Video: Megyn Kelly - Did Obama win election by lying about Keeping your Healthcare; Still Lying 2 Cover up
Wake-Up… ObamaCare Eliminates Your Plan by Design
The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One’s Talking About
Book: Beating Obamacare
Showing posts with label READ THE BILLS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label READ THE BILLS. Show all posts
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana Flee Obamacare Exchanges
CBSNews: Major health insurance companies – Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana – have fled the Obamacare health care exchanges in various states, which are scheduled to start on Oct. 1st, 2014.
Insurance companies like Aetna and United have said, “thanks, but no thanks” to the public health insurance marketplace set up under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, which will facilitate government subsidies to individuals and small businesses to buy approved health plans to comply with the law.
The ACA requires every American to have health insurance, or pay a penalty. Individuals who are not covered by their employer can enroll in the state or federal government-run health care “marketplace,” which will provide subsidies to individuals between 100 and 400 percent of the poverty line.
Aetna, a fortune 100 company with $34.2 billion in revenue, has pulled out of public exchanges in three states, and will not be part of the individual health insurance exchange in its home base, Connecticut.
Founded in Hartford, Conn., in 1850, Aetna withdrew its application to participate in the state on Monday, due to high rates proposed by state regulators, the Hartford Courant reported.
“We have spent considerable time identifying those states in which we can be competitive and add the most value to the market,” Aetna said in a statement. “As a result of our analysis, we have reluctantly concluded that we will withdraw certain Individual Exchange filings for 2014, including filings in Connecticut, Georgia and Maryland.”
“This is not a step taken lightly, and was made as part of a national review of our Exchange strategy,” the company said. “Unfortunately, we believe the modifications to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers.”
California
Aetna will also not participate in California’s exchange, and a spokesperson told CNSNews.com that the company never intended to do so.
(AP Photo)
“We did not withdraw exchange plans in California, as we never planned participation nor filed [Qualified Health Plans] QHPs to participate in the California exchange,” a spokesperson said.
Anthem Blue Cross has withdrawn from its bid to participate in the state’s small business exchange, as well.
United Health Group, the largest health insurer in the United States, has also taken a pass on the Golden State’s individual insurance market under Obamacare.
As a result, roughly 8,000 policyholders will be left searching for new insurance.
Aetna will stop selling individual insurance policies in California all together, leaving nearly 50,000 existing policyholders to find new coverage by January.
‘If You Like Your Doctor,’ Hope Your Insurer Is Participating in the Exchange
“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,” Obama said on June 15, 2009.
“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period," he said. "No one will take it away. No matter what.”
That promise, however, has been revised by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which now says, “you may be able to keep your current doctor” in the health insurance marketplace.
“Most health insurance plans offered in the Marketplace have networks of hospitals, doctors, specialists, pharmacies, and other health care providers,” HHS said on its website for the health reform law. “Networks include health care providers that the plan contracts with to take care of the plan’s members.”
“Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider,” they said.
President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) into law on Mar. 23, 2010. (AP)
With insurers opting out of state-run health exchanges, individuals are left with less options.
Only three companies remain in Connecticut’s “Access Health CT” exchange, following Aetna’s departure.
Similarly, only five plans are participating in the exchange in Georgia, after Aetna and Coventry Health Insurance dropped out last week.
The Savannah Morning News noted that this will “leave residents of some parts of the state with limited choice.”
Two of the three largest health insurers in Wisconsin will also not participate in the state’s online marketplace under Obamacare, it was announced on Wednesday.
Though they will not participate in at least four state-run exchanges, Aetna said they “appreciate” the opportunity to work with state regulators on complying with the ACA.
“We have appreciated the chance to work with the regulators in each state for the past months on a variety of key issues regarding ACA implementation,” Aetna said in a statement. “We will continue to work with them, and various Exchange leadership teams, as we evaluate exchange participation in future years.”
CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.
**More and more politicians, unions, insurance companies and people who have read the bill are calling ObamaCare a ‘trainwreck’.
Friday, June 7, 2013
RUSH: Palin Was Right - There Are Indeed Death Panels In ObamaCare (audio)
Audio: RUSH: Sarah Palin Was Right 'There Are Indeed Death Panels In ObamaCare'
Former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is blasting HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for becoming a one-woman death panel. Sebelius is denying a young girl a lifesaving lung transplant — forcing the girl’s family to look to the courts for help.
Palin blasted Sebelius on Twitter and Facebook.
In her Facebook post, Palin said recalled how much criticism she received for decrying “death panels” in Obamacare:
The government will bend the rules left and right to harass targeted taxpayers, conservative patriots, selected journalists, etc., but it will strictly exercise inconsistent and subjective rules to deny a child a shot at life. And they called us liars when we spoke of “death panels” – faceless bureaucrats coming between you and your doctor to make life and death decisions about a loved one’s survival. It doesn’t sound so far fetched anymore, does it?
A federal judge has intervened to give hope to a young girl who needs a lung transplant as doctors have only given her weeks to live. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius received national condemnation after she refused to get involved to help the girl.
Sarah Murnaghan has been hospitalized for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis. She is not giving up hope. She wants to be a singer, but needs a lung transplant to live. Her parents have been with her constantly while she waits at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Sarah’s parents asked a federal judge to intervene and order the Obama administration to alter longstanding organ-donation rules so she can get the lung transplant she desperately needs. A report shows the judge has given them hope that she can be put on the adult list.
*Unfortunately because of the delays the dying girl's condition worsens as she awaits lung transplant
**Since this was originally written, the same judge has acted on behalf of a second girl in the same hospital also needing a lung transplant has sued and has been added to the list.
Death Panel a la Sebelius… “Some people live. Some people die.”
Related… Who is HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius?:
Sebelius’ Controversial Fundraising Efforts Raise Concerns, Allegedly Chase Away Potential Donors
Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate
Comments More Print Reprints About the Obamacare ‘train wreck’
Sebelius Spends Your Taxes On Community Organizations
Obamacare Architects Rockefeller and Sebelius: Our Bill is Confusing Beyond Comprehension
*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin on the abortion mandates within ObamaCare. (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The IRS, Obamacare and Abuse of Political Power: An Issue
Liberty’s Spirit - Cross posted at Raising Asperger’s Kids:
There are new controversies surrounding Obamacare now that the IRS is mired in a political scandal. These emerging issues surround federal government control of medical/healthcare rights/information and the abuse of political power. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting insight into the problem (unfortunately the WSJ article has been pulled since this was written):
Even as the politicized tax enforcement scandal expands, the Internal Revenue Service continues to expand its political powers thanks to the Affordable Care Act. A larger government always creates more openings for abuse, as Americans will learn when the IRS starts auditing their health care in addition to their 1040 next year.
Over the last decade or so the tax agency has stretched its portfolio and become an enforcer and decision-maker for government benefits and programs. Three years ago, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates within the IRS, presciently noted that ObamaCare is “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.
This March the IRS Inspector General reiterated that ObamaCare’s 47 major changes to the revenue code “represent the largest set of tax law changes the IRS has had to implement in more than 20 years.” Thus the IRS is playing Thelma to the Health and Human Service Department’s Louise. The tax agency has requested funding for 1,954 full-time equivalent employees for its Affordable Care Act office in 2014.
These are issues that need to be vigorously debated. If a Presidential Administration can use the power of the IRS to harass and malign its political opponents, then what does the IRS and HHS having life and death rights over these same political opponents mean?
What if you object to the government’s handling of a controversy and the first issue asked is not “how is your health” but “do you belong to the right political party?” This is how life was in the Soviet Union and still is in totalitarian/oligarchical nations. Think this is a hysterical approach? Ask the people harassed by the IRS because they belong to conservative political groups or to pro-Israel groups that didn’t follow in-lock-step with the President’s view of the Middle East, or taught about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (it seems under these criteria my entire family is up the creek without a paddle) and then tell me it can’t happen here.
Furthermore, an additional aspect of the controversy appeared yesterday. Apparently the IRS gave private tax information of conservatives to politically left-leaning groups during the Presidential campaign. The powers that be continually tell us that under Obamacare our health documents would be sacrosanct. After the recent revelations about IRS conduct, it is apparent that the inherent potential for abuse dangerously exists.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
BIG STORY: Lawsuit Could Potentially Undo ObamaCare!
Jared Law – the 9.12 Project: This is one of the dozens (okay, thousands) of reasons that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, a horrible idea, and why it must be eliminated, rooted out completely, ASAP.
The fact that ObamaCare originated in the U.S. Senate makes it unconstitutional, independent of its thousands of alternative violations of our NATURAL LAW, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
You see, when the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and ruled ObamaCare legitimate and Constitutional, their reasoning was that ObamaCare penalties and fees were actually taxes.
But any bill that generates revenue for the federal government through taxes MUST NECESSARILY, BY CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE, ORIGINATE IN THE U.S. House of Representatives!
This has been brought up before, but now a lawsuit is alleging the same.
This is WONDERFUL NEWS!
Here's the story from The Washington Times and The Blaze: 
Lawsuit Over Health Care Tax Could Kill ‘ObamaCare’
By Valerie Richardson | Sunday, March 31, 2013
"ObamaCare" looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.
A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define ObamaCare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their "aha" moment.
"The court there quite explicitly says, 'This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,'" foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. "Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.
The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and "has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis."
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department's motion "any day now," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.
The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn't the only lawsuit against ObamaCare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.
In their brief, 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 H.R. 3590 as a "shell bill" may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.
"This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause," said the brief. "It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause."
The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.
"Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue," said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. "Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable."
The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.
The Affordable Care Act's central purpose is to "improve the nation's health care system," and it fulfills that goal "through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue," said the government brief.
Mr. Sandefur disagrees. "What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?" he asked.
Legal opinion on the matter is split. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy that, "[I]f any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act."
But Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin said the Obama administration has legal precedent on its side, although the lawsuit "may nevertheless become plausible if enough prominent people get behind it and vouch for it."
"And then, perhaps, Chief Justice Roberts, given a second chance, will change his mind — again," Mr. Balkin said in an essay for The Atlantic.
Legal scholars agree on one point: The courts haven’t seen the last of lawsuits against ObamaCare.
"The Supreme Court’s ruling last June was only the end of the beginning as far as ObamaCare litigation is concerned," Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro said at the February forum. "The more we read and the more regulations are promulgated, the more constitutional and other defects are found."
Could This Lawsuit Really Kill ‘ObamaCare’?
Apr. 1, 2013 6:34pm Becket Adams
Although it’s widely believed that “ObamaCare” is here to stay, one lawsuit is threatening to undo President Obama’s landmark health care bill.
“A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House,” the Washington Times notes.
You may recall in June 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled on “ObamaCare” that Chief Justice John Roberts defined the bill as a tax, not a mandate. This, according to the Times, is where PFL attorneys saw their opening.
“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said recently. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”
The Times explains the details:
The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.
The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against ObamaCare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.
In their brief, 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.
Though unorthodox, the government motion argues that using H.R. 3590 as a “shell bill” is not unconstitutional.
“This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause,” said the brief. “It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause.”
The brief notes several cases where shell bills have been upheld by courts.
“[B]ut foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another,” the Times notes.
The DOJ also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate provided “the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.”
“Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue,” said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. “Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”
The point of “ObamaCare” is to “improve the nation’s health care system,” and it does that “through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue,” said the government brief.
But Sandefur disagrees.
“What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.
Although it’s unclear whether PFL’s lawsuit will scuttle the president’s health care law, one thing is certain: “ObamaCare” has at least one more hurdle to clear before final implementation.
Click here to read the full report.
Related:
A Healthier Alternative to ObamaCare
Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaTax,taxes,defund ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,ObamaCare UnConstitutional
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Even the AP Thinks This Finding Will Result in a ‘Big Headache for the Obama Administration’
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – MARCH 15: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delivers remarks next to a tall stack of Obamacare regulations during the second day of the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) March 15, 2013 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American conservative Union held its annual conference in the suburb of Washington, DC, to rally conservatives and generate ideas. Credit: Getty Images
The following story is from the Associated Press, cross-posted at The Blaze:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama’s overhaul, the nation’s leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.
That’s likely to increase premiums for at least some Americans buying individual plans.
The report by the Society of Actuaries could turn into a big headache for the Obama administration at a time when many parts of the country remain skeptical about the Affordable Care Act.
While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers.
The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said.
The report did not make similar estimates for employer plans, the mainstay for workers and their families. That’s because the primary impact of Obama’s law is on people who don’t have coverage through their jobs.
The administration questions the design of the study, saying it focused only on one piece of the puzzle and ignored cost relief strategies in the law such as tax credits to help people afford premiums and special payments to insurers who attract an outsize share of the sick. The study also doesn’t take into account the potential price-cutting effect of competition in new state insurance markets that will go live on Oct. 1, administration officials said.
At a White House briefing on Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said some of what passes for health insurance today is so skimpy it can’t be compared to the comprehensive coverage available under the law. “Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus,” she said. “They’re really mortgage protection, not health insurance.”
A prominent national expert, recently retired Medicare chief actuary Rick Foster, said the report does “a credible job” of estimating potential enrollment and costs under the law, “without trying to tilt the answers in any particular direction.”
“Having said that,” Foster added, “actuaries tend to be financially conservative, so the various assumptions might be more inclined to consider what might go wrong than to anticipate that everything will work beautifully.” Actuaries use statistics and economic theory to make long-range cost projections for insurance and pension programs sponsored by businesses and government. The society is headquartered near Chicago.
Kristi Bohn, an actuary who worked on the study, acknowledged it did not attempt to estimate the effect of subsidies, insurer competition and other factors that could mitigate cost increases. She said the goal was to look at the underlying cost of medical care.
“Claims cost is the most important driver of health care premiums,” she said.
“We don’t see ourselves as a political organization,” Bohn added. “We are trying to figure out what the situation at hand is.”
On the plus side, the report found the law will cover more than 32 million currently uninsured Americans when fully phased in. And some states – including New York and Massachusetts – will see double-digit declines in costs for claims in the individual market.
Uncertainty over costs has been a major issue since the law passed three years ago, and remains so just months before a big push to cover the uninsured gets rolling Oct. 1. Middle-class households will be able to purchase subsidized private insurance in new marketplaces, while low-income people will be steered to Medicaid and other safety net programs. States are free to accept or reject a Medicaid expansion also offered under the law.
Obama has promised that the new law will bring costs down. That seems a stretch now. While the nation has been enjoying a lull in health care inflation the past few years, even some former administration advisers say a new round of cost-curbing legislation will be needed.
Bohn said the study overall presents a mixed picture.
Millions of now-uninsured people will be covered as the market for directly purchased insurance more than doubles with the help of government subsidies. The study found that market will grow to more than 25 million people. But costs will rise because spending on sicker people and other high-cost groups will overwhelm an influx of younger, healthier people into the program.
Some of the higher-cost cases will come from existing state high-risk insurance pools. Those people will now be able to get coverage in the individual insurance market, since insurance companies will no longer be able to turn them down. Other people will end up buying their own plans because their employers cancel coverage. While some of these individuals might save money for themselves, they will end up raising costs for others.
Part the reason for the wide disparities in the study is that states have different populations and insurance rules. In the relatively small number of states where insurers were already restricted from charging higher rates to older, sicker people, the cost impact is less.
“States are starting from different starting points, and they are all getting closer to one another,” said Bohn.
The study also did not model the likely patchwork results from some states accepting the law’s Medicaid expansion while others reject it. It presented estimates for two hypothetical scenarios in which all states either accept or reject the expansion.
Larry Levitt, an insurance expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, reviewed the report and said the actuaries need to answer more questions.
“I’d generally characterize it as providing useful background information, but I don’t think it’s complete enough to be treated as a projection,” Levitt said. The conclusion that employers with sicker workers would drop coverage is “speculative,” he said.
Another caveat: The Society of Actuaries contracted Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, to do the number-crunching that drives the report. United also owns the nation’s largest health insurance company. Bohn said the study reflects the professional conclusions of the society, not Optum or its parent company.
Featured image via AFP/Getty. Carousel photo by Olivier Douliery/ABACAUSA.com
Related:
Congressional Report: Obamacare Leads to Skyrocketing Premiums, 200 Percent Possible
Paul Ryan Reveals His Plan to Balance the Budget in 10 Years Includes Repealing Obamacare
Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law
Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,healthcare premiums,Affordable Care Act,ObamaCare costs,Mitch McConnell,Optum
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Cabela's - It is true….
Medical Excise Tax on Retail Receipts Show How We're Screwed by Obamacare, page 1
Source – h.t to MJ: The receipt (pictured below) spells out what Obama and the feds want to keep secret - the middle class is being heavily taxed despite all the fatuous rhetoric of Democrats who invariably play the class warfare card to sell their confiscatory taxation policies.
"The 2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be 'hidden' from the consumer, but it's been brought to the public's attention by hunting and fishing store Cabela's who have refused to hide it and are showing it as a separate line item tax on their receipts," the email states.
Now please hold on and bear with me before you say "OH, another Alex Jones article!" because I did some research and found directly from the IRS's website information that PROVES this to be true and an accurate portrayal of something hidden in Obamacare that I was not aware of!
Now being skeptical of this I went to the IRS website and found this!
Q1. What is the medical device excise tax?
A1. Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer or importer of the device.
Q2. When does the tax go into effect?
A2. The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after Dec. 31, 2012.
Q3. How much is the tax?
A3. The tax is 2.3 percent of the sale price of the taxable medical device. See Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510, Excise Taxes, and Notice 2012-77 for additional information on the determination of sale price.
IRS.gov - So being more curious I clicked on "Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510" And WALLAH! What do I find under "MEDICAL DEVICES" under "MANUFACTURERS TAXES"?
Manufacturers Taxes
The following discussion of manufacturers taxes applies to the tax on:
Sport fishing equipment;
Fishing rods and fishing poles;
Electric outboard motors;
Fishing tackle boxes;
Bows, quivers, broadheads, and points;
Arrow shafts;
Coal;
Taxable tires;
Gas guzzler automobiles; and
Vaccines.
IRS.gov - I think we have definitely been fooled, if we believe that the Affordable Care Act is all about health care. It truly does appear to be nothing more than a bill laden with a whole lot of taxes that we the people have yet to be aware of!
Friday, February 22, 2013
Stunner: ObamaCare-supporting Congressman suddenly not so sure you can keep your insurance after all
HotAir/Cross-posted at AskMarion: Are you as shocked as Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)? Somehow, I rather doubt it, and I don’t think Jason Mattera is as surprised as the front-page pic suggests, either. Confronted with the new CBO analysis that shows more than seven million Americans will lose their present health-insurance coverage from ObamaCare despite his repeated assertions that no one would lose their coverage, Rep. Engel tells Jason in this Andrea Tantaros Show video debuting exclusively at Hot Air that Congress can always go back and fix what’s not working.
Funny — Jason doesn’t recall that being mentioned as an option, and neither do I:
Video: Surprise! Rep. Eliot Engel Not So Sure About Oba…
Of course, Nancy Pelosi did tell us that we needed to pass the bill to see what was in it. How’s that working out for us? Not so hot, as it turns out, and it’s about to get worse for seniors in Medicare Advantage plans. Avik Roy reminds us that CMS helpfully postponed the deep cuts to the program until after the election so as to remove all of that messy accountability that politicians despise, and “the boom” is coming:
Though Democrats denied it during the 2012 campaign, Obamacare cut Medicare by $716 billion in order to partially fund $1.9 trillion in new entitlement spending over the next ten years. A big chunk of those Medicare cuts came from the market-oriented Medicare Advantage program. Cleverly, the Obama administration postponed the Medicare Advantage cuts until after the election, so as to persuade seniors that everything would be just fine. But the election is over. On Friday, the administration announced that it would be significantly reducing funding for the popular program. Obama’s proposal, according to one analyst, “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.”
Democrats have long been hostile to the Medicare Advantage program, which allows seniors to get their Medicare coverage through plans administered by private insurers. Today, more than a quarter of retirees get their coverage through Medicare Advantage, and the program has experienced rapid growth over the past decade. Richard Foster, the recently-retired chief actuary of the Medicare program, has projected that Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare Advantage would force half of its current enrollees to switch back to the old, 1965-vintage Medicare program. Robert Book and James Capretta estimate that this will cost enrollees an average of $3,714 in 2017 alone.
The new rates proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a.k.a. CMS, will have the net effect of reducing payments to Medicare Advantage plans by 7 to 8 percent in 2014, according to Citi managed care analyst Carl McDonald. “This includes the 2.3% reduction in per capita growth rate announced by CMS on Friday, and estimated 2-3% drop as rates move to parity with fee for service…a 1.5% reduction associated with the change in coding intensity adjustment” and the 2% health insurance premium tax. “These negatives are partially offset by an estimated 1% benefit from improved Star quality ratings, re-basing, better risk scores, and fee for service normalization, resulting in an overall decline of 7-8%,” wrote McDonald yesterday in a note to clients.
Because the typical for-profit managed care plan targets profit margins of only 5 percent, and non-profits even less, the net consequence would “turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable,” according to McDonald, unless CMS changes its proposal. “If implemented, these rates and the program changes CMS is suggesting would be enormously disruptive to Medicare Advantage, likely forcing a number of smaller plans out of the business and creating disarray for many seniors.”
B-b-b-b-but if you like your plan, you can keep your plan! That’s what Obama and Democrats like Engel told Americans for months, and even years … until Obama was safely re-elected. Eliot Engel has this message for his constituents (NSFW):
Video: Animal House – “You F’ed up, you trusted us”
Related:
Senator Rand Paul Speaks Out Against Senators Voting without Reading the Bills
Obama’s Stealth Move Towards Single Payer Healthcare
Senator Grassley (and Others): Democrats' Want to Nationalize Healthcare
Obama in 2007 Said He Wanted to Eliminate Private Health Insurance
Review: The New World of ObamaCare
Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare surprises,ObamaCare lies,wake-up America,Stand-up America,You cannot keep your health insurance,duh,low-informed voters,dumbing down of America,Obamaland,liar-in-Chief,Nancy Pelosi,elections have consequences,read the bills,impeachment,seniors,Medicare,Medicare Advantage Plans,rationing,single payer System coming,single payer was always the goal,educate yourself and others,Rand Paul
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
At Age 76 ObamaCare will not...
PLEASE SHARE THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE YOU CAN
This was not a surprise to me and won’t be those who have been following the ObamaCare Bill process.
THIS should be read by everyone, especially important to those over 75... If you are younger, then it applies to your parents or grandparents, and eventually to you.
Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happen in 2013 & 2014!
Age 76 - Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out the needle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that my insurance takes care of it.
She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr. about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but they had tried every-thing they could but Medicare is beginning to turn many things away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. She was brushing at tears and said, "Some day they too will get old", I am so very sorry!!
Please for the sake of many good people. . . ..be/get informed please.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...
At age 76, when you most need it, you are no longer eligible for cancer treatment
* see page 272
What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, "We have to pass the Bill so that we can see what's in it." Well, here it is.
Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200
JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200 - things were edited, changed and moved for the passing of final version of the bill, but the intention and most or what was in the original bill is still there… just hidden, re-written, or has been/will be added in later! They have not stopped writing and re-writing this bill since it was passed.
Please read this....... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
**
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally… (but seniors will lost much of their coverage… go figure.)
**
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
**
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
**
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
**
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
**
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
**
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
**
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
**
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress!”
Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas
All of the above should give you the ammo you need to oppose/fight Obamacare.
Please send this information on to all of your email contacts and print it out for those not on email.
Monday, September 10, 2012
ObamaCare Summed Up in One Sentence
Video: Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence
So, let me get this straight. This is a long sentence. We’re going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we’re forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single doctor but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes — [laughter] — same sentence! — with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government that has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese — [laughter] — and finally, financed by a country that’s broke.
h/t to MJ
Friday, July 27, 2012
All Americans Will Receive a Microchip Implant in 2013 Per ObamaCare
By Paul McGuire - July 23, 2012 - NewsWithViews.com – h/t to MJ
Updated: There is definitely a provision in the ObamaCare law, whose wording is purposely vague, for a database and tracking of implanted medical devices – pacemakers, artificial joints, things that are surgically implanted to bring function back to as close to whole as possible that could eventually lead to to the mark of the beast technology. But after some additional research, it appears that the regulations for this have ‘not’ been written, and probably won’t be by year end, since they are behind on so many others. This means it probably won’t happen in 2013… but if ObamaCare remains and Obama is re-elected, it is only a matter of time. Luckily since it will require lots of compliance on this piece from the device manufacturers and importers, and they’re about to get hit with sales taxes, they probably won’t be implementing much else for a while, since they must get set up for all that mayhem of reporting requirements. This is another bullet dodge for awhile to give Americans the opportunity to turn things around. We know it is part of the plan: Joe Biden mark my words (RFID) The question is when will they implement… if we don’t reboot and get rid of both ObamaCare and Obama as President. THITW~
A major news story broke on AOL and countless other mainstream news media outlets, this past week, that the Obama Health Care Bill will require all U.S. citizens and babies to receive a microchip or Medchip by March 23, 2013. Whether or not the microchip requirement in the bill is implemented by 2013, remains to be seen.
In 2010, my book ““Are You Ready For the Microchip?” was released, and I asked the question, “Is the microchip implant hidden in the Healthcare Bill? Are newborn children starting in 2013 going to receive a microchip shortly after birth?” Then in the book, I wrote, “ In the massive US HEALTHCARE BILL, which your elected representatives voted for without reading, there is a section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521 – National Medical Device Registry which states:
“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.”
The language is deliberately vague, but it provides the structure for making America the first nation in the world that would require every U.S. citizen to receive an implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling medical care.
A number of states like Virginia, have passed “stop the mark of the beast legislation” in an effort to stop this kind of legislation.
As with numerous other things that I have written and spoken about based on solid documentation, I am regularly challenged by some, and especially those in the Christian community, who are clueless about what is going on. Their criticism has never prevented me from presenting the facts, because I never take a poll about what I write or speak on. A Christian is called to speak the truth in love, whether or not it is accepted. I am not trying to disparage any ministry, but I don’t determine what I say based on whether or not it is “seeker friendly,” or popular. The only issue is, is it true and is it wise to communicate it at that particular time?
There are many things that I could say, but don’t, because there many people in our nation who, when confronted with a truth that is outside the box of their socially engineered consciousness, go into cognitive dissonance. As the microchip implant moves closer day by day, along with the “manufactured crisis” of illegal immigration, the problems of states like Arizona are creating an environment where Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are moving legislation forward that would require all U.S. workers, citizens and resident alike, to obtain and carry a National Biometric ID Card in order to work within the United States. It does not matter where you stand on the issue of amnesty or immigration, everyone is going to have to have a National Biometric ID Card that will eventually contain an RFID transmitter which will allow Big Brother electronic data bases to track all of your personal information. It is a simply a national ID card under another name. The national ID card will transition into a microchip implant, because that is technically more efficient. All of this which is about to happen very soon, is just the tip of the iceberg.
President Ronald Reagan refused to pass what he called this “Mark of the Beast” legislation. In my book, “Are You Ready for the Microchip?,” I examine the careful wording in the Health Care Bill which calls for a Med-Chip and a microchip implant. It was never hidden, it is simply Republican and Democrat, along with our corporate-controlled and Orwellian media, who deliberately chose to ignore it. The Bilderberg Group gave orders to microchip the entire U.S. population and then the world. Before the Health Care Bill was passed, the target date was set for the year 2013, when every baby born in the U.S. will receive a microchip at birth. Many are attacking President Obama for this, but although it is the Obama Health Care Bill, the microchip plan was created decades ago and put onto the fast track by the Republican Administration of President George Bush and his allegedly “born-again” Attorney General, John Ashcroft, after 911. It seems Ashcroft was more concerned about covering up the breasts of a Lady Liberty statue in the hallway of the Department of Justice, than he was about protecting our Constitutional liberties, which include the freedom of religion.
Unfortunately, Evangelical Christians make excellent political pawns because they focus on secondary issues, rather than the important issues. This is because Evangelical Christianity in America today does not have a truly Biblical worldview. I truly do not want to sound unkind, but the historical reality is that Evangelical Christians have played the part of what Lenin called “useful idiots.” Obviously, this is not what God planned for His people. But, by rejecting a Biblical worldview, the Scripture, “My people perish for lack of knowledge,” is fulfilled. The majority of Evangelical Christians in America have a very superficial faith as a result of what they are being taught in many of their churches and seminaries.
The new microchip technology with an RFID chip is so advanced it sounds like science fiction. The Apostle Paul explains how this fits into Revelation 13, where the False Prophet will head a one world religion and force people to accept the mark of the beast. A microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, in and of itself, is not necessarily the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast under the direction of the False Prophet, requires the conscious rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and a commitment to worship the Antichrist as God.
The challenge for Christians and others will be the very act of taking a microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, simply because of its parallel to the Biblical mark of the beast. Will people of faith be exempted for religious reasons or will they be forced to take it or imprisoned. In addition, any microchip technology could be activated with enhanced controls after it is implanted. So what starts out as a simple microchip implant could become a technology where at some future time, you must worship the Antichrist as God, and reject Jesus Christ as Lord in order to participate in the economic system. The built-in and evolving capacity of microchip technology makes this a dangerous possibility.
In the final analysis, the simple act of accepting the implantation of a microchip for medical reasons appears harmless on the surface. However, there is no guarantee that once it is implanted, that it will not be activated for mark of the beast technology. This is the danger and challenge that lies before us.
Related:
For those that read the bill or have educated themselves on this bill, this is no surprise. See the articles below from 2009 and 2011. The chips have been part of the plan and the bill from the very beginning.
RFID Implant Law Hidden in Obummercare Implementation 2013
Other ObamaCare Surprises:
Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit
Obama Gets Civilian Army In Healthcare Bill
Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade
Killing Obamacare Before It Kills Us – Part 1: The Political Battlefield
“Death Panel” Three Years Later
Do you have a gun in your house? Your Doctor wants to know and so does the government.
Lawyers Have Already Drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New ObamaTax Law
March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?
Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution
Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee
Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president
Obamacare’s Second Anniversary: No Gift for Seniors
IPAB Spells Gloom And Doom For Medicare - Just yesterday (03.22.12) the House of Representatives voted to repeal key 'Obamacare' provision” IPAB (the CLASS ACT has also been nullified)
Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans
Settling the Question of a Real Estate Tax in Obamacare
"Taxmageddon" in 2013? Can We Avoid It? Can You Afford It?
Technorati Tags: 1984,Big Brother,Loss of Rights,Mark of the Beast,microchips,NWO,ObamaCare,RFID chip part of healthcare bill,stop centralized healthcare records,Verichip in the Healthcare Bill,Novartis Chip,Mark of the Beast legislation,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,RFID,MedChip,Christians,ObamaCare surprises,National Medical Device Registry,doctor shortages,death panels,healthcare rationing,Obama's Civilian Army,GAO,increased Medicaid costs,Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,PPACA
Monday, July 16, 2012
Do you have a gun in your house? Your Doctor wants to know and so does the government.
Conscience of a Conservative - By: Nelson Abdullah – Oldironsides
When I got the following email message last week the first thought I had was how preposterous it sounded, until I read another article that follows it that confirmed it. The Federal government has required doctors to ask their patients if they have guns in their houses. Read it and become aware. The results of this informal survey sounds like defacto gun registration. Then, while having an office visit with my wife’s doctor, he casually asked me the same question and a chill went up my spine. He didn’t ask me if we had any knives or other sharp objects in the house, he asked me about guns, and he knows we don’t have any children living here.
Do you have a gun in your House?
When I had my gallbladder taken out and spent 10 days in the hospital for what should have been an overnight stay the insurance company kicked me out. I had home nurse visits for two weeks and was asked if I had guns in the house. I respond that if I did I would not tell them. So the below has some merit.
FYI, I am passing this along…there are comments from two other people I have also been asked if we keep guns in the house. The nurse just kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular questions. I told her I refused to answer because it was against the law to ask.
Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so they have no idea who does and who doesn’t. My doctor asked me if I had guns in my house and also if any were loaded. I, of course, answered yes to both questions. Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to my bed. I answered that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and also works for Homeland Security, advised me that an unloaded, locked up gun is no protection against criminal attack.
The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably everyone else.
Just passing this along for your information: I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor was on vacation.. One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was: Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn business!!
So it is out there! It is either an insurance issue or government intervention. Either way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical records (as they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and will ultimately result in lock and load!!Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners…Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:
1. Did I feel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone? The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered yes to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.Looks like they are going after the vets first. Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have? Be forewarned and be aware. The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists. Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not, YOU‘VE BEEN WARNED !
If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them. Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.
And then I read this:
In a July 5 letter to Florida-based NRA members and friends, Marion P. Hammer, NRA Past President and current Unified Sportsmen of Florida Executive Director, wrote:
“…[on] June 29, in an order that reads like it was written by the Brady Campaign and the anti-gun lawyers of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Miami Judge Marcia Cooke struck down the so-called Docs & Glocks law, which would have protected Florida’s gun owner privacy rights.
“Judge Cooke’s order ridiculed the law, saying supporters of the law couldn’t provide anything but ‘anecdotal information’ to prove the law was needed to protect patients from discrimination. She said the state’s arguments in favor of the law rest on a ‘legislative illusion.’”
Hammer’s letter continued, “Be very careful, ANYTHING you say or tell your doctor in confidence may not be confidential at all anymore, if they enter it or has entered it into your medical records. Particularly, whether you have guns in the home and where they are stored.”
She said the Florida law, passed to stop doctors from interrogating children and their parents about gun ownership and guns in the home, and entering the information into medical records, is especially important now. Fears are escalating that government will have access to medical records that can become lists of gun owners, Hammer said.
She wrote, “If you doubt the government can access your medical records, ask yourself if you really believed the federal government could force you to buy health insurance.”
I checked Google for references to this subject and read one of those side-stepping “fact-checks” on Snopes that claimed that “Medicare has not required doctors to ask this question.” Well, technically speaking, if you limit your denial solely on the single point that Medicare doesn’t do it that does not mean that some other government agency such as the Dept. of Health and Welfare or some quasi-government group such as the American Medical Association hasn’t done the same thing.
Next thing you will know is that some bureaucrat will rule that guns are unhealthy to have in your home. And like those employers who want to know if you smoke at home and then cancel your health insurance if you tell them you do, the government will do the same thing. So besides having the government compile a list of which citizens admits to owning a gun, they will threaten to cancel your Medicare coverage or any other health insurance unless you agree to surrender your firearms.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Fluke Thickens… Are Sanger and Fluke Related and Was Rush Right Afterall?
If you are not up on the Sandra Fluke story, check out: Fluke Spin
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER ECONOMIST: Rush Limbaugh Is Right, Sandra Fluke Is A 'Prostitute'
Courtesy of CSPAN
It has been over a month since Rush Limbaugh first called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute," but the controversy shows no sign of dying down.
Now University of Rochester economist and former Slate blogger Steven Landsburg has jumped to Limbaugh's defense.
In a blog post, Landsburg argued that while the talk radio host's language may have been off-color, Limbaugh's logic was analytically shrewd. Fluke, Landsburg writes, "deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked, and jeered" for saying that women should have access to contraception."
He adds that Limbaugh's demand that Fluke and other Georgetown students post online sex tapes in exchange for contraception was actually a "spot-on analogy":
"If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone else’s sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesn’t actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself."
Unsurprisingly, Landsburg's arguments sparked a mini-firestorm at the University of Rochester, prompting the school's president to issue a public dissent. Landsburg has resoundingly dismissed his critics as "contraceptive sponges," and devoted another blog posts to rebutting their arguments in favor of contraception access.
But Landsburg's focus on the economic benefits and drawbacks of contraception have little to do with Fluke and her congressional testimony. Fluke was not, as Limbaugh and Landsburg have suggested, "demanding" that taxpayers pay for her to have sex; her testimony was originally part of a debate about whether religious institutions should be required to provide access to contraception. Her argument focused primarily on the medical (and non-contraceptive) uses of birth control.
By Grace Wyler - Business Insider
Sandra Fluke’s appearances on-camera thus far, as well as Rush Limbaugh’s well publicized reaction to her Congressional testimony, turned her into a martyr for the Left. But now there are not only holes in her story but she has been connected to White House advisor and former Commincations Director Anita Dunn as well as to leftist Soros sponsored media group, Media Matters.
Bill O'Reilly investigates to find out who is really behind the Sandra Fluke controversy. 'The Factor' discovers the Georgetown law student is being represented by an organization where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director, is the managing editor. He Bill O’Reilly told viewers in a segment with Laura Ingraham that he strongly believes that the White House is “running” Sandra Fluke and has been behind her from the beginning.
And then over the weekend, O’Reilly’s team uncovers that Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend is son of ‘Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl’… My, my, my!
It has become more and more evident that the appearance of Sandra Fluke is no fluke but rather has turned out to be a straw woman for Team Obama and the Progressive left… She is connected to Media Matters and the White House and is a professional activist for contraception, abortion and even taxpayer funds for sex change operations. While she is described as a “third year law student” they always conveniently fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Fluke is really 30-years-old (not the 23 that has been reported), and specifically went to Georgetown to fight their contraception policy – far from the innocent, wide-eyed victim she’s tried to portray herself to be. And Fluke’s testimony for Congress, included precisely zero references to recreational sex or to abortion. Instead, Fluke would have her audience believe she’s only interested in non-sexual reasons for needing contraceptive pills – such as treating ovarian cancer. According to one study, the number of people to whom this applies is about 14 percent of all contraceptive users.
But is this really all Fluke’s agenda is? Based on the affiliations she herself has cited, that question may be more complicated. Near the beginning of her testimony, Fluke said the following (emphasis added):
My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
So if Fluke has these sorts of ties to an organization and mentions them by name for the purposes of appreciation, readers will probably assume she supports their agenda.
Now there seems to be increasing speculation that Sandra Fluke might be a great grandchild of Fabian/Progressive Founder of Planned Parenthood and the Negro Project whose beliefs are rooted in eugenics. The speculation began when someone noticed how much Sanger and Fluke look alike.
Margaret Sanger
Sandra Fluke
Margaret Sanger had 2 sons--Stuart and Grant--still looking into Stuart, but found this death notice for Grant (he was a Dr. and it says that he was survived by his wife, the former Edwina Campbell; three sons, Michael, of Baltimore, Alexander, of Manhattan, and Morgan, of Tortola, British Virgin Islands; a daughter, Anne Sanger of Bozrah, Conn., and 11 grandchildren.
While talking to a friend about the photo likeness and they sent the following info:
KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE SANGER
| Visit Guest Book
SANGER, KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE May 13, 1910 to Sept. 12, 2010 Kathryn died restfully in her sleep in the early morning hours of September 12, 2010. She was one of six children born to Carrie and Loren Fluke on the Kansas Prairie. She moved to San Diego in 1940, where she worked during the War at Convair. She retired from civil service after 20 years. Moved to Valley Center after the passing of her husband, Clarence (Bud) Sanger in 1975. She is preceded in death by son, Jimmy McClish. She is survived by son Gary McClish and daughter Barbara Blind, her brother Loren Fluke, and devoted niece Betty Jacobs; there are eight grandchildren, 10 great-grandchildren and eight great-great-grandchildren, and too many nephews, nieces and stepchildren to count. She was the most caring and loving person and always put the needs of others over her own. She will truly be missed by not only her family, but all those who knew her. Her passion was gardening; her love was deep for her roses, humming birds, and Padres baseball. A Viewing will be on Friday, September 17, 2010, from 5 to 9 p.m., with a Service on Saturday, September 18th, at 11 a.m. at Greenwood Memorial Park. Following the services on Saturday, a celebration of her life will be held at Bayview Molibe Home Park Clubhouse at 2003 Bayview Heights Drive.
Obituary Published in San Diego Union-Tribune on September 16, 2010
Thoughts: Are "Sanger" and "Fluke" considered typical names? And the fact that they were together is quite a coincidence? Also, the current Ms. Fluke, her middle name is "Kay", which can be a nickname for "Kathryn".
Family Genealogy Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~fryeandmecca/Randy%27s%20web%20tree/pafg463.htm#13307
Comment: And here's where the "out on a limb" kicks in: Margaret Sanger/Margot Sanger--related/coincidence who knows but it sure does peak ones curiosity doesn't it??? TMH from the NoisyRoom
Related:
Sandra Fluke May Not be a SL*T – But Is She a Liar?
Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist
Is This Why Sandra Fluke Went Public?
She-PAC Calls on Bill Burton and the Obama Super Pac to Denounce Misogynist Bill Maher
Think for a moment that this White House is not manipulating the discussion or the news? Check out: E-mails show White House input on Sherrod ouster
You be the judge…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)