Tag Archives: obamacare

Something Wicked This Way Comes

swtwc

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.

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

pelosi

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 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.

The Demotion of Harry Reid

harry-reid-640

With but a day left until the Senate likely knows its next makeup, Harry Reid might just be readying himself for a drastic change in job requirements – and America waits with baited breath.

Under Leader Reid’s expert guidance, the Senate has taken on virtually no controversial legislation since Obamacare. Reid has done everything in his power to prevent Democrats from having to vote on contentious issues and has therefore left them looking like patsies for the President – voting with the President’s wishes up to 99% of the time.

Reid has been worrying about campaigning instead of governing for one very good, self-important reason – if he loses too many Senate seats, he loses his leadership position. So instead of working to do the will of the people, Harry has been working to do no harm to Democrat Senators. In the end, that might just cost them – and him – their positions.

Failing to pass a budget compromise since 2009 and doing little else but cower to the President’s demands, the Senate has been the obstacle that America resents. The House has pushed bill after bill to the Senate with Reid preventing anything requiring compromise to hit the Senate floor. It has all been Obama’s way or the highway.

XL pipeline, petroleum exports .. or even .. a BUDGET would have been great. Instead, the Senate has been largely allowed to only vote on approving (or else) the President’s nominees for lower court judge seats or Whitehouse administration positions.

Getting hyper-partisan Harry Reid out of the Senate offers America some hope that Congress will get some bills on to the President’s desk. Perhaps even some that might finally reverse the shrinking percentage of Americans in the workforce. Shrinking paychecks, higher grocery bills and huge jumps in Obamacare health insurance costs will not be missed either.

Veterans Are the Healthcare Canary in a Coal Mine

JeffDarcy VA scandalBetween today and June 6th’s 70th anniversary of the D–Day landing I want you to find a veteran and talk to him. This doesn’t mean cornering some unsuspecting vet and ambushing him with the latest insipid leftist cliché: ‘Thank you for your service,’ which manages to be both pretentious and condescending.

(However, it is an improvement over the left’s former greeting for vets: ‘How many babies did you kill today?’ But it’s still rote trivialization.)

Ideally your vet should be a veteran of either the Korean Conflict or the Vietnam War. Not because the fighting was far enough in the past be non–controversial, but because this vet has had plenty of time to experience the tender mercies of the Veterans Administration health care system.

And that system should be the main topic of conversation, because if the left has its way, everyone will experience this type of health care under the coming Obamacare regime. Don’t make the mistake — encouraged by the cheerleading mainstream media — of believing the VA is a problem unto itself and has no relation to civilian health care and certainly no relevance to the future of Obamacare.

That is spin and it is completely untrue. The VA hospital system is essentially the pilot program for Obamacare. It’s been a single–payer system from the beginning and single–payer is the ultimate goal for Obamacare. The VA system was designed to accommodate a smaller subset of the population and it was immune to competition from the private sector. Think of it as the United States Postal Service with syringes.

The theory is after the bugs have been worked out of the pilot program, then a benevolent government can expand it to accommodate the entire country. Unfortunately with leftist big government, when a pilot program fails the verdict is always the failure was due to a lack of resources. The cure is to take the same program, bulk it up with taxpayer dollar injections and make it mandatory for the entire country.

So the VA is very relevant to Obamacare

Our veterans have been used as guinea pigs since 1930 when the VA was founded. One would think 84 years is long enough to get the kinks worked out of the program, but one would be wrong. VA hospital horror stories have been a staple of government scandal coverage for years.

If you fall for the ‘it’s just the VA and won’t affect civilians’ cover story then you are believing what the Obama administration wants you to believe. The goal of the White House is to keep the VA scandal bottled up in a silo off to one side. Obama wants you to think it’s just a rogue VA hospital in Arizona that cooked the books.

But it’s not just Arizona. It’s Florida, it’s West Virginia, it’s Missouri, it’s all over the country. And the problem can’t be solved because there is no real penalty for failure and no competitive pressure to excel. And the same government that runs the VA will soon be running Obamacare if the left can expand it into a single–payer system.

My family has it’s own story of an encounter with the Oklahoma – Texas VA administration. One of my uncles — a WWII veteran — fell ill and went to the VA for treatment in the 50’s. The good doctors said he had suffered a nervous breakdown and they hospitalized him in the mental wing.

Today suffering a nervous breakdown means you are forever immune to negative job performance reviews and the Angel of Downsizing will probably pass over you, too. But in the 50’s a mental problem was the kiss of death.

My uncle lost his career, his wife and his future. He was in and out of VA hospitals for two decades trying to find a cure so he could reassemble the shards of what had been a normal life. And then one fine day he got a new VA doctor. This doctor announced that my uncle had never had any mental problems and that all his difficulties had been caused by an undiagnosed and untreated brain tumor that had been growing in his skull since the first time he saw the inside of a VA hospital.

So my uncle went home to the bedroom he’d inhabited in my grandmother’s house since he lost everything he held dear. And he thought about his life. And he thought about what he had lost. And he carefully took a blanket off his bed, went over to the gas space heater, sat down on the floor, covered his head with the blanket and turned on the gas.

So my family knows all about VA medical care and we want no part of it.

These poor vets were promised first–class health care in return for going to war. Instead they received secret waiting lists, bureaucrat cover-ups, buck passing and incompetent care.

On the other hand the rest of us, that haven’t gone to war, have been promised we could keep our doctor and our insurance.

So find a veteran and ask him how the government keeps its promises.

The continual problems of the VA health care system are what the rest of the country will face if Obamacare isn’t stopped in its tracks. Government can’t run a smaller health care network and it certainly can’t run universal health care.

Our veterans have been the canary in the health care coalmine for decades, but Uncle Sam just keeps replacing the dead canaries with new ones.

The BO Behind the Obamacare Numbers

If there was one thing that then presidential candidate Barack Obama had right it was his assertion that words matter. That understood, it has always seemed a bit odd to me that a man who presents and proudly proclaims himself a full blown Progressive – if not the quintessential Fabian Progressive – would have alerted the electorate to this fact. Why, you ask? Well, because Progressives are notorious for manipulating the meanings of words to suit their objective needs. Remember, Progressives are the ones who insist that the United States Constitution is a “living document,” meant to facilitate the needs of the times (read: allow government to morph into any authority that the elites believe is needed at any given time).

So, it is with a gigantic grain of salt – a Guinness Book sized grain – that I consume the declarations being made by the Obama Administration on the “numbers of people who have signed up” for health insurance through the federal health exchange. There is a stark difference between “signing up” for the website and purchasing health insurance. Even then, there is a lot of ground between applying for health insurance through the exchange and actually paying the premiums each month.

The truth is, we won’t know how many people have successfully attained health insurance coverage through the “Obamacare Exchange” until after the first month of coverage has completed. This is because for coverage to be in effect it must be paid for. To that end The National Journal reports:

“One of the biggest players in Obamacare’s exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren’t paying their first premium – which means they’re not actually covered.

The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members – known collectively as “Blues” plans – are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month’s premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday.”

It would seem that some – oh, maybe 15 to 20 percent – of those who “signed up” for health insurance through Healthcare.gov have figured out that as long as it appears as though they have signed up for health insurance through the exchange they might be able to circumvent the inaugural Obamacare fine (read: tax, per SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts) for not actually having health insurance. Of course, this remains to be seen, but given that the Obamacare website is the laughingstock of the tech world, maybe – just maybe – they might get away with it.

And another facet of this totalitarian Progressive overreach of government – this unconstitutional encroachment into our private lives – is the question surrounding the employer mandate. To date, there have seen so many exemptions given to both organizations and corporations alike, the idea that this is actually a “mandate” is becoming laughable. Let’s face it, when a mandate becomes something only applicable to select factions and demographics, it is less a mandate and more a punishment, and a punishment for “not thinking correctly.”

This Progressive line of thinking is typical of an elitist faction that truly believes – truly believes – they know what is best for everyone, even if the overwhelming majority views the “opinion(s)” of said Progressive elitists as undesirable and oppressive. It is for this reason – the elitist narcissism of the Progressive Left – that a recent declaration by former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shouldn’t surprise anyone.

TheHill.com reports:

“Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs predicted Wednesday that the oft-delayed Obamacare employer mandate will never go into effect.

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go,” Gibbs told a crowd in Colorado, according to BenefitsPro.com.

“The website described the audience as being surprised by Gibbs’s comments…

“Gibbs argued that most employers with more than 100 workers already offer health insurance, and only a relatively small number of companies have between 50 and 99 employees.”

Putting aside, for a moment, Mr. Gibbs’ contention that only a small number of companies have employees numbering between 50 and 99 employees, this is another example of the “words matter” bait and switch, and with ramifications.

We the People, were told – in no uncertain terms – that the employer mandate was essential to the success of Obamacare. The Obama Administration has been so obstinate about this point that they were willing to fight the Hobby Lobby Corporation all the way to the US Supreme Court in an effort to force them to provide “end-of-life-causing” contraception options to their employees – against the moral and religiously-based objections of the company owners. The Obama Administration even tried to strong arm Catholic charities operated by nuns to do the same. Yet now we have one of the “soldiers of the Obamacare Movement” shrugging his shoulders insisting that the employer mandate is no big deal? If that’s true, why coerce nuns and those objecting to the mandate on religious grounds?

Looking further down the list of forced mandates, what could we expect next? Should we get ready for the individual mandate to become expendable, but for, of course, the demographics that are “not thinking correctly”?

If words matter, as now President Obama claimed in the days before his presidency, why don’t they matter now, now that he is president? He promised that Americans could keep their doctors and the insurance plans they enjoyed “period.” Yet that turned out to be a lie, bald-faced. He and his cronies said that the mandates were non-negotiable. But now one of the primary mouthpieces who trumpeted the need for these mandates during this blatant coercion of the American people says the need to mandate employer participation is “not so much.”

Truth be told, there are some provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are beneficial to the American people (dealing with the purchase of health insurance across state lines and addressing pre-existing conditions being two). But the negatives of this legislation far, far out-weigh the positives. Additionally, if federally elected politicians weren’t playing the whore for the behemoth insurance companies and their heartless lobbyists on K Street (let’s remember who was “all in” on getting Obamacare passed) purchasing health insurance would have been open to a national market, thus lowering prices through competition and creating viable options to address the issue of pre-existing conditions.

Don’t look now, but Capitalism is the answer to high health insurance prices and accessibility.

Yes, worlds matter. And where Obamacare is concerned, the only applicable words that matter are these, spoken by then candidate Obama:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Obamacare Requires 68-Year-Old Grandma To Have Pregnancy Test Before Biopsy

pregnancy_test

grandmaThe hypocrisy is infuriating!

Shared on Facebook, via One Silenced, Millions Awakened:

Gramma gets a PREGNANCY TEST
One of our readers told of an experience she had and we thought it was worth sharing:

“I just saw a video about some Democrats in Minnesota laughing over Obamacare. Let me share a bit about what happened to me at my doc’s office yesterday.

Before I had the biopsy the nurse said they had to do a pregnancy test. Now keep in mind, I am a granny. Now I know some of you Bible readers are going to bring up Sarah being in her old age when she conceived but she had Abraham. I have no man. To my knowledge the only birth we know of that didn’t involve a man only happened one time in history. I reminded the nurse about that and she had the good grace to smile and kind of laugh. She said I know this sounds funny but we have to do this.

I said, you know you gave me this pregnancy test the last time I was in here, just weeks ago Why wasn’t that enough. She said they are obligated to do it. I said does this have to do with the insurance and she said yes. The Government regulations demand they do this so as to make sure when they do the biopsy they will not be removing any “life”. She said they have to have records showing they tested. MY Word !!!!!

I was gob-smacked…..not remove life????? I didn’t say anymore to her but my thought was this is garbage. Why is the Government so concerned that a woman beyond child bearing years might have conceived yet this same government pays to deliberately murder babies in the womb by the thousands?

I smell a fear of law suits. That’s another reason why our medical bills are so high. As I told y’all the other day I had to go round and round trying to sort out bills I already paid on other procedures I just had. Maddening!!!

Obamacare is a nightmare that’s just getting started.”

Hagedorn Challenges Liberal Minnesota Congressman Tim Walz on Health Care Law

Republican 1st District Congressional Candidate Jim Hagedorn addresses local Republican BPOU meeting. -Photo by Jeremy Griffith

Republican 1st District Congressional Candidate Jim Hagedorn addresses local Republican BPOU meeting. -Photo by Jeremy Griffith

1st District Republican Congressional Candidate Jim Hagedorn challenged Rep. Tim Walz on his vote on the controversial Affordable Health Care Act known as Obamacare. Hagedorn opposes the law and made his comments in a press conference in front of Walz’s Rochester, MN office. Hagedorn is one of several Republican Candidates vying for the 1st District Congressional seat currently occupied by Walz. View his comments and a press release from Hagedorn’s office below. -Video by Jeremy Griffith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hagedorn – Rochester Obamacare PR

Obama’s ‘Truth Team’ needs a fact check on their fact check

Obama failures

Oh the irony. President Obama’s so called “truth team” continues its propagandist efforts in the hopes of salvaging the President’s crashing approval numbers. This time, by falsely portraying Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers as lying about Obamacare’s effects on the health care industry.

From the unTruth Team’s email:

Truth Team

Friend —

Fun fact:

The latest member of Congress caught spreading myths about Obamacare is none other than the one chosen to give the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers recently blamed the Affordable Care Act for layoffs in the health care industry.

FactCheck.org dug into the research and didn’t find any support for Rep. McMorris Rodgers’ claims — zilch. In fact, they found that there has been steady health care job growth, and that trend is expected to continue. One economist even called her conclusion “silly.”

We’re sure we’ll be hearing more on health care from Rep. McMorris Rodgers in tomorrow night’s response. That’s why we can’t afford to let any myth like this go unchallenged.

Fight back — let your friends know about this embarrassing fact check and help get the truth out about health care reform.

 

Share on Facebook    Share on Twitter

The reality is Rep. McMorris Rodgers tried to pounce on what was a slight downtick in reported health care jobs — something economists say could be attributable to “statistical error.” But of course, there are voices out there who want nothing more than for health reform to fail — that’s why they’ve voted 46 times to repeal or derail the law.

What’s more absurd is that FactCheck.org found that “the new health care law is widely expected to increase health care employment” and quoted one Dartmouth economics professor who said he didn’t know of “any evidence that doctors have lost their jobs because of Obamacare.”

Truth Team, you know what to do.

Share the truth about Obamacare and the economy on Facebook:

http://my.barackobama.com/Obamacare-Fact-Check-FB

Or on Twitter:

http://my.barackobama.com/Obamacare-Fact-Check-TW

Fact check is hardly an unbiased source. Often softening the blow of critics where Democrats are concerned. In this case, they just got it wrong.

First example would be from U.S. News and World Report’s article where administrators at the Cleveland Clinic directly placed the blame for spending cuts and layoffs on the Affordable Care Act:

Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.

“Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients,” spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer. “We want to make sure we can keep care affordable.”

During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts.

Then, there is the article from the normally administration-friendly Huffington Post where a medical device maker directly attributes cuts to the tragedy that is Obamacare:

Medical technology company, Smith & Nephew, announced Thursday that it would be letting go of almost 100 workers at its plants in Tennessee and Massachusetts. The company, which makes orthopedic reconstruction products, is blaming 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices in President Obama’s health care law for the layoffs, according to Fox13 News.

Then there’s this:

Stryker Corporation, a Michigan-based medical device company with operations around the world, is laying off five percent of its employees in order to offset the cost of a tax passed as part of Obamacare in 2009 and scheduled to take effect in 2013.

and this

Clifton Springs Hospital let almost 60 non-clinical employees go last Friday. Hospital officials says it’s all because they’re trying to get ready for the impact of the new health care act. The act changes the way health insurance is run and the way hospitals are paid.

The stories are abundant and growing.

These layoffs are a necessity considering the goal of Obamacare. They want to make healthcare cheaper – one of the major costs in healthcare are the professionals that give that care. Therefore, if it is to cost less, there must be reductions in the cost of the people giving it.

Some will argue that these cuts are temporary, a statistical anomaly, a rounding error or a necessary evil. They can pick whichever explanation they like, but they must then admit they ARE happening.

If they are indeed happening, then Representative McMorris Rodgers is correct and it is Obama’s truth team that is spreading nothing more than the great leaders propaganda.

Want to know why Obama needs to discredit Rep. McMorris Rodgers so badly? Because she is giving the Republican response to his State of the Union address tomorrow night.

Thin, cheap, childish and foolish – and now they’ve been exposed.. again.

Roberts Rules Again…Poorly

Now comes news that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has doubled down on his middle finger to the American citizenry by turning away – without comment, which the SCOTUS gets to do – an emergency stay request, filed by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA, to block the implementation of Obamacare.

In an almost ignored story, FOX News reports:

“Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

“They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

“Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law’s contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.”

With an overwhelming number of Americans standing against the implementation of this law, an ever increasing realization of consequences that make the law he most expensive entitlement program ever launched, and the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional manipulation of the law’s provision via executive caveat, Chief Justice Roberts had a golden opportunity to rectify his atrocious ruling that allowed for this law to become binding to the American people. Again, Mr. Roberts has cheated the American people from the benefits of constitutional justice.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

That The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) originated out of the US House of Representatives as the Service Members Home Ownership Act (HR3590), which has absolutely nothing – nothing – to do with health insurance mandates or so-called reforms. Per the Obama Administration’s own Justice Department rebuttal to a suit brought on the same subject by the Pacific Legal Foundation:

“…attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as ‘gut and amend’ and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Using HR3590 as a ‘shell bill’ may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.”

So, the Obama Administration admits that the bill was foisted on the American people disingenuously and nefariously, Justice Roberts ruled it a tax, and yet Roberts refuses to allow the Supreme Court to hear a case that examines and rules on the constitutionality of exactly the unconstitutional aspects everyone says exist.

The big question is this. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts running interference for the Obama Progressives?

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

One has to ask, with the caveat that Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” we should all be asking – and asking our elected officials: What shall be done about Chief Justice Roberts; “bad behaviour”?

White House Responds To Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Lawsuit

jay_carney-300x225

From The White House:

white_house

Statement by the Press Secretary Regarding Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

The health care law puts women and families in control of their health care by covering vital preventive care, like cancer screenings and birth control, free of charge.  Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider a legal challenge to the health care law’s requirement that for-profit corporations include birth control coverage in insurance available to their employees.  We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women’s health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.

We do not comment on specifics of a case pending before the Court.  As a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor.  The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.  The Administration has already acted to ensure no church or similar religious institution will be forced to provide contraception coverage and has made a commonsense accommodation for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds.  These steps protect both women’s health and religious beliefs, and seek to ensure that women and families–not their bosses or corporate CEOs–can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets.

Obamacare Penalizes Married Couples

obamacare_logo_1

marriageCHARLOTTE, N.C., Nov. 26, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, punishes married couples by making it more difficult than unmarried couples to receive subsidies. Under the ACA, the less income earned, the more money is available to individuals from the government to pay for health insurance. In many low-income communities around the nation, marriage is now the exception rather than the rule and not getting married is the major tax shelter for low- and moderate-income households with children.

Couples living together who are not married could save up to $10,000 more than a married couple under Obamacare because the health care law requires married couples to combine income and prohibits them from filing as two individuals. On the other hand, an unmarried couple living together can file as two individuals. The disadvantage is for couples who choose marriage.

Heritage Foundation reports that in order to receive a government subsidy, a married couple must earn less than $62,040. Therefore, a married couple with each spouse making $35,000 annually for a combined income of $70,000 dollars would not qualify for a healthcare subsidy. In contrast, an unmarried couple with each partner making $40,000 for a combined income of $80,000 could qualify for thousands of dollars in subsidies. Whether this disparity was intentional or not, it is extremely damaging to the social fabric of our nation.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the SES, stated, “The fact that Obamacare penalizes married couples financially is about as counterproductive to stable families and a stable society as any government policy can be. The oldest axiom in public policy is: ‘That which you tax you’ll get less of. That which you subsidize you’ll get more of.’

“By financially penalizing marriage formation and conversely subsidizing non-married family units, government is acting in a way that the New Testament calls perverse. Romans 13 says that the civil magistrate is ordained to reward those who do that which is right and penalize those who do that which is wrong! Isn’t Obamacare doing exactly the opposite?”

Land goes on to say that Christians must be active participants in the culture war — standing firm against society-damaging issues such as the breakdown of family (penalizing marriage) and abortion — both of which are components within Obamacare.

SES has been ranked No. 1 for its General Christian Apologetics Graduate Program by TheBestSchools.org’s “Top 10 Graduate Programs in Christian Apologetics.” For more information, visitwww.ses.edu.

Missouri Legislator & Wife Ask Court for Protection During Obamacare Lawsuit Appeal

ehw3N.St.81

Thomas More Society Seeks Preliminary Injunction for State Rep. Wieland and Family

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 25, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, Thomas More Society attorneys filed for preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of Missouri State Representative Paul Wieland and his wife Teresa in the couple’s lawsuit contesting Obamacare’s infringement on their First Amendment rights. The couple is asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to exempt their family from the Health and Human Services mandate that would require them to participate in group insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and birth control for their teenage and adult daughters.

The Wielands are suing the federal government for violating their religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights by reason of Obamacare’s mandating a religiously objectionable health insurance plan provided by the State of Missouri. Beginning January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that the Wielands obtain for themselves, and provide for their dependent daughters, health care coverage that includes coverage for “contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

This coverage, which is abhorrent to the Wielands, given their Catholic faith, is mandated to continue until their dependent daughters are 24 years old. The Eighth Circuit court and other federal appellate courts have held that for-profit employers are likely to prevail on similar claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because their free exercise of religious faith is substantially burdened when the government forces them to provide such coverage for their employees. The Wielands claim that their religious freedom — Paul’s as an employee and both Wielands, as parents, is also protected under the act.

The Wielands had previously obtained a health insurance plan that did not include abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives. But because of the Health and Human Services mandate, that plan was eliminated and, without their permission, the Wielands were transferred to another plan that is contrary to their Catholic faith.

“We liked our health care plan. We should be able to keep it,” Mrs. Wieland said. “It protected our religious beliefs and our rights as parents.”

To date, forty for-profit employers have filed lawsuits over the controversial Obamacare mandate. Thirty-two of the plaintiffs have secured injunctive relief against the mandate. “There is every reason to expect that the Wielands will also prevail in their quest to secure their religious liberty,” said Timothy Belz, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, who is representing the Wielands.

According to veteran court watchers, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether to take up one or more of four cases on the mandate decided in the lower courts — including an appeal by the Obama Administration of the Hobby Lobby decision by the Tenth Circuit in June that upheld the right of the Christian craft store chain to exclude abortion-inducing drugs and devices in their employee’s health plans.

The lawsuit by the Wielands names the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and U.S. Department of Labor as defendants.

Read the request for injunctive relief for the Wielands here.

A copy of the original lawsuit is available here.

« Older Entries