Oh Well

October 23, 2013


cancellation notice 300

The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.



House of Representative:

July 31, 2012

H.R. 4078: Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012 (On Passage of the Bill)

House Vote #536 [primary source: house.gov]
Jul 26, 2012 (112th Congress)
Related Bill:
H.R. 4078: Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012
Introduced by Rep. Tim Griffin [R-AR2] on February 17, 2012
Current Status: Passed House

Dr ObamaCare

April 15, 2012

Nothing said about ObamaCare will make your healthcare costs go down, or your care better.

It’s all about fairness, not healthcare. And if you dig deep, the racism. Who would have thought that healthcare was about racism. When you rip the mask off the “clean, articulate” One (“without a dialect”), it ain’t pretty what’s underneath! And how about those compassionate death panels? You know, what Sarah Palin was talking about.

Obamacare lesson: Obamacare raises insurance costs more than if it never existed. In fact, based on premium increases since Obamacare became law, the average cost of a health insurance policy will double in about 8 years.

The cost curve going down, it was all about Democrats, including Obama, lies. None of this was true, and didn’t you know it?

This is because Obamacare requires insurance policies to cover more stuff…stuff that some may want, but all do not need. If a single person pays extra to cover children he/she doesn’t have, or a woman pays insurance companies for free birth control pills that can be bought cheaply ($9/mo. at Walmart/Target…look it up. Not kidding), the only thing accomplished is giving insurers and medical providers MORE money, NOT reducing how much people pay who would use those services.

Insurance does not sell healthcare…it sells money. If you see health insurance as kinda like a credit card (an company that charges interest for being between you and your purchase), then you would see how expensive it is in monthly premiums to put small purchases, or unnecessary ones, on an interest-charging financial product i.e. insurance.

Just because politicians SAY you will benefit from their actions doesn’t make it true…

To visit the Dr. Obamacare campaign website, go to http://www.DrObamacare.com
To learn a better solution than Obamacare, visit http://www.OccupyObamacare.ORG

The Socialist Promise Of The Free Lunch, Goes Bust: Like With Most Government Programs, Long On Promises And Short On Results

April 10, 2012

How About A Bunny Instead?

ObamaCare costs explode. Apparently, the free lunches will be expensive. Spin, spin, spin some more, until you are wrapped in total lies.

For example … President Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.

The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.

The 2010 law does generate both savings and revenue. But much of that money will flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund — and, under law, the money must be used to pay years of additional benefits to those who are already insured. That means those savings would not be available to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.

“Does the health-care act worsen the deficit? The answer, I think, is clearly that it does,” Blahous, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said in an interview. “If one asserts that this law extends the solvency of Medicare, then one is affirming that this law adds to the deficit. Because the expansion of the Medicare trust fund and the creation of the new subsidies together create more spending than existed under prior law.”

Administration officials dismissed the study, arguing that it departs from bipartisan budget rules used to measure every major deficit-reduction effort for the past four decades — including the blueprint offered last month by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

“Opponents of reform are using ‘new math’ while they attempt to refight the political battles of the past,” a White House budget official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the report was not publicly available. “The fact of the matter is, the Congressional Budget Office and independent experts concluded that the health-reform law will reduce the deficit. That was true the day the bill was signed into law, and it’s true today.”

Blahous acknowledged that his analysis departs from budget conventions, which, he said, make sense for the most part. He said that in this case, however, those rules do not fully illuminate the financial impact of the health-care law, since they permit what conservative critics have dubbed a “double counting” of proposed Medicare savings.

Medicare is financed in part through a trust fund that receives revenue from payroll taxes. Before Obama’s health-care act passed, the trust fund was projected to be drained by 2017 (later updated to 2016). Absent the health-care law, Blahous writes, Medicare would have been forced to enact a sharp reduction in benefit payments in the middle of this decade, or “other Medicare savings would have had to be found.”

Obama Secretly Shifts Half a Billion Dollars to Feed His ObamaCare Leviathan… And Hopes You Won’t Notice

April 9, 2012

Imagine if President Bush had done this, the lame-stream media would be yelling about this until they were all hoarse.

Feed the free healthcare dragon, or else.

By: Andrea Ryan

The ugly, massive mouth of ObamaCare has opened and our president is secretly shoveling hundreds of millions of dollars to feed his ravenous beast of a pet.  As usual, he hopes you aren’t paying attention.

In spite of the fact that the unconstitutional healthcare law is currently meeting its fate before the Supreme Court, Obama just moved half a billion dollars from the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ obscene $1 Billion slush fund to the IRS, the agency in charge of implementing the unconstitutional individual mandate.

According to the Independent Journal Review,

In a move to attempt to implement the President’s healthcare law, otherwise known as ‘Obamacare’, $500 million has been shifted around from one federal agency to another. Quietly, half a billion dollars is being moved from the $1 billion implementation fund (or slush fund) that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees, to the Internal Revenue Service.

The IRS will play a key role in implementing the individual mandate and the money being allotted to them is intended to go to develop infrastructure to enforce it. The mandate, of course, is the biggest question in the Supreme Court case currently being heard, and the most controversial.

HHS has made plans to empty the $1 billion dollar fund by September, just months before the Presidential election and more than a year before actual implementation time for the healthcare law. Since the implementation money was put aside as a federal implementation fund, any federal agency can use the money.

Moving closer to implementation isn’t likely to help the President’s chances in the Supreme Court, or in the Presidential election.

The branches of government be damned.  Obama’s not parting with his hideous, vicious beast that has the throat of our liberty in its mouth; because, that’s an inconceivable and unprecedented amount of power for our Marxist president to just give up.


Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

March 29, 2012

After three days of hearings, all indications are Obamacare goes in the trash-bin of history. You have to pass the law to see what’s in it, and it stinks. Why destroy the world’s best health-care system on the alter of liberalism???

The LA Times writes:

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down the hated ObamaCare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader(buzzy) Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be “extraordinary” for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents’ insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, “2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls,” said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court’s conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law’s Medicaid expansion. Hmmm, doesn’t Congress write out laws?

Obamacare’s Supreme Court Disaster

March 28, 2012

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

How can you defend the indefensible? Uhh ummm ahhh

Stepping up to the podium, Verrilli stammered as he began his argument. He coughed, he cleared his throat, he took a drink of water. And that was before he even finished the first part of his argument. Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism’s biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy.

“What is left?” Justice Antonin Scalia demanded of Verrilli, “if the government can do this, what can it not do?” Verrilli’s response to this basic and most predictable of questions was to rattle off a few legal precedents.

Justice Samuel Alito asked the same question later. “Could you just—before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can?” Verrilli turned to precedent again. “It’s very much like Wickard in that respect, it’s very much like Raich in that respect,” Verrilli said, pointing to two previous Supreme Court opinions liberals have held up to defend the individual mandate. Where the lawyers challenging the mandate invoked the Federalist Papers and the framers of the Constitution, Verrilli offered jargon and political talking points. If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli’s performance, not because of it.

The months leading up to the arguments made it clear that the government would face this obvious question. The law’s defenders knew that they had to find a simple way of answering it so that its argument didn’t leave the federal government with unlimited powers. That is, Obamacare defenders would have to explain to the justices why allowing the government to compel individuals to buy insurance did not mean that the government could make individuals buy anything—(say, broccoli or health club memberships, both of which Scalia mentioned). Verrilli was unable to do so concisely, leaving the Democratic appointees on the court to throw him lifelines, all of which a flailing Verrilli failed to grasp.

Isn’t this is how liberals think? Destroy the US Constitution, tyranny is ours.

Don’t blame the Solicitor General. He worked with what he had.  The day after his argument, there still is no good answer to the questions asked by Scalia and Alito.

There is a brutal ad released by the RNC.

%d bloggers like this: