The Absence of Obamacare Credits in Federal Exchanges WAS INTENTIONAL – Designed to Force Compliance

By Tom White  –  VA Right  -  Cross-Posted at Ask Marion:Two recent court cases came to two different conclusions in the battle against Obamacare. The question was concerning the language of the bill when it comes to credits in Health Care Exchanges set up by the Federal Government when states decide not to set up State Health Care Exchanges.

The language is pretty clear in the fact that it does create credits for Exchanges set up by the states. These credits are substantial and are the only part of the entire Affordable Care Act that actually addresses affordability. Sadly, this is done by redistributing the wealth. By taxing the productive earners in order to subsidize non-productive earners.

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.  – See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/18/Average-Obamacare-Subsidy-3312-Paid-Date-47-Billion#sthash.OQTugto5.dpuf

According to The Fiscal Times:

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.

However, for the overwhelming majority of Obamacare enrollees (87 percent) who did qualify for financial assistance, the average monthly premium on the silver plan costs about $69. That’s an average tax credit of about $276 a month, or $3,312 a year. The administration’s report broke down the average monthly premium for each of the four plans offered on the federal marketplace – before and after tax credits. It also detailed the percentage of enrollees selecting each plan, with or without tax credits. Data was not available for the state exchanges, which make up about one third of the total 8 million enrollees.

On average, monthly premiums after subsidies run about $69.00. But without the subsidy, $345.00. And 87% of enrollees qualify for these huge subsidies.

So with all the mandates for coverage, mandates on what must be covered and what can be charged, it is the subsidies and the subsidies alone that make the product affordable. Without them, the cost of Health Insurance rises considerably due to mandatory expanded coverages.

The Affordable Care Act depends on states setting up Exchanges as called for in the law. However, when much of the law was in the process of being written, it was done in secret. No one knew exactly what was going into the mix and the authors were as yet unaware of the massive resistance the bill was about to encounter. But they anticipated at least some token resistance from the rascally Republican controlled states. And this expected resistance was addressed in the bill with various sneaky political weapons and landmines designed to nudge resistive states into setting up the exchanges.

One political weapon the Democrats love to use is abortion. Republicans are outraged when tax dollars are confiscated to pay for a procedure they consider infanticide. So one of the booby traps the architects of Obamacare used was abortion. This would be the first of several “lesser of two evils” options resistive Republican states would face in deciding to implement Obamacare. You may recall the Stupak Amendment that extended the Hyde Amendment wording that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. There was a big argument in House over abortion and several pro life Democrats insisted that the ACA not pay for abortions as a condition of casting their vote for the bill. However, that was the House Bill which was scrapped after Scott Brown’s victory effectively cut off the Democrat’s super majority in the Senate.

The Conservative Intelligence Briefing put it this way:

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

So the truth is, there is no language in the Senate Bill itself that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. And in order to get the pro life Democrats to vote for the Senate version of Obamacare, Obama issues an executive order #13535 that pretends to forbid Federal payment of abortion. None of the pro life groups were fooled, nor were the voters in Stupak’s District in Michigan. Stupak “retired” and the voters put a Republican in the seat.

But according to Wiki, there are incentives to entice states into setting up these Exchanges:

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary; in either case, federal subsidies are prohibited from being used to fund the procedure. If a state does not set up an exchange itself, they lose that discretion, and the responsibility to set up exchanges for such states defaults to the federal government, whereby the Department of Health and Human Services assumes the authority and legal obligation to operate all functions in these federally facilitated exchanges.

And if having more control and discretion on the policies offered in each state isn’t enough to convince states to implement Obamacare, the Democrats added a big hammer. The Federal Government will come in and run things, leaving the states no say in how health care policies are sold in the state. Take that, you Republicans.

This Youtube video is a recording of the chief architect of the Senate Obamacare bill. The guy who put the political plums and hemlock in the bill, Jonathan Gruber. It is clear from listening to him speak that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges as a mechanism to force states into compliance.

Video: Jonathan Gruber Once Again Says Subsidies Are Tied to State-Based Exchanges

But Gruber said that this was a mistake. A speak-o (as opposed to a typo). The intent was always to have the Federally run Exchanges give out the subsidies!

There is a video here that is nearly an hour long that has been making the rounds on the internet. I edited the same video down to about 5 minutes with the important parts being about the first 2 minutes. The rest of this is some pretty revealing comments Gruber made on the longer version.

Video:  Jon Gruber Condense Version

So it is abundantly clear that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run exchanges to pressure states into compliance.

So in the two recent court decisions in direct opposition to one another as FoxNews explains:

WASHINGTON –  Two federal appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday, with one court invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them.

The first decision came Tuesday morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.

A separate federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.

The conflicting rulings would typically fast-track the matter to the Supreme Court. However, it is likely that the administration will ask the D.C. appeals court to first convene all 11 judges to re-hear that case.

In both instances the government argued that it is obvious that the intent was to include federal subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges if the states refused to do so. But listening to the guy that wrote the bill, the exact opposite is the case. The subsidies were left out on Federally run Exchanges to use as a weapon to either force Republican governors to implement a state exchange or face the voters to explain why they are paying more for health insurance and get no subsidies. The hope of this Democratic bill was to force Republicans to do something they did not want to do.

Now one of the arguments I have not heard made is that on the issue of abortion on Federally run Exchanges. One of the incentives for the Liberal states to jump in and implement exchanges is the ability to mandate expanded coverages such as 100% payment for abortions. And if we follow the same logic the government argued in the two conflicting ruling cases, that the Federal Government steps in and is essentially considered the state for all intents and purposes – something I find preposterous – then what is to stop the Federal government who suddenly finds itself a surrogate for the state from mandating abortion coverage (from Wiki linked above):

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary;

So if the federal government can come in and replace the state in every way, then the same argued consideration as far as subsidies would extend to the other areas of “partial discretion” of the states. And the law could then go around the Obama executive order prohibiting federal funds from paying for abortion.

This must go to the Supreme Court and the 36 states without state run subsidies must stop receiving federal subsidies.

And as Gruber says in the long version of the video, repeal is unlikely to get rid of Obamacare. But neglect in the form of non compliance will cause it to implode in on itself. He uses a 3 legged as an example. The legs are eliminate pre existing conditions, insurance mandates and subsidies. Take away one of the legs and the law collapses. No one is fighting the pre existing condition elimination and the horrific Supreme Court ruling that held the mandates were a tax (and thus constitutional) is gone as a possible tool to kill the law. The last remaining leg is the subsidies. Without them, the law cannot survive. And since 36 states refused to set up exchanges, this is a huge threat to Obamacare’s survival.

With more and more information being unearthed every day about this bill, this is an important battle in the war on healthcare being prosecuted by the Obama Administration.

Update:

My theory is that if the Court rules that Federal Exchanges are essentially State Exchanges for the purpose of the subsidies, then the Feds are, essentially, the state. States are free to mandate abortion coverage, the Feds are not by Executive order. So if the Federal Government becomes a state for subsidies, then the Feds can mandate abortion coverage and also get around the Exec. Order.  Tom White

Obamacare Slashes Senior Home Health Care Services

In early April, the Obama Administration delayed cuts in the Medicare Advantage program mandated by Obamacare. These plans, used by 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, supplement traditional Medicare coverage. The planned cuts to the MA program risked a political firestorm just months before the midterm elections. While MA received a short-term pardon, the Obama Administration is going forward with dramatic cuts to home health care services for seniors.

by Mike Flynn 23 Apr 2014, 7:59 PM PDT  -  Breitbart.com: Over 3.5 million seniors receive health care services in their home. Over 60% of the recipients are women. These beneficiaries tend to be older, poorer and sicker than the overall Medicare population. Because of this, they often lack transportation, making home health care services critical for their well-being. Those impacted by the ongoing cuts are the most vulnerable and at-risk seniors. 

Obamacare gave the Obama administration wide latitude in containing spending in the program. In a decision that baffled critics, however, the administration chose to impose the maximum cuts allowed, cutting reimbursements by 14% over the next four years. The announced cuts will dramatically shrink the home health care sector and leave over a million seniors without access to health services. 

“Despite the broad discretion granted to it by Obamacare, the Administration decided to impose the deepest possible cut, which is already having a dire impact on jobs, women and vulnerable seniors,” Eric Berger, CEO of the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare said. “Without relief, these Medicare cuts will continue to impact the home health professionals upon whom millions of the Medicare program’s most vulnerable seniors depend.” 

In issuing its reimbursement guidelines, the administration acknowledged that "approximately 40%" of the more than 11,000 home health care agencies would be losing money by 2017. 

Home health care services had been one of the fastest growing sector for jobs. In December, 2013, however, on the eve of the cuts taking effect, the sector shed almost 4,000 jobs, the largest loss of jobs in the sector in more than a decade. Over 1.2 million Americans currently work in the home health care sector, 90% of whom are women. An analysis by Avarle Consulting estimated that almost half of these jobs, 498,000, are threatened by the Obamacare cuts.

Technorati Tags: Seniors,ObamaCare,Watch the Other Hand,ObamaCare Delays,ObamaCare Surprises,Medicare,Medicare Advantage,ObamaCare Mandates,Elderly,Medicare Cuts

Republican senator says administration has 'cooked the books' on Obama Care numbers!!!!!

Cooked Books on ObamaCare

FoxNews.com:

A Republican senator said on Sunday that the lack of details about Obama Care enrollment numbers suggests the Obama administration has “cooked the books.”;

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, made his comments just hours before the Monday deadline to enroll in the Affordable Care Act and was skeptical of the administration’s most recent enrollment figure of more than 6 million Americans.

“I don't think it means anything,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” “They are cooking the books on this.”;

Though the enrollment number now appears just a million shy of the administration’s goal of 7 million by the March 31 deadline, Barrasso said Americans who have switched to Obama Care from insurance deemed sub-standard under the Affordable Care Act still don’t know whether they can keep their same doctors. And they don’t know whether their premiums will indeed be more affordable.

Among the other questions are whether enough younger people have enrolled in Obama Care to cover the health care costs of older Americans in the program and how many of those enrolled previously were uninsured.

Maine Sen. Angus King, Independent, said on the show that the enrollment number is now at 6.5 million and that “signups are getting younger every day.”;

However, he acknowledged the administration needs to be more forthcoming about the numbers, as Americans rely on third-party analysis to get much of their information.

“I do think there’s a transparency problem,” said King, adding he would be willing to work on legislation to fix such problems.

Said Barrasso: “I’ve looked at this 10 different ways. This health care law is unfixable.”;

THE PATRIOT FROM FLORIDA… MARCH 30, 2014:

**DID OBAMA LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

WILL OBAMA GIVE FREE OBAMACARE TO FELONS IN PRISON?

WILL OBAMA GIVE FREE OBAMACARE TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

IS IT TRUE OBAMA PROMISSED IMMIGRANTS THAT HE WILL NOT DEPORT THEIR RELATIVES AND THEY BUY OBAMACARE?

WILL OBAMA BE USING CHRISTIAN TAX MONEY TO KILL BABIES?

IF OBAMA LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED

68% of the country does not want Obamacare….

NO OBAMA CARE FOR OBAMA, NO OBAMA CARE FOR ME!

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Lies,Wake-Up,Barrasso,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,Obamaland

Obamacare’s Tough Day in Court

Divided Supreme Court Hears Hobby Lobby’s Challenge to the Contraceptive Mandate

By: Roger Aronoff  -  Accuracy in Media  -  Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom

Since its passage, a number of lawsuits have attempted to undermine Obamacare as a law, with varying degrees of success. The individual mandate challenge failed before the Supreme Court in 2012, despite what seemed like positive reception to the challenge during oral argument. Hobby Lobby went before the Supreme Court on March 25 to challenge the religious liberty implications of the contraception mandate portion of the law.

While the media have largely focused on the Hobby Lobby challenge, a few blocks away, the D.C. Court of Appeals was hearing another argument about Obamacare—one that, if passed, could well have the effect of ending this law as we know it. And it has liberals running scared.

In the piece “Forget Hobby Lobby. The Bigger Legal Threat to Obamacare Still Has Life,” Alec Macgillis writes for the New Republic, “If the contraception challenge succeeds, it just means that that one sliver of Obamacare is struck down. If this other challenge succeeds, both sides agree that it would blow up the entire law.”

The argument for the plaintiffs is as follows: In order to provide the 60th vote, which was necessary to get the bill through the Senate, Ben Nelson, the then-Democratic senator from Nebraska, insisted on a clause that said that federal subsidies could only go to people who signed up on exchanges set up by the states. The purpose was to incentivize states to actually set up exchanges.

Then, the plaintiffs argue, the IRS wrote a rule in 2012 which reinterpreted the law to say that federal exchanges could give out subsidies as well. “The alternative policy under the IRS’ rewriting of the rule creates a bizarre circumstance where it’s almost impossible to fulfill the Act’s purpose of having state-run exchanges, because it eliminates any tangible incentive for these people to go ahead and adopt the exchanges,” argued Michael A. Carvin, the plaintiffs’ attorney, before the Court of Appeals on March 25. “So they’ve created a situation which has predictably resulted in only 14 states doing what Congress clearly wanted 50 states to do, which is to set up their exchanges.”

Arguably, however, the mostly Republican governors who have refused to set up exchanges also did so for political reasons.

Carter-appointed Judge Harry Edwards had a Hillary Clinton moment during the oral arguments. He demanded that Carvin “forget the subsidies” argument and explain why it was important whether the federal government or states control the exchanges. He demanded loudly, twice, “What difference does it make who does it? Forget the subsidy.”

But we can’t forget the subsidies. They are at the heart of the law, and its practice. The Washington Post has reported that “About 85 percent of those signing up for insurance in federal-run exchanges have qualified for financial assistance to purchase coverage.” In other words, this amounts to a massive federal redistribution of wealth for millions—85% of enrollees. (Let’s ignore for a moment that we have no idea how many enrollees actually purchase their insurance after “selecting” it. If they know, the federal government isn’t telling us.) “Without those subsidies, the insurance would be less affordable, leaving those with the greatest health needs with more motivation to purchase coverage,” writes the Post. “That makes for a worse risk mix, driving up the cost of insurance to cover the sicker pool of people, creating what’s known as an insurance ‘death spiral.’” The federal exchange is already at risk of a death spiral if it cannot entice enough of the young and healthy to sign up.

The case could also undo the individual mandate. “Were the case to succeed, it would mean that dozens of state governments opposed to Obamacare could significantly narrow its scope by refusing [to] set up exchanges, thus preventing residents from claiming subsidies,” explains the Washington Examiner. “In those states, employers wouldn’t be penalized for failing to offer qualifying insurance (which is triggered by workers seeking federal subsidies), meaning that anti-Obamacare states could become more attractive to businesses trying to get around the employer mandate.”

“It would also increase pressure on Congress to undo the individual mandate.”

Judge Edwards said that this was a transparent attempt by Carvin and his plaintiffs to “gut” the law. Indeed, those opposed to the lawsuit seem more concerned with saving the law than looking at the Act’s original language. MacGillis cites Clinton-appointed Judge Paul Friedman in his earlier ruling that “Plaintiffs’ proposed construction in this case—that tax credits are available only for those purchasing insurance from state-run Exchanges—runs counter to this central purpose of the ACA: to provide affordable health care to virtually all Americans…Such an interpretation would violate the basic rule of statutory construction that a court must interpret a statute in light of its history and purpose.” “Under the challengers’ logic, Judge Friedman added, the exchanges administered by the federal government ‘would have no customers, and no purpose,’” writes Macgillis. Is it really the Courts’ purview to decide whether a government program should survive, as opposed to whether the law is being executed constitutionally and legally?

Indeed, according to The Wire, without federal subsidies, “Many of those people would fall in to the hardship gap and not have to buy insurance or pay the individual mandate.” There are two other cases besides this one “challenging the authority of the IRS to rewrite the statute and allow subsidies to flow through the federal exchanges,” according to Forbes.

Never afraid of punditry, MSNBC abandoned all pretense of journalism and called this discussion of the Senate’s original intent a “drafting error.” Adam Serwer writes that “The Affordable Care Act managed to have two bad days in court on the same day,” adding that the argument means that “Congress was handing Republicans an Obamacare self-destruct button.”

But, he offers hope to his liberal readers: “If the government loses before the panel, it can ask for the D.C. Circuit to hear the case ‘en banc,’ before the judges on the D.C. Circuit.” Then it could go to the Supreme Court.

Why is the ‘en banc’ ability important? Because President Obama has stacked the court, of course. “After the Democrats nuked the filibuster, Obama was able to make four appointments to the court,” writes Serwer. “Though judges’ opinions don’t always track with those of the party that appointed them, thanks to the changes to the filibuster, more Democratic appointees than Republican appointees would rule on the matter.” In other words, partisan politics would play out if the entire bench were to hear the case.

A decision is supposed to come in late June, and looks like it will be in favor of the plaintiffs. But, the Washington Examiner warns, oral arguments can be misleading. “As always, it’s hard to predict judicial outcomes based on oral arguments, a lesson that was made abundantly clear when many observers predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the individual mandate only to see it upheld,” Philip Klein writes.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

Hobby Lobby vs Sebelius Goes Before the Supreme Court

INFOGRAPHIC: What Exactly This Hobby Lobby Case Is About

If the contraception mandate passes, it will ruin a core U.S. ideology

 

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,Contraception,SCOTUS,Supreme Court,ACA,PPACA Medicare,Mandates,Religion,Christianity,Sebelius,Ideology,Americana,Rick Warren,Thoughts,Constitution,Founding-Ideals,Freedom,Hobby Lobby

Obamacare Navigator: 'No One Really Has to Pay a Penalty'

An Obamacare navigator tells the Chicago Tribune that the much-feared Obamacare penalty is not something most people should worry about.

Breitbart: The Tribune says Community Counseling Centers of Chicago navigator Tim van Alstyne said, "he tells people that between the state's broader Medicaid options (thanks to its decision to expand the program) and the available tax credits, 'no one really has to pay a penalty.'" 

The government says that Americans who choose to opt-out of Obamacare must pay a fine of $95 or 1% of their modified adjusted household income, depending on which is higher.

The original March 31 Obamacare deadline has now been extended until mid-April and will be run on the "honor system" for those who claim they tried but were unable to enroll before the deadline--a direct reversal of assurances embattled Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gave members of Congress during congressional testimony.

Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. The RealClearPolitics average of polls finds that just 39% of Americans now support President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement. 

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Navigators,ObamaCare Surprises,Penalties,Wake-Up,Sebelius,Obamaland,Polls

Examiner Editorial: Why does Nancy Pelosi fear an Obamacare inspector general?

“Now that a Democrat works in the Oval Office and is responsible for the biggest federal entitlement program ever created, Pelosi thinks an IG is unnecessary.”

Washington Examiner: Among the least-heralded public servants in the nation's capital are the 73 inspectors general established by Congress to root out waste, fraud and inefficiency in the executive branch. With teams of thousands of auditors and inspectors, the IGs issue hundreds of investigative and audit reports that send a steady parade of crooks to jail while saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that one out of 100 Americans could name a single IG.

That anonymity is a key to their success, however, because it helps keep the focus on the job at hand and away from political considerations that can derail the pursuit of justice. So it's particularly disappointing to see House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blatantly playing politics with the imminently reasonable proposal of Rep. Peter Roskam to create an IG for Obamacare. The Illinois Republican announced his proposal Thursday, and no sooner had he done so that Pelosi made clear her opposition to it.

Asked about the Roskam proposal at her daily news conference, Pelosi said: “No. Each of the committees of jurisdiction has oversight, so the congressional oversight is something that I support. Each of the agencies of government that are implementing the law, the Affordable Care Act, have their own inspectors general. I think that the system has enough appropriate oversight. I don't see any reason to go to that point.”

Of course, there are oversight committees of Congress for all 73 of the departments and agencies that presently have IGs, but none of those federal entities control one-sixth of the U.S. economy or trillions of dollars in federal spending. So why would Pelosi be opposed to an Obamacare IG?

Roskam found the likely answer in Pelosi's position on previous proposals to create IGs. He noted that Pelosi enthusiastically supported creation of IGs for the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well for the Toxic Asset Recovery Program, the federal relief effort to victims of Hurricane Katrina and the intelligence community. Perhaps its merely coincidental, but every one of those IG proposals came when a Republican president was in the White House. Now that a Democrat works in the Oval Office and is responsible for the biggest federal entitlement program ever created, Pelosi thinks an IG is unnecessary.

Pelosi was speaker of the House when Congress approved the $700 billion Wall Street bailout in 2008 with a Special Inspector General for TARP. As Roskam pointed out last week, the SIGTARP has since “identified $5.3 billion in restitution and savings, including $533 million in direct taxpayer savings. In comparison, the healthcare law is estimated to cost $1.8 trillion when fully implemented, dwarfing TARP's cost to taxpayers.”

It was also Pelosi who famously said of Obamacare that “we have to pass it so you can see what’s in it.” Remember, too, that Obamacare was written behind the closed doors of Pelosi’s office. Could it be there’s something in Obamacare that she fears an Obamacare IG will expose?

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Obamaland,Pelosi,IG,Nancy Pelosi,Lies,Inspectors General,Wake-Up,Stand-Up

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Justice Resolutions - Obama Admin Vs Little Sisters 1-4-2014

Video: Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Justice Resolutions - Obama Admin Vs Little Sisters 1-4-2014

Pirro On Obamacare Contraception Mandate: YOU LIED!

“And yet, you as a former constitutional professor, refuse to exempt them from the contraception mandate. You, the same guy who grants exemptions and waivers left and right to unions, political buddies, bundlers, but not to the women who have devoted their lives to God and caring for the sick?” – Judge Jeanine Pirro

By Caleb Howe

On Fox News’ Justice With Judge Jeanine on Saturday, host Jeanine Pirro in her opening statement addressed the Obamacare contraception mandate and the nuns made famous recently by Justice Sotomayor.

It seems all to obvious, and Pirro puts it in stark terms. But this is a clash of religions and those are rarely settled easily. On one side, the Catholic Church and their fundamental religious objection to providing contraception. On the other, the Liberal Church and their fundamental religious devotion to giving every single living human being on the planet some form of contraception.

The Obamacare acolytes do not care about religious freedom. Well, not Christian religious freedom anyway. It is merely an inconvenient part of American life they tolerate so long as it doesn’t get in their way. But when that free exercise clashes with their fervent devotion to contraception and abortion, you can bet they won’t be willing to budge an inch. Lip service only lasts as long as the lips have nothing to yell about.

Pirro lays the fight right at President Obama’s feet, where it belongs. Here is the transcript of the above clip:

I want a government that respects religious freedom. Mr. President, now that you’re back from your Hawaiian vacation … how’d you hitt them? How’s that handicap? You come back and you try to take away from the Little Sisters of the Poor, a 175-year-old religious organization that cares for low income elderly who are dying, their right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion. You promised the Catholic Church you would not, under Obamacare, force those with religious objection to provide contraception to employees, which of course is contrary to their fundamental beliefs and their exercise of their religion.

In spite of your promise, you are spending millions in legal fees to force the Little Sisters of the Poor who spend their lives serving the sick and the elderly to provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients to their employees? Pray tell, Mr. President, might you have lied to the Catholic Church? And now you’re going to court to sanction one home $6,700 a day? What don’t you understand about the Little Sisters of the Poor? Now, I don’t care if you’re pro-choice or pro-life, you have a fundamental right to practice your religion. You have a fundamental right to the First Amendment, freedom of religion.

And yet, you as a former constitutional professor, refuse to exempt them from the contraception mandate. You, the same guy who grants exemptions and waivers left and right to unions, political buddies, bundlers, but not to the women who have devoted their lives to God and caring for the sick? Hell, even a convicted muslim felon in federal prison can exercise their freedom of religion. They can’t be punished for exercising their religion. And you go after these nuns to force them to violate their religion or put them out of business? Am I asking for too much? We’re only talking about your word. Religious freedom, the First Amendment. Mr. President. It’s 2014, and we are not getting off to a good start.

 

Technorati Tags: Little Sisters,New Year's Resolutions

Doctor Retires due to ObamaCare

Doctor Posts Newspaper Notice: Closing Due to Obamacare

Townhall- Cross-Posted at AskMarion: Obamacare realities just became a little more intense in the Bluegrass State. Requirements in the Affordable Care Act presented Kentucky Dr. Stephen Kiteck with obstacles he “just couldn’t overcome.”

This tweet helped uncover the story:

Twitter: Dara Bailey @darab_ic

They said it wouldn't happen.....wrong again.

7:21 PM - 8 Dec 2013

Dr. Kiteck verified the ad to Townhall Tuesday:

“It’s pretty basic really. The reason is that Obamacare requires electronic medical records and electronic prescribing and I simply don’t have the finances at this time to go into debt to provide that for my office, it would just be a complete new transfer of electronic equipment in my office for that.

So for me, at my age, I’m just not ready to go into financial debt. Of the 20,000 pages in there, probably up to 1,000 pages are about doctors' offices."

The Electronic Medical Records mandate requires an electronic overhaul by 2015 or penalization. Check out this visual of its implementation:

 

 

"I’ve got 6,000 records, some of them are two inches thick. It would just be basically impossible to scan all of these and put them on electronic medical records and very expensive, by the way,” said Dr. Kiteck, pointing to the many man hours of pay that an electronic overhaul would require.

“It’s a solo practice, I’m just a very small solo practice. I call myself a mom and pop practice,” Dr. Kiteck explained, “so I’ve had it for about twenty years here in Somerset, Kentucky.”

The ad ran for the sake of his customers, according to Dr. Kiteck, as a common courtesy to give patients a one-month notice,

“I just happened to start it out with that little notice there, because so many patients have questions why you’re doing it.”

Kiteck said his ad likely opened up a Pandora’s Box. But the truth is, the box had already been opened when Obamacare was signed into law, and the frightening effects are only beginning to fly out.

Breitbart: The notice closes with this message, "Dr. Kiteck wishes to thank all his patients that have visited his office over the past 20 years, and apologizes for this inconvenience."

Dr. Kiteck's office confirmed that he is indeed closing his practice and that he did publish the notice in the paper. Asked if he would agree to an interview, his receptionist indicated that he'd received many calls from the media but was not prepared to make any additional statement at this time.

There have been surveys which suggested a significant number of doctors might quit or retire early as a result of the new health law. A  2013 Deloitte Survey of U.S. Physicians found that 62 percent of doctors expected some of their colleagues to retire early.

Dr. Kiteck is a 64 year old board certified family physician with a good rating for patient satisfaction on healthgrades.com.

Update: Buzzfeed got through to Dr. Kiteck and he cites a specific reason for retiring, a requirement to use electronic medical records in his practice. That requirement was not part of Obamacare but was included in the stimulus act. Physicians must move to electronic records by 2015 and because of the way use is reported, that means mid-2014 is the deadline for a working system. Those who fail to meet the deadline are charged a fine of 1% (deducted from their reimbursements).

Video Report: Doctors quit on Obamacare

The Twelve Days of ObamaCare

By: Opiate of the People  -  The People’s Cube

The Twelve Days of ObamaCare
(A non-sectarian holiday carol.)

On the first day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
A website that crashed constantly!

On the second day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the third day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the fourth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the fifth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Five cancelled policies!
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the sixth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the seventh day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the eighth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the ninth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Nine journ0lists bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the tenth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Ten dems a-dodging,
Nine journ0lists bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the eleventh day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Eleven million regulations,
Ten dem pols a-dodging,
Nine journ0lists a-bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the twelfth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Twelve thousand excuses,
Eleven million regulations,
Ten dems a-dodging,
Nine journ0lists bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

CoffeeCare

Video: CoffeeCare 

Perspective: New Law – "The Affordable Boat Act" 2014

Memo: Administration bungled Obamacare long before GOP had power to obstruct

Washington Examiner: An emerging theme from Democrats struggling to explain the Obamacare fiasco is that stubborn Republican opposition has hobbled the administration's efforts to implement President Obama's complex national health care scheme. If you want the particulars, just glance at "The Obamacare sabotage campaign" by Politico's Todd Purdum.

But a memo revealed in a new Washington Post examination of the rollout shows the administration was already on a disastrous path in May 2010, just two months after Obamacare was signed into law -- and six months before Republicans won control of the House and more Senate seats in the November 2010 elections. At the time the memo was written, Democrats still had the huge majorities in the House and Senate with which they had passed Obamacare on party-line votes.

In the memo, dated May 11, 2010 and sent to top administration economic official Larry Summers, Harvard professor and health care expert David Cutler, a supporter of the administration's efforts, wrote that "the early implementation efforts are far short of what it will take to implement reform successfully." Cutler continued: "For health reform to be successful, the relevant people need a vision about health system transformation and the managerial ability to carry out that vision. The President has sketched out such a vision. However, I do not believe the relevant members of the Administration understand the President's vision or have the capability to carry it out."

Cutler laid out a set of problems: 1) poor leadership at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a key organization in creating Obamacare; 2) clueless management at the Department of Health and Human Services on the subject of setting up exchanges; 3) an ineffective effort to work with insurers in implementing reform; and 4) general incompetence. "The overall head of implementation inside HHS, Jeanne Lambrew, is known for her knowledge of Congress, her commitment to the poor, and her mistrust of insurance companies," Cutler wrote. "She is not known for operational ability, knowledge of delivery systems, or facilitating widespread change."

All that was at a time when the administration had control of Congress. Although the election of Scott Brown had ended the Democrats' filibuster-proof control of the Senate, the fact is, Republicans had no control of anything. Later, after their landslide victory in the 2010 midterms, House Republicans could block funding increases the administration needed to pay for Obamacare's inevitable cost overruns. And Republican governors could make use of a feature Democrats wrote into the law that allowed states to decline to create their own exchanges, leaving the job to the federal government. But Cutler's memo shows the administration was well on the road to a disastrous debut of Obamacare long before Republicans could do anything to make the job harder.

See: Original MEMO Document (PDF) » 

What this memo does is again bring us back to the question:  Are they (Obama and cronies) really that inept?  Or was the plan really always that ObamaCare in its present state was meant to fail, leaving it to the government to swoop in and create a new single-payer (socialized medicine) plan.  Obama and Harry Reid have both said it was the second. 

So beware and watch the other hand.  The only real answer, either way, is to clean house in Washington D.C. in both Congress and the White House in the next two elections (2014 and 2016) and in the process repeal and replace this disaster  known as ObamaCare with a free market solution that really will help the average American and those without affordable healthcare insurance. ObamaCare does neither!!

**And if you understand that, it means no Hillary Clinton and no Chris Christie, who might as well be a Democat half the time, but rather real change… AM~ 

Yes, the Democrats' Plan Was to Create a Transition to Single Payer 

First Battle of 2014 and 2016 Elections: Next Tuesday and the Fate of ObamaCare

Obamacare Hype - ' The Land Of Oz ' Lies! - Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement 

Wake-Up… 1,492,000 HC Plan Cancellations and Counting… All Part of the Plan to Force All But the Elite Into a Single Payer Socialized Medicine…  It has always been: 

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One’s Talking About

Betsy McCaughey: Obamacare designed to vastly expand single payer Medicaid by eviscerating Medicare

By Marion Algier – AskMarion – h/t to MJ 

Betsy McCaughey, an expert on the Affordable Care Act, was on the Kelly Files regarding more enrollees in Medicaid is a signal for Single-Payer.  McCaughey is the author of Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law, Decoding the Obama Health Law: What You Need To Know (Kindle) and Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It (Encounter Broadsides) (Kindle).  She knows of what she speaks!!

Video: Betsy McCaughey: Obamacare designed to vastly expand single payer Medicaid by eviscerating Medicare

One of the key Obamacare architects Zeke Emanuel – Rahm Emanuel’s brother - has lot in common with Hitler. He supports the rationing of medical care - you know denying care for the elderly. Betsy McCaughey cited 2 examples on Megyn's show - 1) a 2008 JAMA article in which Zeke said doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously and focus too much on the needs of their patients. Instead they should be more focused on how resources can better be used for the young people. 2) He believes that 65 year olds have had their chance.

Video:  Obamacare Architect shares Hitler's values; Supports rationing of medical care for elderly

Rationing healthcare in a single-payer system where boards, a mandate committee, of primarily non-medical experts and non-medical practitioners, especially not your own doctor, decide on your treatment based on the good of the many… not the patient at hand, is socialized medicine and no matter how you spin it is a death panel system.  Someone will decide whether, or not, you, your grandparents, your special needs child or someone that the powers that be at the time don’t like get to have surgery, a major medical procedure or even an expensive medicine… or whether you will be left to suffer or just die.  That my friends is a death panel, exactly what Sarah Palin and others who read the ObamaCare Bill warned us of.  And because Palin was right and tried to warn Americans (about this and a lot of other things), the Progressives in power both hate and fear her, so the demonized her.  But Sarah and Betsy are right… there are death panels in this law.

In 2007, Senator Obama said he wanted to eliminate private health insurance.  And just recently Harry Reid admitted that the whole goal of ObamaCare is to get us all into a single payer system where the federal government controls one-sixth of our economy, will decide on who and when they will authorize treatment and will use the IRS as their enforcer to collect whatever premiums they set without competition.  Think about it!

And as for ole Zeke Emanual… he is for death panels! Inform yourself about his Complete Lives System.

Video:  Megyn Kelly Grills Zeke Emanuel on Obamacare Promises: Was Obama Lying or 'Grossly Mistaken'?

There are only two ways to stop this… (1) Win the House and the Senate in 2014 and then the White House in 2016 (2) and Repeal and then Replace ObamaCare!!

The time to get involved is now.  This whole ObamaCare rollout website disaster is the least of our worries!!… even if it did cost us $634 Million of taxpayer money paid to a Canadian company with ties to George Soros and Michelle Obama for a site that doesn’t work, and now we have to pay again to fix it.

Related:

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief

Ezekiel Emanuel & The Complete Lives System: part 3 of Health Care: Why We are Scared (Video) 

Doctors Quitting Over ObamaCare – Lindsey Williams –> Socialized Medicine… the Jewel of Socialism 

On the Road to Death Panels

Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, Says Constitution Backs Compulsory Abortion 

"People 70 and over will not be treated under Obamacare… and you thought DEATH PANELS were gone" 

Ezekiel Emanuel, architect of ObamaCare..please read

“Death Panel” Three Years Later 

Death Panels 101? Chilling High School Assignment Makes Students Decide Who Lives and Who Dies 

Bill O’Reilly on Socialism and a Shocking New Book 

Will Sick Babies Be Starved to Death Under Obamacare?

Useless Eaters  -  Eliminate the Useless Eaters: A Disease of the Elitist Mind

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,rationing healthcare,rationing for the elderly,Betsy McCaughey,Socialized Medicine,Zeke Emanuel,Rahm Emanuel,Hitler's Germany,Useless Eaters,elderly,seniors,Election 2014,Election 2016,Hippocratic Oath,Death Panels,Sarah Palin,Megyn Kelly,Fox News,Affordable Care Act,ACA,single-payer,Complete Lives System,Medicaid,Medicare,Get-Involved,You be the judge

A Stunning New Court Defeat for ObamaCare

CFIF.org: Things just went from awful to worse this week for ObamaCare, and the Obama Administration more generally. 

Nearly a month into its disastrous debut, it’s clear that the ObamaCare website isn’t just “glitching,” it’s completely melting down.  This is quickly becoming a watershed moment, a failure so obvious and deep that it could permanently stain Obama’s presidential legacy among historians long after he’s gone.  Among the familiar litany of failures throughout his tenure, healthcare legislation was the one signature legislative act to which he could point. 

And now it is disintegrating before his very eyes. 

In Florida alone, some 300,000 Florida Blue health insurance customers just received notice that their policies will be canceled due to ObamaCare because their coverage isn’t considered a “qualified health plan” under the new regulations.  Although the Obama Administration continues to refuse to disclose how many people have actually enrolled in ObamaCare since October 1, whatever that number is appears to come far short of the Florida Blue cancelation alone. 

And on that note, so much for the solemn pre-ObamaCare assurance that, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.  No one will take it away, no matter what.” 

Now, a new federal court ruling may legally doom ObamaCare before it ultimately collapses under its own unsustainable weight. 

This week, a federal judge gave the green light for a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare’s structure of subsidies to proceed.  Judge Paul Friedman also ruled that the case can proceed on an expedited basis, meaning that a final determination could occur before the March 2014 individual purchase mandate arrives. 

The new lawsuit centers on a provision in the text of ObamaCare that allows subsidies to states participating in the program.  By its terms, the subsidies do not cover those participating in the federal government’s program, but now that 34 states have refused to participate in ObamaCare, the Obama Administration is attempting to ignore the law and offer subsidies regardless of the law. 

When ObamaCare was passed, Congress and the Obama Administration deliberately chose to empower individual states to carry out the law by creating health insurance exchanges, marketplaces in which those states’ citizens could buy insurance from authorized insurers.  But because the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to force individual states to carry out its edicts, the law had to come up with another way to induce states to agree to participate.  Consequently, the law offered individuals who chose to purchase insurance from state-run exchanges significant federal subsidies to persuade them to enroll. 

There was one significant problem with that scheme:  In states that chose to avoid participating in the looming catastrophe that is ObamaCare, residents would by law not be eligible for the subsidies offered to participating states. 

As it turned out, some 34 states refused the Obama Administration’s offer.  Consequently, the federal government is now on the hook for establishing exchanges for residents of non-participating states.  But under the explicit provisions of ObamaCare itself, such individuals are not eligible for premium assistance subsidies. 

So what did the Obama Administration decide to do? 

Per habit, it sought to just ignore its own law via IRS fiat, as summarized by plaintiffs: 

“Refusing to accept those consequences, the IRS promulgated the regulations at issue here, which base eligibility for premium assistance subsidies not on enrollment in coverage “through an Exchange established by the State,” as the statute requires, but rather on enrollment in coverage through any exchange, including the federally-established one.  Of course, the federal government is not a “State,” as the ACA in fact expressly reiterates.  Those regulations thus allow for the distribution of billions of dollars of federal funds that Congress never authorized.  The IRS rule contradicts the plain text of the ACA, exceeds the agency’s authority, and is contrary to law.” 

All of this presents a rich irony. 

Throughout the government shutdown over ObamaCare earlier this month, the law’s supporters cried, “It’s the law!”  Of course, the employer mandate was also “the law,” but the Obama Administration had no problem postponing it for a year.  Similarly, the text of the law also mandated that members of Congress and their staffers were subject to its requirements.  Yet the Obama Administration also had no problem granting an extralegal waiver, allowing subsidies that no other employees suddenly subject to ObamaCare’s provisions should receive. 

The Obama Administration showed no greater deference for “the law” when it unilaterally announced that it would refuse to enforce settled immigration laws last year.  Moreover, the very nature of a democratic republic is that settled laws can be revisited and often overturned, including by this administration.  Think the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton, as just one example. 

The court, however, wasn’t sufficiently impressed by the Obama Administration’s rationalization.  Which raises the question of what will bring this unworkable law to an end first – it’s economic and logistical unsustainability, or judicial order.  The latter would spare millions of Americans a great deal of unnecessary pain. 

Betsy McCaughey: Obamacare designed to vastly expand single payer Medicaid by eviscerating Medicare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare Rollout,ObamaCare Glitches,ObamaCare Rulings,DOMA,ACA,Individual Mandate,ObamaCare Mandates

ObamaCare… Like a Restaurant Where the Owners, Chefs, Workers and Their Families Refuse to Eat…

ObamaCare… Like a Restaurant Where the Owners, Chefs, Workers and Their Families Refuse to Eat…

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Would you really eat in a restaurant, trusting their food or service, where the owners, chefs, workers and their families refuse to eat?  Of course you wouldn’t.  Nobody would, but that is what the Democrats, some GOP establishment career politicians and the Obama administration and their staffs are asking you to do.

They are asking, no mandating, that you to sign up and subject yourself and your family’s health, and in many cases losing better coverage, for healthcare coverage that they refuse to sign up for and be covered by themselves.

The so-called tea party Republicans, who are following their constituents wishes, but have now pretty much backed away from all their demands about the budget and upcoming debt ceiling raise, in what seems like their 20th compromise when the left has refused to negotiate or compromise on anything, were willing to pass and extend the budget and debt ceiling negotiations for several months with a clean bill, except for one provision… The Republicans attached the Vitter amendment (DeSantis bill in the House) which would demand that the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and their staffs and federal appointees would have to sign up for and live under the same ObamaCare bill that we all will have to suffer under, without any extra provisions or exemptions.  The Democrats’, RINOs’ and administration’s response:  NO…!

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) (KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom)

The Vitter Amendment on Obamacare: Senate Liberals’ Curious Complaint

The Foundry:

Last week (mid-September) Senator David Vitter (R–LA) proposed an amendment that would end exemptions for White House political appointees and stop illegal taxpayer subsidies for Congress and staff enrolled in Obamacare’s new health insurance exchanges. In other words, political appointees, Members of Congress, and their staffs would receive the same coverage and be eligible for subsidies available to every other American enrolled in the exchanges. No special deals.

On September 17, Senator Dick Durbin (D–IL) charged that Vitter’s proposed amendment was “unfair” because it would eliminate the employer payment for Members of Congress and 16,000 congressional staffers.

But this is a curious complaint. In 2010, Senator Durbin and all other Senate Democrats voted—lockstep—for final passage of Obamacare, which included Section 1312, which ended Members’ access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead placed them into the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. Without access to employer coverage, there is no employer subsidy—not for Congress and not for any other worker dumped out of job-based coverage into the exchanges. That’s the law.

Durbin also tries to use Vitter’s vote for an amendment (Amendment No. 3564) offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA) during debate over Obamacare to undermine his current efforts. Yes, Vitter voted for the amendment. The amendment would have put the President, his appointees, Congress, and staff into the exchanges but would have preserved the government contributions for Congress and staff in the new exchanges.

Here’s the catch: Senator Durbin voted against the Grassley amendment, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), and 53 other Senate Democrats. (See The Congressional Record, March 24, 2010, p. S1996.) In other words, these Senators voted to protect the President and his appointees from their own law but also voted to remove the employer contribution to Congress and their staff. Yet these Senators now oppose it.

Senate liberals say they like Obamacare. If that’s the case, it is only reasonable for them to want to make sure they get what they like on the same exact terms and conditions as every other American enrolled in the exchanges, as put forth by Senator Vitter.

So why wouldn’t the Democrats from both Houses of Congress (as well as the Establishment RINO GOP) vote for the Republican’s compromise and embrace ObamaCare on the same terms the American people are getting… the terms they voted for?  And if they aren’t why should the American people?

Why?  Because our politicians know it is a bad plan, bad coverage, certainly worse and more expensive if you compare apples to apples, than they have now, and it opens them up to the same IRS mandates and access into all their records and information.  It also opens them up to having a non-medically trained review board tell them which services they will and will not get… essentially death panels.  But although they don’t want it, it is good enough for the rest of us in their book.  After all what better advertisement for his signature program would there have been than President Obama and Vice President Biden signing themselves and their families up for all to see for the ObamaCare exchanges the day the program opened on October 1st?

Don’t be fooled by the propaganda being fed us through the mainstream media. ObamaCare was never about healthcare, and definitely not about better healthcare, it was always about ideology and control… about the federal government controlling you… all of us!

Just like President Obama and Harry Reid’s refusal to negotiate with the Republicans has nothing to do with what is good for the country or even the budget, or even the truth for that matter, it is about demonizing the Republicans so that the Progressive Democrats win the next election… so they can maintain their control of you!!

Do your homework and then you be the judge… But in my kitchen, the cook eats his own food and no matter how the present shutdown ends... Our politicians still don't want to eat theirs!

Technorati Tags: CR,Vitter,ObamaCare,Politicians,Congress,Healthcare,Restaurant,Democrats,Obamaland,Division,DeSantis,Sheeple,Common Sense,Low-Informed,Voters,Americans,RINOs,MSM,Exchanges,double standard,Reid,Control,Let Them Eat Cake,Congressional Record,Progressives,Washington D.C.