to pay for health insurance and restrict your health care choices. They sold Americans on taxing the rich while simultaneously raising taxes on the middle class.
The Democratic Party survives and retains their power by using scare tactics and made up crises. They are not concerned with the middle class; they are only concerned with winning their votes. They want an uninformed electorate full of yes we can zombies. The more we allow the left to operate in this capacity the harder it will become to defeat them and save the country. They have become harder to expose due to a blatant and dangerously biased media at their side. It is up to us the freedom loving people of this great nation to find a way around the biased media and launch a successful counter attack.
Sometimes if you try to reason with a bully you just get punched in the nose. It is time we start hitting back. The time for the moral high ground is over. We have been trying that approach for years and look where it has gotten us. You can’t go to a gunfight with a switchblade and expect to win. We need to become more verbally brave and aggressive and never apologize for our beliefs.
When we allow the Democratic Party to paint Republicans as racist because we disagree with Barack Obama than we lose. When we allow the Democratic Party to paint us as extremists because we care about every human life and they don’t than we lose. When we allow the Democratic Party to paint us as uncaring because we would rather create jobs than dependents than we lose. It’s as though we allow the left to hit us over the head with a sledgehammer and instead of making them stop we ask for a rubber mallet so it doesn’t hurt as much?
Politics is a contact sport. If we are to defeat the left’s disinformation campaign we need to change our tactics. We have got to lose the label of compassionate conservatives and start acting like combative warriors. How do you stop a bully from hitting you? You punch him back harder.
What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into the mind of the conservative: bold, full strength, and unfiltered.
Tonight: Special guest: Rep. Dr. Paul Broun, (@DrPaulBrounMD), Congressman in 10th district of Georgia, and Dean Clancy (@DeanClancy), Vice President for FreedomWorks.
Mainstream media are finding themselves in a challenging position. Supporters of the Affordable Health Care Act, they are now finding that the new law has many unexpected consequences.
USA Today reported this week that fewer businesses may be hiring this year due to the restrictions of Obamacare. More businesses are planning to hire part-time rather than full time workers with companies trimming hours back to fewer than 30 due to the new health care law. Analysts are predicting this will impact the job market and continue stressing the already tenuous economy.
USA Today: Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses that employ at least 50 full-time workers — or the equivalent, including part-time workers — must offer health insurance to staffers who work at least 30 hours a week. Employers that don’t provide coverage must pay a $2,000-per-worker penalty, excluding the first 30 employees.
While the new mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014 employers are being told they must back track employee scheduled hours for the previous year necessitating these earlier changes.
In addition to part time workers the impact of the new health care law seems to be affecting those companies who are currently just under the 50 employee threshold. According to the USA Today article many businesses who were looking to expand just over the threshold are now delaying their growth plans, waiting for stronger signs of improving economy. Others are considering hiring more part time workers to avoid the tax penalties.
Share it with friends who voted for the Democratic Congress that passed this unread legislation and who are now wondering why there are fewer jobs available. As President Obama said, “Elections have consequence.”
There were a few anxious moments in the White House last night and early Thursday morning. For a brief moment it looked liked John Boehner’s re–election as Speaker might be in trouble. This would have been a disaster for the Obama administration — equivalent to the French hiring Gen. George S. Patton as their commander–in–chief in the fall of 1938.
It’s quite possible that Boehner is the favorite Republican of Oval Office denizens. He’s never won a showdown with Obama. He huffs and he puffs and he blows his own House down. Cong. Boehner is the Ambrose Burnside of GOP strategists. He’s always a pontoon or two short of victory.
Which is why his three–vote margin was uncomfortably close for the Obama administration.
Speaker Boehner — and admittedly much of the Republican brain trust both in and out of elective office — is trapped in a binary, tactical battle with the White House. A battle he manages to re–fight and re–lose on a regular basis. The fiscal cliff confrontation was simply not a choice between passing Obama’s tax and spending increases or plunging headlong off the cliff.
A truly strategic thinker would have seen there was a third option. An option that was difficult in the short run, but promised a lasting victory in the long run.
I outlined that strategy here in mid–December. I contend that Obama has a legitimate mandate to raise taxes, so let him raise taxes to his heart’s content. Instead of fighting and losing, House Republicans step aside and let the Democrats pass a bill that gives the public a mandate right upside their head.
Only the Democrats do it without a single Republican vote.
Instead, Boehner states very plainly the GOP believes this bill is wrong and raising taxes will damage the economy. Unfortunately, the people have spoken, so the GOP will abstain on this vote. Making the 2014 off–year election a referendum on the Obama plan.
A referendum Republicans will win in a landslide, if we are correct. If we are wrong, and the voters actually want big, bigger and biggest government, then it doesn’t matter anyway.
Using a political rope–a–dope strategy means Republicans can’t be blamed for pushing the country over the fiscal cliff, nor can they be blamed for the recession redux that follows passage of Obama’s Christmas list.
Instead, binary, short–term, tactical thinking has saddled the nation with a terrible deal: $41 in new spending for every $1 in elusive spending cuts. And what’s worse, because the House GOP leadership helped pass the bill, Republicans now have part ownership of the blame for Obama’s failure!
Ss long as Boehner is speaker, this willing participation in mutually assured economic destruction undercuts responsible conservatives in the future.
On the other hand, Republican governors, when presented with an almost identical situation, made just the type of choice I’m advocating.
GOP governors loathe Obamacare. They believe it to be bad policy, bad medicine and bad government. Now Obamacare is the law of the land and the next step is implementation on a state–by–state basis. In any potentially chancy political situation Democrats can be certain to monopolize all the credit and outsource the blame if things go wrong.
Acting on this principle, Democrats established a system where each state is supposed to create a health insurance exchange, which insulates national Democrats from blame. When Obamacare goes horribly wrong, state governors will be in the line of fire, since they created the exchange.
If Boehner had been governor of say Virginia, he would have fallen right into the trap and worked to create an exchange that implemented Obamacare and dispensed blame to Republicans.
Fortunately Bob McDonnell is governor and he — along with other wise Republicans at the state level — refused to create an exchange. Leaving Obamacare a Democrat sole proprietorship, since the exchange will be run by the feds. Obama owns the law and he owns the outcome, because Republicans refused to participate.
Looking ahead, our next defeat will be the vote on increasing the debt limit. Sure Boehner has pledged that he won’t negotiate with Obama in the future, but I fail to see where being buffaloed by Harry Reid is an improvement.
Unfortunately for conservatives, Boehner is an excellent strategist when it comes to protecting his career. As Virginia Del. Rich Anderson (R–VA) points out, back in 2009 Boehner was a strong supporter of a secret ballot for union elections.
Boehner declared that a public vote with union organizers watching would “actually would strip workers of free choice in union organizing elections…. Instead, it would leave them open to coercion and intimidation — from either union officials or company management — to sign or not sign a card expressing their desire to join a union.”
Which makes the 12 Republican members of the House who voted against Boehner on Thursday all the more noble. Since he was watching teamster–like as each one of them voted against him.
Voting as a conservative in the Boehner House is not conducive to career advancement. As the four freshmen Congressmen who lost their committee assignments last month, in retaliation for failing to toe the company line, will be happy to tell you.
One of the main reasons the economy is not recovering is because of the healthcare law. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare is not what the doctor ordered or what the people wanted. Every single poll ever conducted since its inception has shown more Americans in favor of its repeal than against it. The bill is a staggering 2,074 pages of hidden fees, oppressive taxes, and job killing regulations. To give you an idea of just how large this bill is keep in mind that Leo Tolstoy’s classic novel War and Peace is only 1,440 pages.
According to a recent study from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Obamacare will make it harder to recruit and pay highly qualified workers. Businesses will have to weigh the risk/reward ratio on whether or not they can afford to expand their businesses past 49 employees. Imagine that. A government law that actually punishes a business from growing? Once a business has 50 or more total employees the Obamacare mandate provisions kick in. Many small businesses will be forced to make critical decisions. Should they continue to offer health insurance for their employees or should they pay the fine instead?
The businesses that decide not to expand and remain under 49 employees do not have to offer health insurance. Dropping the insurance for their employees won’t change the fact that those employees will still get fined for not having insurance. Obamacare has already been proven to be bad for business and will continue to cost small businesses more in production, labor, and manufacturing expenditures. Roughly74% of small businesses have said the main reason they are not hiring is because of the law. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the healthcare law will lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by the end of this decade alone.
In a cruel and ironic twist, Obamacare will also disproportionately affect the people it was designed to help the most; the poor. According to a recent joint study by Harvard and the University of Chicago, the workers most affected by Obamacare will be younger workers, minorities, and entry level or labor heavy workers. This is the exact group of people who can least afford to pay anymore for their health insurance. Instead of hiring and training new cashiers, receptionists, and customer service representatives small businesses will be forced to cut costs. They will develop new techniques such as automated kiosks and scanning machines instead of live workers. The end result will be fewer jobs for the people that need them the most. So when the poor get sick and suffer health problems from the added stress of not being able to find a job they can take comfort in the fact that they will be taken care of with government run healthcare.
Here are a few examples of what type of decisions job creators are now asking themselves.
John Schnatter, CEO of Papa Johns Pizza said Obamacare will force him to raise his prices between 11 and 14 cents per slice. Under the law, the company which is the third largest pizza chain in the United States will have to offer healthcare coverage to its more than 16,500 total employees or be subjected to a fine. In order to offset the additional costs associated with the law many businesses like Papa Johns are passing the costs on to their customers by increasing their prices.
Here is a quote from Judy Nichols, a small business owner, “I have two options. The cost for providing health insurance per-worker per-year is approximately $4,000. I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could not expand my business and keep my number of employees under 50 so the mandate does not apply. It unfortunately is a no win situation for me. Obamacare will cost me between 20,000 and 30,000 dollars per year in new taxes. Many businesses owners, including myself are leaning towards dropping the coverage and paying the fine.”
Even a committed liberal like Jim Cramer of CNBC admitted that Obamacare will hurt most businesses. On his Mad Money show he said this, “What I’m telling you is that most of the business leaders that I have spoken with have a real fear of Obamacare. They don’t want to hire, this is part of the underground economy that is going to develop, because nobody wants to put people on the books. People have to recognize that this issue is front and center to every CEO I speak to. They tell me it is less expensive and less burdensome to hire and place workers in other countries. As a result of the law a lot more businesses will set up operations in China, India, or even Mexico.”
On July 16th, 2009 at a rally in Holmdel, New Jersey President Obama said something that we now know is not entirely true. In an attempt to solidify more support for his healthcare bill the President said this. “Let me be clear. If you have health insurance that you like, a doctor that you trust, you can keep your current plan.”
First off, we have learned these last four years that when the President starts a sentence with let me be clear it usually means he is not. His proclamation that you can keep the insurance you have is in many ways the political equivalent of former President Bill Clinton’s ambiguous statement ‘it depends on what the definition of is is.”
The Affordable Care Act, which is the epitome of an oxymoron, was never intended to be anything but a single payer system. The President and the Democrats knew if they could just get their foot through the healthcare door that over time it would become a single payer system through attrition. The law was purposely designed to be so cumbersome, so complicated, and so expensive for businesses that they would get frustrated and just stop offering insurance and pay the fine. Most independent studies have concluded that nearly 70% of privately insured carriers will eventually end up on the government plan.
Another potentionally dangerous stipulation included in Obamacare is known as the Independent Panel Advisory Board. This controversial provision of the bill creates a 15 member panel of unelected bureaucrats in charge of controlling costs. These officials are appointed by the President, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Minority Leader.
Once the board members have been chosen they must be confirmed by the Senate and are appointed for a term of six years. Perhaps what is most chilling about these appointees is the fact that they do not even have to have a medical background! And if this wasn’t enough, they will also be paid a salary of $165,300 per year.
The President and the Democrats insist this panel is not allowed to ration care. There is language in the bill that specifically forbids it. But lets be honest here, they are paid to control costs.
Suppose you have two equally infirm patients. One patient is 25 years younger than the other. Both patients need a life saving operation that would immediately improve their long term health and quality of life. The board realizes that if they authorize both operations it will put them over their proposed budget. Do you really think they’re going to authorize the older patient for the operation? Not a chance. They would instead more likely try to justify their decision by saying to patient A that he/she has had a longer life than patient B. It is time to discuss other means of treatment such as end of life practices and pain management for patient A instead of authorizing a budget busting life saving operation.
Since when is it ever acceptable for the government to play the role of God? What if that was your mother or father? How would you feel?
This is the insidious part of Obamacare that many Americans have a major problem with. Healthcare decisions should only be between the patient, the family, and the doctor. Healthcare decisions should never be between the patient, the family, the doctor, and some unqualified, unelected, government bean counter.
If Obamacare is fully implemented in America our country and our healthcare will never be the same. If you think healthcare is expensive now just wait until it is free and run by the government. Our premiums will sky rocket because there will be less competition. The overall quality of the healthcare we come to expect will also diminish over time. There will also be a shortage of good doctors and specialists as many will leave the profession. What is the best way to ruin the greatest healthcare system in the world? Hand it over to the government to run.
Suggested by the author:
Why John Roberts betrayed America and changed his vote
Warning: Barack Obama may be intentionally destroying our economy
The battle between traditional conservatism and secular liberalism in America
Last summer nursing home staff at several unionized Connecticut Healthbridge facilities went on strike. We covered the story of alleged abuse by some of the workers here at Conservative Daily News. According to police reports some of the striking workers vandalized patient records and changed arm bands on patients to cause confusion for the replacement staff.
This week a federal judge has ordered the striking staff reinstated. The ruling comes despite objections of Lorraine Mulligan a registered nurse who was hired to evaluate the impact on patient care and felt rehiring these workers might put patients health in jeopardy.
From the Free Beacon: “The nature and severity of the … incidents … put the safety, health, and well-being of the residents of those facilities in immediate jeopardy,” she said. “A court order requiring the reinstatement of any of them or additionally those who had knowledge of sabotage and failed to act would expose the residents to immediate danger and put them at risk of suffering serious harm or death.”
As reported in July, Connecticut state police are conducting a criminal investigation into the vandalism though no charges have been filed and the company has filed a separate federal lawsuit alleging that the union engaged in intimidation tactics.
CT Post: Union spokeswoman Deborah Chernoff called the labor relations board decision “a very big deal and something that doesn’t happen very often. It’s a complete confirmation and vindication of everything we’ve been saying all along.”
She said the union plans to meet with all the striking workers Wednesday and start taking steps to get them all back to work.
CT Post: Healthbridge spokeswoman Lisa Crutchfield stated the company will appeal the injunction referring back to the summer’s vandalism: “The acts of criminality committed against our residents by some of those going out on strike on July placed our residents in serious jeopardy, and we find it unfathomable that these individuals would be returned to care for our residents before those responsible are identified and prosecuted.”
She said the acts of sabotage are the subject of an ongoing investigation by Connecticut’s chief state’s attorney.
Employees are looking forward to the prospect of returning to work but there may be some question how long the homes will remain open. When the HealthBridge lawyers argued against the injunction they said all of the unionized nursing homes were losing money. In light of the continued reduced reimbursements coming to Medicaid and Medicare through the Affordable Care Act it is expected that the nursing homes will continue to struggle.
As Nancy Pelosi famously said, “You’ve got to pass the bill, so you can learn what’s inside…” Democrats are finally getting around to reading the ObamaCare law. And they’re surprised at the findings. Unknown taxes, hidden fees. Who would have guessed that within those 2,000 pages of hastily put together legislation would be ‘job killing taxes’ (as emphatically stated this Monday by Al Franken, D-MN)?
Well of course it’s true. Those of us who urged caution and debate anticipated this massive bill would impact people far more than House and Senate leaders would admit.
So here we are, as more parts of the law are being enacted, and Congress has just now learned about some of those unexpected fees. Acting as though they were blindsided, sixteen Democratic Senators sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking for delays because they have just now realized that the medical technology field will be severely impacted by taxes levied through the new law.
It’s true, some of the Senators, including Franken, did express concerns when the bill was written about these very taxes. Unfortunately, these same senators did not see the problems as significant enough to vote no on the bill. Today as ObamaCare and its funding methods are about to become actuality they are responding to their constituents and finally, questioning elements of this new and expensive law.
Huffington Post reports: Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.
Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours — something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers.
Walmart declined to disclose how many of its roughly 1.4 million U.S. workers are vulnerable to losing medical insurance under its new policy.
Is this the beginning of Single Payer Insurance? It is anticipated that many of these part time employees will now join the expanded Medicaid part of ObamaCare.
Does Walmart, a major contributor to the Obama campaign in the last election, see this as an opportunity to further cut costs at the expense of taxpayers?
But you say, “How can that be? I thought the Affordable Care Act would mean health insurance coverage for those very people. The working class who don’t qualify for Medicaid but don’t have coverage through their work or who have preexisting conditions…”
From Bloomberg News: To Megan Hildebrandt, President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act means she can no longer be denied health insurance because of her lymphatic cancer.
There’s a big catch: Coverage for the 28-year-old artist and many other Americans without insurance will come at a potentially unaffordable cost.
Hildebrandt, who relies on hospital charity, will face more than $1,000 in annual premiums, by one estimate, and probably more in out-of-pocket expenses even with new federal subsidies. She and her husband have a combined income of $25,000.
“It’s great that I’m not going to have to pay some hugely impossible amount,” said Hildebrandt, who lives in Austin, Texas. “Though now I’m in the health-care system and still have to pay money that we can’t really afford.”
So there it is. The program that was meant specifically to help those caught without health coverage still may not be covered.
Those earning up to 400 percent of the poverty line — about $92,000 for a family of four — will receive tax subsidies to buy private insurance on a sliding scale.
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s second- ranking Democrat who was instrumental in pushing through the law, said there’s “legitimate concern” that care will remain unaffordable for some.
Lawmakers sought to “protect the poorest” yet weren’t able to offer as much help to others as they would have liked because of budgetary constraints, said Durbin. “We did all that we could do,” he said.
We did all that we could do??? Unfortunately, in the haste to pass a 2000 page bill that nobody took the time to read through we now have a law that is changing the face of American health care…and yet there are still many who will not be covered.