Obama Care Passed...... What Next?

[x101airborne]

Well..... It is official. Obamacare has passed. I have read over it with the missus and cannot understand all the doubletalk.
One key point we noticed is that it states if we are un-insured, they can charge us more. But if we are over-insured, they can charge us more. But they dont explain the median!
And what the heck is "twice the poverty level" up to four times the poverty level? Who the heck sets the poverty level and why are these small business owners getting such a raw deal? When did it become a standard part of business to provide health insurance? I always thought it was a part of the employment package!
Yall please help me sort this thing out.
Maybe I been in the sticks too long.

[Sweetpea]

If you have read the U.S. Constitution (it is my sincere opinion every American should read it at least once a year) you will not be able to understand the decision of the Supreme Court. The only hope we have now is to vote the LIBERAL TREEHUGGING BUMS out of office!

MAKE SURE YOU AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW IS REGISTERED TO VOTE!

[bruce drake]

a key provision on this is if you don't already have health insurance by 2014, they will tax you 2.5% of your yearly salary as a "penalty" for not buying their insurance plan.

[No_1]

It would be cheaper for me to drop my health insurance and pay the penalty.

[x101airborne]

Sorry guys... But the more I read, the more my feelings are hurt. This is just disappointing.

[bruce drake]

It would be cheaper for me to drop my health insurance and pay the penalty.

That's what the Socialist wants you to do. Once you are a ward of the state, you have no control over your medical care.

[bruce drake]

And for those of us who have worked very hard to get where we are now, the penalty will cost more than our current health care program.

[Crawdaddy]

A severe case of depression for me. Literally. I am not a person that suffers from depression.

It is more critical than ever that we vote these guys out.

On a local talk radio show they were talking about silver linings. It had to do with Roberts stating this was a tax and taking out of the executive branch and sending it to congress. One of the terms that came up over and over was reconciliation and that this could actually be defunded or done away by something Roberts insisted on changing.

Anyone understand this assertion? My legalese is not that great.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[ktw]

And what the heck is "twice the poverty level" up to four times the poverty level? Who the heck sets the poverty level

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml/

-ktw

[Ole]

My advice: Don't get too down in the dumps about it.

After all, happy people are healthier, and you probably won't want to get sick a few years after this thing gets going. :mrgreen:

[ktw]

It would be cheaper for me to drop my health insurance and pay the penalty.


And for those of us who have worked very hard to get where we are now, the penalty will cost more than our current health care program.

Why would either of you consider giving up the insurance you have now? If you have insurance that meets the minimum standard, the tax doesn't seem relevant from a personal cost perspective, which you appear to be making a case for in the statements above. I can see where there may be objections on principle.

-ktw

[omgb]

Yes, Robert's ruling made sure that this was a tax not a penalty. As such only congress could levy it, not the Executive branch. That gives us a chance to defund it as all tax measure must begin in the lower house and be ratified by a mjority in both houses. Second, Robert's ruling allows some states to opt out without being penalized. What kind of universal health plan is only valid in some states? So you see, it may not yet be as bad as it looks. Roberts forced the Dems hand in calling the fee a tax and he solidified the state's ability to opt out if they so choose. That's my take anyway.

[Marlin Junky]

What's next you ask?... look to the EU for all it's problems.

Knowledge is power... get to the poles in November and drag all the conservatives you can round up with you. We need to negate all the votes cast by those who are too young and/or ignorant to remember what Reagan set out to do.

MJ

[bruce drake]

well, I'm looking at the long run when I will have to deal with the idea of not having a decent insurance plan but instead having a socialist healthcare program where I have to wait 3-6 months for an operation like they do in Canada and the UK.

[geargnasher]

I'm looking at the short, the long, and the principle all at the same time. Between this, F&F, and all the other Federal bs going on in Az., I'm about ready to puke. The corruption has reached the point I think it's truly irreversible. The only way I stay sane is to take the news in small doses.

Who was it that said America is in the "awkward stage", too late to fix our problems from within the system we have now, and too soon for open revolt?

Gear

[No_1]

Why would either of you consider giving up the insurance you have now? If you have insurance that meets the minimum standard, the tax doesn't seem relevant from a personal cost perspective, which you appear to be making a case for in the statements above. I can see where there may be objections on principle.

-ktw

I was being sarcastic because I have heard many say that very same thing. I would never give up my health care for something so unsure as this. With the policy I have (25 years now), I choose where I go and what and how it gets done. I would never allow my health concerns to be decided by a board of folks that really don't give two hoots about me or my health.

[x101airborne]

I am remaining calm although my wife insists on watching FOX news. I dont want to fly off the handle or make any rash comments. BUT..... this is really sticking in my craw.
I consider myself a reasonable man until I have been pushed too far.

[x101airborne]

Ya know..... Not many republics have lasted more than 200 years. Just saying.

[Marlin Junky]

Who was it that said America is in the "awkward stage", too late to fix our problems from within the system we have now, and too soon for open revolt?

Gear

Never too soon for a "revolt" as long as it's respectful and peaceful... that is precisely the goal of the TEA Party.

Vote out all the Progressives, D's, R's and I's!

MJ

[geargnasher]

I think the "tea party" is trying to fix what we have, not march on Washington with rifles and torches and hang every last one of the sorry sacks of dung that have ruinied this country, and then set fire to the very philosophy they've propagated. I should be like Trey and try to remain calm, but I get so enraged that the socialist monster that has eventually destroyed every decent republic on earth is finally destroying this one, and there's nothing I can do about it.

This is what our founding fathers feared the worst, and it's been coming on since the founding generation passed on, in some cases even sooner. It took 150 years to finally bring down the Constitution, and we are witnessing the final rapture today. And the majority is BEGGING for it! I say let them have it, and see if they really want what they've been screeching for once they get it and there are no longer any working, productive people left to give it to them.

Gear

[imashooter2]

It would be cheaper for me to drop my health insurance and pay the penalty.

It will be cheaper for everyone and every company to drop their insurance and pay the penalty.

[waksupi]

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

Take a look at this assessment, and let me know what you think.

[SciFiJim]

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

Take a look at this assessment, and let me know what you think.

Hmm. It seems that while everyone else was playing "blind man's bluff", Chief Justice Roberts was playing chess. Is it check with checkmate in 4 1/2 months?

[a.squibload]

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

Take a look at this assessment, and let me know what you think.

A much better analysis than what I heard on the radio today.
Most thought Roberts had defected. Today's ruling really exposes
the big lie of Obamacare, I just hope enough voters can see it.

[frkelly74]

So, just asking, if anyone knows, If you do drop your insurance and pay the Tax/ penalty , are you then covered by some big government program? Lots of business owners that the pretty people interviewers talk to are saying that they will drop employee coverage so that they can stay in business. This is presented as an unintended consequence of Obama-care with fewer people actually having coverage. If this happens will the Tax/penalty become more expensive, you know, once they have you then tighten the screws?

[frkelly74]

I think the "tea party" is trying to fix what we have, not march on Washington with rifles and torches and hang every last one of the sorry sacks of dung that have ruinied this country, and then set fire to the very philosophy they've propagated. I should be like Trey and try to remain calm, but I get so enraged that the socialist monster that has eventually destroyed every decent republic on earth is finally destroying this one, and there's nothing I can do about it.

This is what our founding fathers feared the worst, and it's been coming on since the founding generation passed on, in some cases even sooner. It took 150 years to finally bring down the Constitution, and we are witnessing the final rapture today. And the majority is BEGGING for it! I say let them have it, and see if they really want what they've been screeching for once they get it and there are no longer any working, productive people left to give it to them.

Gear


Ayn Rand should be required reading in Jr High, high School and College.

[captaint]

Barry Obama's Supreme Court appointees have again proven, they're just a bad joke... Mike Hell yeah, we can legislate from the bench - just watch.....

[Olevern]

Energize the republican base to "unelect" Obama and thereby repeal the act, call a massive tax a tax and refuse to allow the libs to call it a "penalty", and, at the same time set in motion the basis to challenge in the future national govt. overreach via the commerce clause: I call it brilliant!

The health care act is unpopular so at this time (pre-election) why take that burden off the potus and allow them to say to their base "well, we tried, those nasty republicans had to get it declared unconstitional"

Let em live with it (at least until after the election when, if all goes well, we can have a more reasoned discussion on curbing health care costs and dump the blotted, unaffordable, govt. intrusion that we now have)

This decision, by calling the "penalty" a tax, puts the power back on congress because they can legislate taxes (all funding legislation is the primary responsibility of the congress).

[Philngruvy]

I can see where there may be objections on principle.

-ktw

That is the understatement of the year as far as I am concerned. It seems that principle just doesn't count anymore. Why can't these people just leave us alone. I was told by a great man, a retired Lt. Colonel in the USAF, an Air Commando Association member, to always do my own thinking. And I am thinking that the system has failed us horribly! Relying on the voting process just doesn"t seem to be working anymore. It seems to me that most, not all, but way too many of the politicians say one thing before the election, and then do something else after.I have lost confidence in the electoral process. I am angry. I am upset and my thinking process is leading me into a very dark area. Visions of gallows with traitors decorating them fill my mind. What are we to do when the electoral process fails us once again?

[snuffy]

My main concern, which I haven't seen addressed, is how does this affect the retired people like me. Isn't medicare considered insurance? AND I'm under care through the VA as a veteran. Does that count as already having health insurance?

I can understand the angst of those still working, either having to buy their own insurance or getting it through their employer. Most employers are charging their employees more co-pay for their insurance. Even union shops have had to accept contracts taking more out of weekly checks for ins. co-pay.

[Philngruvy]

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

Take a look at this assessment, and let me know what you think.

On the one hand, I am hopeful that this assesment is correct and that good will prevail. On the other hand, I have had so much disappointment in in the political arena, that I am somewhat skeptical about this because it puts the ball back in the court of the congress which has generally let us down over and over again.

[white eagle]

If I don't want insurance its my bloody rite not to have it
if I am forced to get insurance through someone else because mine isn't up to snuff that is hogwash
now I don't really give a hoot if the inner city Chicago welfare receipt's have health coverage or not
get a JOB
most all of America does it
but now we are being forced to have it its a load of **** krap

[Longwood]

well, I'm looking at the long run when I will have to deal with the idea of not having a decent insurance plan but instead having a socialist healthcare program where I have to wait 3-6 months for an operation like they do in Canada and the UK.

Same as at the VA.
People that REALLY need to be operated on, get it done the next day.
They would not even let me go back home when the tests were in.
It depends on how bad you need the operation.

When you do not need health care, insurance is always "Too expensive"

[ktw]

So, just asking, if anyone knows, If you do drop your insurance and pay the Tax/ penalty , are you then covered by some big government program?

The only people liable for the tax/penalty are those who chose not to carry any health insurance and can (presumably) afford to do so.

The elderly are already covered by Medicare. The poor are covered by Medicaid. The definition of poor has been expanded slighly to increase the number of people eligable for Medicaid. Those of us who have insurance we are satisfied with (individual or employer policy) can keep it, provided it meets the required minumum covereage.

Everyone else gets to comparison shop for private insurance at the new online brokerage. Below a certain income level that purchase is subisdized by the federal government via a tax credit.

There is no government ("single payer") plan, over and above the ones which already exist (Medicare/Medicaid/VA/Tricare, etc).

-ktw

[Gray Fox]

I believe there was a report just thhis week that the British health care system had basically chosen to kill off about 130,000 seniors rather that continue treatment. This is part of what the "limits to growth" geniuses have in mind here, too, but the numbers will be even higher based on our larger population. This is coupled with the fact that the economy forces many of us to work far beyond when we thought we'd be able to retire--work 'til you drop dead.

For those of us who have to watch our budgets, I'd say that between now and the implementation date we'd better buy the boolit related toys we want, because there won't be any pocket change left to put in the jar on the dresser once these crooks figure out how to grab us by the ankles and shake us until the pennies fall out (more vigorously than they already do).

I,too, am rather depressed over this whole mess. Say--I know what--let's have Holder appoint an impartial special council to investigate his role in Fast and Furious. I'm sure that would work our just fine, too. This isn't time for qoutes from Ayn Rand we need to re-read Claire Wolfe. Just sayin'.

[montana_charlie]

The only people liable for the tax/penalty are those who chose not to carry any health insurance and can (presumably) afford to do so.

The elderly are already covered by Medicare.
Medicare will be cut by half a trillion to divert money to the government insurance plan, and there are a number of other taxes involved with Obamacare ... not just the 'non-compliance penalty/tax'.

Some of those taxes are being paid now, and will increase as we get closer to 2014, when the rest of the bill kicks in.

47% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. Obama promised them in 2008 that their tax liability would not change. He made the same promise to the tax-paying ranks just above the non-payers.

All of those people have been shown (by Chief Justice Roberts) that their tax liability HAS changed, and will continue to change ... for the worse ... as long as Obama is able to stay in office.

CM

[mtnman31]

Yes, Robert's ruling made sure that this was a tax not a penalty. As such only congress could levy it, not the Executive branch. That gives us a chance to defund it as all tax measure must begin in the lower house and be ratified by a mjority in both houses. Second, Robert's ruling allows some states to opt out without being penalized. What kind of universal health plan is only valid in some states? So you see, it may not yet be as bad as it looks. Roberts forced the Dems hand in calling the fee a tax and he solidified the state's ability to opt out if they so choose. That's my take anyway.

Let me preface this by saying that I, like most Americans understand this healthcare plan about as well as I understand the tax code.

While states can opt out, I think that there are two reasons why they wouldn't.
First - the people in that state will be paying the "tax" on something that they aren't able to use or benefit from if the state opts out.
Second - if a state wanted to opt out, the fed is just going to withhold funding to other projects that the state needs. For instance, if my state wanted to opt out, the fed might then with hold medicaid funding or federal highway funding. The fed essentially coerces states to do what it wants.
"You need FEMA funds for the natural disaster you just had? Sorry, you opted out so we're not going to deny your request for federal emergency assistance becasue that isn't a real natural disaster."
"You want to keep that military base in your state? Sorry, you opted out of the health care plan so we are going to close that base under BRAC."

That is my take on the plan. I could be wrong.
Somedays, the political environment of our country makes Greece look pretty inviting.

[C.F.Plinker]

Let me preface this by saying that I, like most Americans understand this healthcare plan about as well as I understand the tax code.

While states can opt out, I think that there are two reasons why they wouldn't.
Second - if a state wanted to opt out, the fed is just going to withhold funding to other projects that the state needs. For instance, if my state wanted to opt out, the fed might then with hold medicaid funding or federal highway funding. The fed essentially coerces states to do what it wants.
"You need FEMA funds for the natural disaster you just had? Sorry, you opted out so we're not going to deny your request for federal emergency assistance becasue that isn't a real natural disaster."
"You want to keep that military base in your state? Sorry, you opted out of the health care plan so we are going to close that base under BRAC."

That is my take on the plan. I could be wrong.
Somedays, the political environment of our country makes Greece look pretty inviting.

I think this is what SCOTUS was trying to prevent when they ruled that the Federal Government was limited in what they could do to the states if the states didn't want to join in the expansion of Medicaid. As I read it, the existing federal contributions would continue but the states wouldn't get more Medicaid money if they chose not to expand their elegibility requirements per the health care act.

[EDK]

Hmm. It seems that while everyone else was playing "blind man's bluff", Chief Justice Roberts was playing chess. Is it check with checkmate in 4 1/2 months?


I agree with Jim. Chief Justice Roberts ruled that it was constitutional, NOT that it was a good law. Something I read or heard...probably on FOX NEWS with Greta, Hannity or Laura (standing in for O'Reilly) is that Justice Roberts said your remedy is at the ballot box in a few months. A majority of the DEMOCRATS showed their true colors ONCE AGAIN in the walk out yesterday over the contempt of congress vote against Attorney General Holder.

FWIW, our senator from Missourri Claire McCaskill's husband owns several nursing homes. She is trying to distance herself from Mr. Obama...with rather poor results so far. AND like her peers, she seems to think most voters have the attention span, intelligence and memory (of her previous actions and votes) of a stone. Thankfully, there was re-districting for the US house of representatives and we have the younger generation of the two major DEMOCRAT political dynasties...Lacy Clay and Russ Carnahan...fighting over one congressional seat.

Remember what you heard when you got dragged to the opera...the show ain't over until the fat lady sings!

:redneck::cbpour::guntootsmiley:

[MBTcustom]

Roberts is playing games because that's all he can do. We are loosing our country to minorities because the majority is too damm lazy to drag their lazy carcasses to the polls. I feel sold out. By the government, by my elected officials, but more than anything, I feel sold out by my own neighbors who believe the same as me but do not vote and just let it be.
Its all a bunch of games in Washington, they are pushing poker chips around on a table and our freedoms and principles are piled in the middle of the table like bargaining chips, but we are the ones who were too lazy, cheap, and unpatriotic to hold what we had in high enough regard that it would be treated with respect by those we elected to govern it.
However, our freedoms are still dear to us, and we are just as capable as our forefathers were of assigning value to those principles.

There are many ways to vote.
Some are more easily ignored by our elected officials than others.

[sharps4590]

It's the same as it's always been. All about control, first of the money then of individuals. This is simply a modern take on the same old desire of those in power when they are, pick an adjective: Socialist, (which Obama is), Progressive, Liberal, (by American definition), National Socialist....and I could add a few more that are less than complimentary....... or plain old power hungry.

[ErikO]

Yet another site where I'll keep the majority of my views on ACA to myself. I'll leave it at being glad to never have to fight another health insurance company over the difference between 'prior existing' and 'chronic' illnesses. :coffee:

[btroj]

Yep. Now you can argue with the governent instead. Hope that works out well for you.

My dealings with private insurance and Medicare tell me to brace for more paperwork and documentation. Medicare requires mucho paperwork for things private insurance requires only a prescription for. Like any government agency they love form and paperwork.

The ideas behind the bill have some merit, the form of the changes is the problem.

I may not trust private insurance but I trust the government far less.

[montana_charlie]

While you are wondering how your own health and healthcare insurance will be impacted, take some time to find out how much extra you will be paying in taxes NOT associated with 'the mandate' ... and how many new bureaucracies will be created to manage all of the many side issues that we never hear about.
(Taxpayers will also be supporting the staffs of those new bureaucracies, providing salary healthcare, and pensions)

There's a reason it is going to cost us a trillion and a half on top of what we pay now.

CM

[Elkins45]

Ever see government housing? Imagine what government health care will be like.

These clowns don't understand the basic fundamentals of how insurance works: through shared risk where the healthy many finance the care of the few who become ill. The idea that insurance companies have to accept customers with pre-existing conditions is like saying that State Farm has to sell you a homeowner's policy while your house is burning down!

If the insurance company can't turn us down then why won't we all just wait until we're sick to buy insurance?

[btroj]

I think this is the Obama vision of expansion of government in action. The huge number of IRS agents that will be needed. Wo know how many more will be hired at HHS to handle the paperwork and "stuff" they produce.
Yep, the increase in federal employees is gonna be expensive. And it will never stop increasing.

Was talking to a relative of my wife yesterday about this. I explained my views on Medicare this way. We get frequent "audits" for paperwork from Medicare yet never get the same from,private insurance. Private insurance thinks spending 1000 dollars in payroll tompotentially save 100 dollars is a net loss of 900 dollars. Medicare vies it as a savings of 100 dollars because they don't need to be profitable, they are funded by US!

Maybe we need to find a way to make government, and Universities too, into "for profit" groups. Let them have a board of directors who answer to shareholders. Bet that would shake things up.

[Moonman]

HUGH INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT JOBS= Jobs-Jobs-Jobs.

[sharps4590]

Right Moonman....and we foot the bill for those jobs.

[largom]

Many have good health insurance through their employer, right? Well, if your employer opts out of obama-care and elects to pay the penality you will be required to pay the FULL AMOUNT of your existing insurance in order to keep it.

Larry

[parrott1969]

Guy's, What I am seeing hear is the same millarky that my buddy keeps saying. Elect the Re-puke-ic-ians and the world will be right again. I am calling BS. The democrats and Republicans are the different sides of the same coin. Romney says "I will repeal Obama care by executive order", Hey Dummy, THAT IS ILLEGAL! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT! Banner says "Repeal and replace", Hey Snuggle Snout! JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO LIVE OR LIVES!!! You see, they do not want it to go away. It gives them more power over us peons. Has the TSA disappeared? Do congressmen get groped at the airport? Nope!!!

In a nut shell, if our Republican congress wanted Obama care to go away, they could have simply DEFUNDED IT! AFTER ALL THEY CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE UP COMING ELECTION I SEE TWO PILES OF DOOKY. BOTH ARE ROUND, BROWN AND HAVE CORN IN THEM. AND I AM SUPPOSED TO DECIDED WHICH ONE TO EAT?????? COME ON, AT LEAST GIVE ME A LITTLE HOT SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Olevern]

HUGH INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT JOBS= Jobs-Jobs-Jobs.

And these kind of "make-work" Jobs, jobs, jobs, equates to massive additional taxes, taxes, taxes to support those jobs, jobs, jobs, which means nobody makes any money 'cause it all goes to support bloated govt. payroll and union bosses (remember the unions vote for the libs who create the govt. teat) It's the old "use fed. taxes to purchase votes"

The middle class (which traditionally bore the burden of most of the taxes) is but a shadow of what it used to be as a result of our moving every manufacturing job to foreign soil.
Exacerbating the fewer good paying jobs is the govt. practice over the last decade to pay huge tax "refunds" to people who never paid any taxes to get a refund from (including millions of illegal immigrants and their families) and it's no wonder were irretrievalbly bankrupt.

Let's create more "do nothing" govt. jobs to add to the problem.

[btroj]

Jobs in government are the problem, not the solution.

The government is a giant leech sucking the life blood from the nation. We need way fewer government employees, not more.

We should raise the unemployment levels with a massive influx of former federal employees.

[white eagle]

Guy's, What I am seeing hear is the same millarky that my buddy keeps saying. Elect the Re-puke-ic-ians and the world will be right again. I am calling BS. The democrats and Republicans are the different sides of the same coin. Romney says "I will repeal Obama care by executive order", Hey Dummy, THAT IS ILLEGAL! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT! Banner says "Repeal and replace", Hey Snuggle Snout! JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO LIVE OR LIVES!!! You see, they do not want it to go away. It gives them more power over us peons. Has the TSA disappeared? Do congressmen get groped at the airport? Nope!!!

In a nut shell, if our Republican congress wanted Obama care to go away, they could have simply DEFUNDED IT! AFTER ALL THEY CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS.

point well taken
I do believe that the government forgot
indivisable with liberty and justice for all ....
how many times do you hear that anymore ??????
now its how can I make myself look good and stick it to the middle
seems as though the only one's coming out anymore are the very rich or the very poor

[popper]

Government (non)education was the highest $ industry in the US, now (non)health care will be. Followed by marketing, porn, sports, gov, retail, auto, military, MANUFACTURING, pretty much in that order. So >60% of GDP is SERVICE industries. The old econ theory that banks create money by the interest they make on loans. Of course if nobody MAKES anything, no real wealth is created and the interest can't be paid (like EU is discovering). Yup, KBOCare just puts another admin layer($$) on your Dr. bill. And you haven't seen what they will do for medicaid yet. The Rhino's aren't really going to do anything about it either. KBOCare has 21 (I think) tax increases, half will affect < $150K/yrs incomes.

[jcwit]

Guy's, What I am seeing hear is the same millarky that my buddy keeps saying. Elect the Re-puke-ic-ians and the world will be right again. I am calling BS. The democrats and Republicans are the different sides of the same coin. Romney says "I will repeal Obama care by executive order", Hey Dummy, THAT IS ILLEGAL! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT! Banner says "Repeal and replace", Hey Snuggle Snout! JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO LIVE OR LIVES!!! You see, they do not want it to go away. It gives them more power over us peons. Has the TSA disappeared? Do congressmen get groped at the airport? Nope!!!

In a nut shell, if our Republican congress wanted Obama care to go away, they could have simply DEFUNDED IT! AFTER ALL THEY CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE UP COMING ELECTION I SEE TWO PILES OF DOOKY. BOTH ARE ROUND, BROWN AND HAVE CORN IN THEM. AND I AM SUPPOSED TO DECIDED WHICH ONE TO EAT?????? COME ON, AT LEAST GIVE ME A LITTLE HOT SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I note parrott seems to immediately need to start calling people he doesn't agree with names.

Strange!

[parrott1969]

calling names?? maybe. I do not believe in a two party system and happen to see it as a cancer eating away at this country. I am a conservative, not a cog in a party wheel. The majority of people seem willing to forgo their morales in order to affiliate themselves with some group. I am not! To coin Reagan I did not leave the party, the party left me. The way I see it is a choice between socialist heavy and socialist light. I AM NOT A SOCIALIST Go ahead vote for one of the socialist. Either way your children are doomed to a life of servitude!

[popper]

Don't give parrott1969 such a hard time. With the Fed debt as large as it is, don't expect the Rhinos to do anything but raise taxes, they just don't want to get caught! Donkeys don't care if they get caught, they will do it anyway. Obviously, Roberts changed his tune, but why? A lot has to do with the commerce clause which has allowed a lot of BAD law. The court doesn't want to close that loophole and would make a lot of previous law unconstitutional. By allowing it as a tax, congress COULD do something about it, go back to my 2nd sentence! Medicaid is WELFARE! Medicare and additional taxes WILL fund welfare, so you aren't paying for your medical insurance but someone else's. When I applied for medicare, as required, AARP classified me as DISABLED!. They get paid more! Finally got a letter that said they were correcting it. Yes, medical providers get paid bulk $ for # in the plan, not for services actually rendered.

[parrott1969]

popper, thank you. nice to know someone else can see past "their party." I actually spoke with my congressman. His response to every issue was obama has got to go. He did not care about the issues, only towing the party line. So now I am saying Nunnelly has got to go just as I did with his predessor, Travis Childes

[popadopa]

Come on guy's stop and think how did we really get into this mess with our elected dumb azzzss. If most are not sure go to the bathroom and look into the mirror. What do you see well I'll tell you you see the man or woman that will find any excuse to not take time to go vote the person that blames everyone else for his or her trouble instead of taking the blame and then doing something to correct their problem. The person that does go to the polls, but votes straight party ticket because that is the way my family has always voted, the person that keeps griping about congress and the sorry job they are doing how they look out for themselves trying to stay elected promise you anything until you send them back to DC and then the hell with you until next time I need your vote. The real problem in Washington is the demo's and the rhino's !!!! They want to keep each other in power so they can sup at the public trough at our expense and throw us a few crumbs when we complain about anything. The TEA Party is the only real group working for us. Stop and pull the tree limb out of your eye's so you can really see what is going on around you. If we don't start looking out for each other and standing up for our selves we might as well throw up our hands and QUIT, NOW. The time is at hand we must clean house and stop reelecting the same bunch that keeps us in the same old hole. It is time for us to do the job and fire those that are worthless and hire new people to get our JOB DONE.

popadopa

[jcwit]

Frankly I'm sick of the name calling, which side of the political fence one is on is of not concern to me as far as the name calling goes.

Political views? Yes absolutly!

Name calling? No!

[montana_charlie]

Frankly I'm sick of the name calling, which side of the political fence one is on is of not concern to me as far as the name calling goes.

Political views? Yes absolutly!

Name calling? No!
I see it your way, too.
But, because this thread is running in 'Our Town' instead of The Pit, I am not going to respond in kind to the parrott's bad manners.

I'll just let it ride, and turn the page.

CM

[WILCO]

But, because this thread is running in 'Our Town' instead of The Pit....

I was surprised to see it here too. :holysheep

[Blammer]

waksupi, is exactly right.

I hope the Republicans can 'clarify' what has happened to the public to help 'repeal' this mess.

[ilcop22]

Tax on tea was the straw in the camel's back that gave birth to this once great nation. Have we as a nation become so spineless that we'll allow the federal government to tax away all of our money and erase our freedoms, one by one? I fear we are doomed to continue down this road because apathy and special interests have overtaken liberty and pride in who we are.

[gray wolf]

3 15 Reasons Why The Obamacare Decision Is A Mind Blowing Disaster For America

You can almost always count on the Supreme Court to do the wrong thing. In fact, just about every major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court over the last 40 years has been bad for America.
Many were hoping that the Supreme Court would strike down Obamacare, but the truth is that we all should have known better than to expect them to get something right.

So now America is headed for a complete and total disaster as Obamacare is fully implemented over the next several years.
Obamacare is going to absolutely shred the infrastructure of our medical system; it is going to send health insurance premiums soaring; it is going to dramatically expand the size and the scope of government; it is going to fundamentally alter the relationships between doctors and their patients, and it is one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Not only that, it is also going to add about a trillion dollars to our national debt over the next decade. So, no, the Obamacare decision is not good news. Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history, and now we are stuck with it.


It was a 5-4 decision to uphold Obamacare, and the swing vote was Chief Justice John Roberts who was appointed by George W. Bush.

After the vote, it is hard to have any faith in the U.S. Supreme Court. Many constitutional conservatives kept voting for Republicans in the hope that the direction of the Supreme Court would change, but it hasn't.

Prior to the Obama administration, Republicans controlled the White House for 20 out of 28 years. If Republicans were going to fundamentally change the nature of the Supreme Court, that was their opportunity.

But it didn't happen.

Instead, what we have is a Supreme Court that is dominated by judges that have very little respect for the U.S. Constitution. When I was in law school I got to study the Supreme Court pretty closely and I quickly realized that most of the time they simply do whatever they want to do and they make up whatever reasons they can to justify their decisions.

That sounds really bad, but that is the truth.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, we are stuck with Obamacare - at least for now.

The following are 15 reasons why the Obamacare decision is a mind blowing disaster for America....

#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future?

#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.

#3 The IRS is now going to be given the task of hunting down and penalizing millions of Americans that do not have any health insurance. In fact, the Obama administration has given the IRS 500 million extra dollars "outside the normal appropriations process" to help them enforce the provisions of Obamacare that they are in charge of overseeing.

#4 Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here. If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.

#5 In an attempt to "control costs" and "promote efficiency", Obamacare limits the treatment options that doctors and patients can consider. This is likely to result in a decrease in life expectancy in the United States.

#6 Obamacare is going to impose nightmarish paperwork burdens on doctors, hospitals and the rest of the healthcare system. This is going to significantly increase our healthcare costs as a nation.

#7 Obamacare is going to send health insurance premiums soaring. This is especially true for younger Americans.

#8 Many small businesses are going to be absolutely crushed by the provisions in Obamacare that require them to provide expensive health insurance coverage for their employees. This is going to make them even less competitive with companies in other countries where businesses are not required to provide healthcare for their workers. This is also going to make it even less attractive for businesses to hire new employees.

#9 Obamacare is going to make the emerging doctor shortage in America a lot worse. Surveys have found that we could potentially see hundreds of thousands of doctors leave the medical profession because of Obamacare.

#10 Obamacare has already forced the cancellation of dozens of doctor-owned hospitals.

#11 Obamacare is going to result in a much bigger federal government. In order to fully implement all of the provisions of Obamacare, hordes of new government bureaucrats will be required.

#12 Thanks to Obamacare, you are going to have to wait much longer to see a doctor. Just look at what happened once Romneycare was implemented in Massachusetts....

In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.

#13 Obamacare contains all kinds of insidious little provisions that most people don't even know about. The following is one example from the Alliance Defense Fund....

Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. One hundred percent free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn't it be the other way around?

#14 As if the U.S. government was not facing enough of a crisis with entitlement spending, it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. You and I will be paying for all of this. #15 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will add more than a trillion dollars to government spending over the next decade. Considering the fact that the U.S. government is already drowning in debt, how in the world can we afford this?

So what do you think about the Obamacare decision?

[gray wolf]

Summary of tax increases:

Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed.

Provisions

The Act is divided into 10 titles and contains provisions that became effective immediately, 90 days after enactment, and six months after enactment, as well as provisions that will become effective in 2014.
Below are some of the key provisions of the Act. For simplicity, the amendments in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 are integrated into this timeline.
Effective at enactment

The Food and Drug Administration is now authorized to approve generic versions of biologic drugs and grant biologics manufacturers 12 years of exclusive use before generics can be developed.
The Medicaid drug rebate for brand name drugs is increased to 23.1% (except the rebate for clotting factors and drugs approved exclusively for pediatric use increases to 17.1%), and the rebate is extended to Medicaid managed care plans; the Medicaid rebate for non-innovator, multiple source drugs is increased to 13% of average manufacturer price.
A non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is established, independent from government, to undertake comparative effectiveness research. This is charged with examining the "relative health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness" of different medical treatments by evaluating existing studies and conducting its own. Its 19-member board (Death Panel) is to include patients, doctors, hospitals, drug makers, device manufacturers, insurers, payers, government officials and health experts. It will not have the power to mandate or even endorse coverage rules or reimbursement for any particular treatment. Medicare may take the Institute's research into account when deciding what procedures it will cover, so long as the new research is not the sole justification and the agency allows for public input. The bill forbids the Institute to develop or employ "a dollars per quality adjusted life year" (or similar measure that discounts the value of a life because of an individual's disability) as a threshold to establish what type of health care is cost effective or recommended. This makes it different from the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Creation of task forces on Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services to develop, update, and disseminate evidenced-based recommendations on the use of clinical and community prevention services.
Chain restaurants and food vendors with 20 or more locations are required to display the caloric content of their foods on menus, drive-through menus, and vending machines.

Effective June 21, 2010

Adults with existing conditions became eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool, which will be superseded by the health care exchange in 2014. To qualify for coverage, applicants must have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least the past six months. There is no age requirement. The new program sets premiums as if for a standard population and not for a population with a higher health risk. Allows premiums to vary by age (4:1), geographic area, and family composition. Limit out-of-pocket spending to $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, excluding premiums

Effective July 1, 2010

The President established, within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a council to be known as the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council to help begin to develop a National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy. The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chairperson of the new Council.
A tax on indoor tanning took effect.

Effective September 23, 2010

Insurers are prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays, in new policies issued.
Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday, and regulations implemented under the Act include dependents that no longer live with their parents, are not a dependent on a parent's tax return, are no longer a student, or are married.
Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.[62][63]
Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.[64]
Individuals affected by the Medicare Part D coverage gap will receive a $250 rebate, and 50% of the gap will be eliminated in 2011. The gap will be eliminated by 2020.
Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.
Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.
Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.
Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.
Enhanced methods of fraud detection are implemented.
Medicare is expanded to small, rural hospitals and facilities.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored/evaluated on a 3 month basis for coverage of the medications for treatment of such illnesses.
Companies which provide early retiree benefits for individuals aged 55–64 are eligible to participate in a temporary program which reduces premium costs.
A temporary credit program is established to encourage private investment in new therapies for disease treatment and prevention.

Effective January 1, 2011

Insurers must spend a certain percent of premium dollars on eligible expenses, subject to various waivers and exemptions; if an insurer fails to meet this requirement, there is no penalty, but a rebate must be issued to the policy holder.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is responsible for developing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and overseeing the testing of innovative payment and delivery models.
Flexible spending accounts, Health reimbursement accounts and health savings accounts cannot be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs, purchased without a prescription, except insulin.

Effective January 1, 2012

Employers must disclose the value of the benefits they provided beginning in 2012 for each employee's health insurance coverage on the employees' annual Form W-2's. This requirement was originally to be effective January 1, 2011, but was postponed by IRS Notice 2010-69 on October 23, 2010.

New tax reporting changes were to come in effect to prevent tax evasion by corporations. However, in April 2011, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011 repealing this provision, because it was burdensome to small businesses. Before PPACA businesses were required to notify the IRS on form 1099 of certain payments to individuals for certain services or property over a reporting threshold of $600. Under the repealed law, reporting of payments to corporations would also be required. Originally it was expected to raise $17 billion over 10 years. The amendments made by Section 9006 of the Act were designed to apply to payments made by businesses after December 31, 2011, but will no longer apply because of the repeal of the section.

Effective by August 1, 2012

All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Women's Preventive Services – including well-woman visits, support for breastfeeding equipment, contraception and domestic violence screening – will be covered without cost sharing.

Effective by January 1, 2013

Income from self-employment and wages of single individuals in excess of $200,000 annually will be subject to an additional tax of 0.9%. The threshold amount is $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly (threshold applies to joint compensation of the two spouses), or $125,000 for a married person filing separately. In addition, an additional Medicare tax of 3.8% will apply to unearned income, specifically the lesser of net investment income or the amount by which adjusted gross income exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 for a married couple filing jointly; $125,000 for a married person filing separately.)

Effective by January 1, 2014


Maximum Out-of-Pocket Premium Payments Under PPACA by Family Size

Insurers are prohibited from discriminating against or charging higher rates for any individuals based on pre-existing medical conditions.
Impose an annual tax of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085. Exemptions to the tax in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted. On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that this penalty "must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance." According to the Supreme Court, Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to levy a penalty for remaining uninsured. However, Congress does have the power to levy a tax in this instance.
Insurers are prohibited from establishing annual spending caps.
Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children.
Two years of tax credits will be offered to qualified small businesses. In order to receive the full benefit of a 50% premium subsidy, the small business must have an average payroll per full-time equivalent ("FTE") employee, excluding the owner of the business, of less than $25,000 and have fewer than 11 FTEs. The subsidy is reduced by 6.7% per additional employee and 4% per additional $1,000 of average compensation. As an example, a 16 FTE firm with a $35,000 average salary would be entitled to a 10% premium subsidy.
Impose a $2,000 per employee tax penalty on employers with more than 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers (as amended by the reconciliation bill).(This is much cheaper than providing insurance would be and many employers may do this)
Set a maximum of $2,000 annual deductible for a plan covering a single individual or $4,000 annual deductible for any other plan (see 111HR3590ENR, section 1302). These limits can be increased under rules set in section 1302.
The CLASS Act provision would have created a voluntary long-term care insurance program, but in October 2011 the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the provision was unworkable and would be dropped, although an Obama administration official later said the President does not support repealing this provision.
Pay for new spending, in part, through spending and coverage cuts in Medicare Advantage, slowing the growth of Medicare provider payments (in part through the creation of a new Independent Payment Advisory Board), reducing Medicare and Medicaid drug reimbursement rate, cutting other Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Revenue increases from a new $2,500 limit on tax-free contributions to flexible spending accounts (FSAs), which allow for payment of health costs.
Establish health insurance exchanges, and subsidization of insurance premiums for individuals in households with income up to 400% of the poverty line. To qualify for the subsidy, the beneficiaries cannot be eligible for other acceptable coverage. Section 1401(36B) of PPACA explains that the subsidy will be provided as an advanceable, refundable tax credit and gives a formula for its calculation. Refundable tax credit is a way to provide government benefit to people even with no tax liability(example: Earned Income Credit). The formula was changed in the amendments (HR 4872) passed March 23, 2010, in section 1001.

b.^ DHHS and CBO estimate the average annual premium cost in 2014 to be $11,328 for family of 4 without the reform.[99]













The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on August 12, 2011, issued joint proposed rules regarding implementation of new state-based health insurance exchanges to cover how the exchanges will determine eligibility for uninsured individuals and employees of small businesses seeking to buy insurance on the exchanges, as well as how the exchanges will handle eligibility determinations for low-income individuals applying for newly expanded Medicaid benefits.

Members of Congress and their staff will only be offered health care plans through the exchange or plans otherwise established by the bill (instead of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that they currently use).[109]
A new excise tax goes into effect that is applicable to pharmaceutical companies and is based on the market share of the company; it is expected to create $2.5 billion in annual revenue.
Most medical devices become subject to a 2.3% excise tax collected at the time of purchase. (Reduced by the reconciliation act to 2.3% from 2.6%)
Health insurance companies become subject to a new excise tax based on their market share; the rate gradually raises between 2014 and 2018 and thereafter increases at the rate of inflation. The tax is expected to yield up to $14.3 billion in annual revenue.
The qualifying medical expenses deduction for Schedule A tax filings increases from 7.5% to 10% of earned income.

Effective by January 1, 2015

Physicians' payments from federally funded programs such as Medicare will be modified to be based on the quality of care, not the volume.

Effective by January 1, 2017

A state may apply to the Secretary of Health & Human Services for a "waiver for state innovation" provided that the state passes legislation implementing an alternative health care plan meeting certain criteria. The decision of whether to grant the waiver is up to the Secretary (who must annually report to Congress on the waiver process) after a public comment period.

A state receiving the waiver would be exempt from some of the central requirements of the ACA, including the individual mandate, the creation by the state of an insurance exchange, and the penalty for certain employers not providing coverage. The state would also receive compensation equal to the aggregate amount of any federal subsidies and tax credits for which its residents and employers would have been eligible under the ACA plan, but which cannot be paid out due to the structure of the state plan.In order to qualify for the waiver, the state plan must provide insurance at least as comprehensive and as affordable as that required by the ACA, must cover at least as many residents as the ACA plan would, and cannot increase the federal deficit. The coverage must continue to meet the consumer protection requirements of the ACA, such as the prohibition on increasing premiums because of pre-existing conditions.A bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden and Scott Brown, and supported by President Obama, proposes making waivers available in 2014 rather than 2017, so that, for example, states that wish to implement an alternative plan need not set up an insurance exchange only to dismantle it a short time later.Vermont has announced its intention to pursue a waiver in order to implement the single-payer system enacted in May 2011. Oregon is also expected to request a waiver.


Effective by 2018






All existing health insurance plans must cover approved preventive care and checkups without co-payment.
A new 40% excise tax on high cost ("Cadillac") insurance plans is introduced. The tax (as amended by the reconciliation bill)[121] is on the cost of coverage in excess of $27,500 (family coverage) and $10,200 (individual coverage), and it is increased to $30,950 (family) and $11,850 (individual) for retirees and employees in high risk professions. The dollar thresholds are indexed with inflation; employers with higher costs on account of the age or gender demographics of their employees may value their coverage using the age and gender demographics of a national risk pool.

Has it sunk in yet ?????

[gray wolf]

Dr's Surveyed:83 percent will consider leaving the practice of medicine

http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/opin...inst-Obamacare


A new survey of Doctors has been released. The results are bleak.
If Obamacare is fully implemented, 83 percent will consider leaving the practice of medicine. Sixty-one percent say it's an affront to their ethics. Eighty-five percent say it destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Sixty-five percent say governmental involvement is the cause of the problems in medical care now. Seventy-two percent say the insurance mandate won't result in improved access to medical care. Seventy-four percent say they'll stop accepting Medicare patients, or leave Medicare altogether. Seventy percent say reducing governmental involvement would be the single best fix for healthcare in this country. The negatives of Obamacare went on and on in the results of the survey.



Repeal of Obamacare is imperative for the protection of our medical care in this country. When the people most vital to our healthcare are considering leaving the profession something is terribly broken.
There is other horrible news about Obamacare as well. A new GAO audit of the costs of Obamacare says the IRS alone will spend $881 million in just the first four years to implement its provisions in Obamycare – that's $881 million we don't have. And a recent CBO report put the expected costs of Obamacare itself at twice what we had been previously told to expect.
It's apparent Obamacare won't resolve anything, and is itself a huge problem. We're already projected to fall far short of the MDs needed in future years, and this atrocity will run huge numbers out of the profession. And the costs of it are ridiculously high.



Survey after survey show the American people want this atrocity repealed. Yet Democrats, the people who rammed this unconstitutional mandate down our throats, won't lift a finger to stop it. In fact, they won't even discuss Obamacare – out of fear. And their media minions have removed it from public view lest it ruin Democrats in the fall elections.



But make no mistake, it's still out there, and is still a malignant threat to our healthcare system, and our national finances. Socialized medicine is a horrible idea.
That's been proven over and over. Yet the Democrats say we must knuckle under to it and all its hideous ramifications. We must show them we won't – at the ballot box in November.

[gray wolf]

http://www.navygentleman.com/political/?p=13873


http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/201...f-the-iceberg/

obamacare: Tip of the Iceberg

Since the ruling by the United States Supreme Court on Thursday, June 28, 2012, the big news in America has been how the obama







administration, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid misrepresented the legislation to Congress, the Senate and the public.


It was consistently presented as a cost saving measure that would reduce the size of U.S. national deficits, thus helping pay down the debt, while improving the quality and lowering the costs of healthcare. Insurance premiums would be reduced. It would provide coverage for uninsured millions. If you liked the doctor and healthcare plan you had, you would be able to keep them.


Regrettably for American Citizens, with the exception of covering additional people, none of the rest was ever true. It will add to the deficit and to the debt. The quality and availability of healthcare will go down. Existing doctors will retire and fewer prospective doctors will enter medical practice since the rewards will be outstripped by the costs of a medical education. Insurance premiums have been will continue to rise, leading employers to drop coverage for employees, thereby adding to the likelihood that both your doctor and your plan will change.


It was never explained how a system cited as being too expensive was going to fund a new federal bureaucracy, start covering more people with the same number of facilities and personnel at a lower cost, while saving the nation trillions of dollars.


Now, we have know. obama, Pelosi, Reid and company all lied.






Especially obama, who repeatedly pledged to Americans making less than $250,000 that their taxes would never go up. Not their income tax, not their payroll tax, not their capital gains tax. None of those taxes would go up, not by one single dime, ever.


The truth is revealed: obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...even-new-taxes


It doesn’t stop there. Attacks have been made on religious liberties. See healthcare mandate on contraception in religious affiliated institutions:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...-proposal.html


There have been assaults on freedom of the press. See White House and Media Matters coordinate attacks on FOX News:


http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/in...organizations/ ).




Egregious though these examples may be, in the big picture they are only the tip of the iceberg.
•He has violated the individual liberties of all Americans by imposing forced participation in a government healthcare regulatory system without their consent.


•He has collaborated with his Attorney General to ignore equal protection under the law in favor of selective protections based upon arbitrary factors.


•He has violated American bankruptcy laws by willfully denying secured bond holders first payment, in favor of unsecured political supporters.


•He has violated the Constitution by accepting the position of Chairmanship of the UN Security Council.


•He has ignored the Constitutional separation of power by appointing “czars” to oversee matters that are intended to be handled by the legislative branch of the government.


•He has violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, by attacking television and radio networks, stations and broadcasters while attempting censorship.


•He has violated the individual’s right to free speech through creation of an email address to report Citizens in a blatant attempt to silence dissent through intimidation.


•He has violated the Law by ignoring the War Powers Act and engaging the United States military in overseas hostilities without the consent of Congress.


•He has violated the First Amendment by attempting to impose restrictions on free speech through implementation of Net Neutrality by the FCC.


•He has endeavored to interfere in the free market through the imposition of The Clean Energy and Security Act, which mandates carbon emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 84 percent by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family.


•He has violated the Constitution by having the government offer $4,500 rebates to people for turning in older motor vehicles for newer vehicles


•He has interfered in America’s free market by having the National Labor Relations Board sue a privately owned company for planning to open for business in a State that protects an employee’s ability to work free of forced union membership.


•He has interfered in the free market by imposing restrictions and regulations on petroleum, natural gas and coal production in the United States.


•He has abandoned enforcing the security of American borders and protected illegal immigrants from prosecution for violation of immigration laws:


•He has abandoned and insulted our most enduring and faithful allies through speech and action, the most glaring among these being placing the State of Israel on the list of nations that foster terrorism.


•He has sought to impose additional taxes on America without the people’s Consent.


•For depriving American Citizens in some cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.


•For transferring billions of dollars to enemies of the United States through Foreign Aid.


•For ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers by publicly attacking the Supreme Court of the United States.


•For attacking America’s bedrock family values by ordering the Department of Justice to not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.


•For repeated attacks upon America’s Christian foundation.


•For repeatedly slandering American Citizens with false accusations of racism, violent tendencies and hatred.


•For grossly accelerating and increasing the amount of America’s debt through passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which had negligible effect on unemployment, sent billions of dollars overseas and wasted billions domestically by lining the pockets of political cronies while bailing out States guilty of practicing irresponsible budgetary policies.


•For putting America and America’s allies at greater risk through cancellation of missile defense systems.


•For expanding the need for enormous increases in government borrowing,


•For collaborating with his Attorney General to try enemy combatants in civilian Courts.


•For collaborating with his Attorney General and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the implementation of operation Fast and Furious, which has been implicated in the murder of American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.


•For devaluing America’s currency by engaging in the practice of Quantitative Easing, allowing the Federal Reserve to purchase trillions of

dollars of our national debt

I wont bore you with anything else.

[WILCO]

http://voices.yahoo.com/has-obama-violated-constitution-5025920.html

Posted in reference to: "•He has violated the Constitution by accepting the position of Chairmanship of the UN Security Council." found in post #68.

[GP100man]

Sam , it`s like grandpa said about Reaganomics , "putting it all in 1 pot with a teaspoon & dippin out with a tablespoon & after while someone gonna scrape the bottom" I hear the bottom ringin !!!

It`s wrong !! the fate of millions of peoples health care decided by a few!!

[gew98]

GP ; we can live with "reagonomics" and prosper...but under obamanomics we all pay and pay and pay...and we suffer.

It was Winston Churchill that said :

"The vice of capitolism is it's unequal sharing of blessings ;
The virtue of socialism is it's equal sharing of misery".

[gray wolf]

I haven't posted the part about
everyone getting chipped with an implantable Micro chip.
It's in the bill

[gray wolf]

It`s wrong !! the fate of millions of peoples health care decided by a
few
Deciding when you die also.

[square butte]

Gray, Can you give us the location in the bill of the "implantable microchips"?

[gray wolf]

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/665/5..._23,_2013.html



Hidden Obamacare Secret: RFID Chip Implants, Mandatory

06/29/2012
10 Comments



By: Before It's News


Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, states on his website:"Buried deep within the over 1,000 pages of the massive US Health Care Bill (PDF) in a “non-discussed” section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521— National Medical Device Registry, and which states its purpose as........ He quotes that part of the law and then goes on to say: "In “real world speak”, according to this report, this new law, when fully implemented, provides the framework for making the United States the first Nation in the World to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country".Read the entire story at: www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/another-hidden-secret-in

And now we come to it. On Sunday March 21, 2010 the Senate Healthcare bill HR3200 was passed and signed into law the following Tuesday. Like I said before, there are a legion of horrible and just plain evil aspects to this bill and I’m sure you’ve heard a lot them by now. I don’t want to discount them but what cannot be missed here is this new law now opens a prophetic door on a magnitude not seen since the reformation of Israel.

This new law requires an RFID chip implanted in all of us. This chip will not only contain your personal information with tracking capability but it will also be linked to your bank account. And get this, Page 1004 of the new law (dictating the timing of this chip), reads, and I quote: "Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment". It is now the law of the land that by March 23rd 2013 we will all be required to have an RFID chip underneath our skin and this chip will be link to our bank accounts as well as have our personal records and tracking capability built into it.

In just a minute I’m going to show you the black and white of the law itself and you can see it with your own eyes and wonder why an event of this magnitude which is nothing less than seismic in nature is met with little more than silence in the Christian community.

Is it now starting to dawn on you just where exactly we are in prophecy? I’ll ask that question again in a minute and follow up on it, but now I want to show you the law itself. I’ve downloaded a PDF copy of HR3200 from the government's website so what I’m about to show you is from the bill itself its nothing that I’ve written. You can access it all and see it all for yourself straight from the source itself.

H.R. 3200 section 2521, Pg. 1001, paragraph 1.
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— ‘‘is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘and is— ‘‘a class III device; or ‘‘a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? As you saw earlier, it is the device approved by the FDA in 2004.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act:
www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuid...

A class II implantable device is an "implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

Going back to what we just looked at, the creation of the national medical device registry in section 2521, page 1002 line 5:

“In developing the registry, the secretary shall…”

And the law continues on with a laundry list of items that the secretary must do in the process of creating this registry. In this laundry list of items to do, Line 17, subparagraph B: "validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included in the registry as described in subparagraph (A)"

Going back to subparagraph A [right above subparagraph B], it says: “including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by type, model, and serial number or other unique identifier;”

Don’t be confused by the intentional obfuscation and skillful wording, This law first creates the national device registry and then immediately list all the task the secretary of health and human services will have do in the process of creating this registry.

The very first two items in the list mandates that the secretary first gives a unique identification to each of the items listed in paragraph 1 which is:

‘‘a class III device; or ‘‘a class II device that is implantable.”

Then, the very next thing the secretary is to do is to create the process by which “patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources”, which is electronic medical records, that are linked to these newly and uniquely identified items from paragraph 1 which are the class III and class II implantable devices.

Class III devises are items such as breast implants, pacemakers, heart valves, etc. A Class II device that is implantable is, as you seen from the FDA, an implantable radio frequency transponder, RFID chip. From breast implants, to pacemakers, to RFID chips which one is the only possible one that can used for the stated purpose in section B which is, “ for linking such data with the information included in the registry”? As we know from subsection A, the information in the registry is the name of a device. In plain speak, we are in a clear way being told that our electronic medical records are going to be linked to a class II implantable device!

Continuing a few lines down in this same section, section B subsection ii on still on page 1002, the “patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources”, that is to be linked is clearly spelled out as electronic medical records. It reads: “link data obtained under clause (i) with information in the registry”. Information in the registry is, as we know from subparagraph A, the name of the device. So what is the data obtained under clause i? Back up a few lines to clause i

It reads: “obtain access to disparate sources of patient safety and outcomes data, including Federal health-related electronic data”. Again, from breast implants, to pacemakers, to RFID chips which one is the only possible one that can used for the stated purpose in section B? That stated purpose is “for linking such data” and the such data is electronic medical records.

What we already have already seen in just the creation of this registry, is the device that will serve as the link, which is an RFID microchip that is categorized as a Class II implantable device, as well as what it will be the link for which is your electronic medical records.

In case the law wasn’t clear enough on that point, still in the laundry list of things to do a few more lines down on the next page, page 1005

“The Secretary to protect the public health; shall establish procedures to permit linkage of information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A, remember subparagraph A is the class 2 implantable device reference) with patient safety and outcomes data obtained under paragraph (3, which is electronic medical records); and to permit analyses of linked data;”

Continuing on to page 1007, in the STANDARDS, IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA section, the secretary of health and human services is given full power to intact all mandates from the laundry list of to-do items in the creation process of the registry as well as dictate how the devises listed in the National Medical Device Registry are to be used and implemented.

"The Secretary of the Health Human Services, acting through the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, shall adopt standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use in certified electronic health records of a unique device identifier for each device described in paragraph 1 (National Medical Device Registry), if such an identifier is required by section 519(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)) for the device."

Now on Page 503, section E Lines 13-17 and I quote: "encourage, as appropriate, the development and use of clinical registries and the development of clinical effectiveness research data networks from electronic health records, post marketing drug and medical device surveillance efforts". Let me say that again, medical device surveillance efforts!

Now lets look at section 163 of HR3200, which gives the government a direct electronic access to your bank account which will work in conjunction with an implanted chip.

Page 58 Lines 5 through 15 reads:
(D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identity detection card; (E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims

What does this mean? It means that the government will give everybody a health ID card that contains a machine readable device (magnetic strip or RFID chip) similar to a credit card. Embedded in this chip or strip is your Health Identification Number. When you visit a medical provider, the medical claims will be processed while you are still in the office. The medical providers will be paid in real time. The portion that you owe will be deducted from your bank account, in real time, according to HR 3200.
More at originating site link.

[square butte]

Thanks for putting this up. Oughta open a few peoples eyes even wider than they alreay are. M O T B = mark of the beast. I hope folks already know where they stand and what the choice is about.

[WILCO]

I haven't posted the part about
everyone getting chipped with an implantable Micro chip.
It's in the bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMzl-4jDI3Q

[montana_charlie]

The 'chipping of The People' is scary, but so is the requirement (in Obamacare) that the government have access to everyone's bank account ... with the authority to make withdrawals.

CM

[popper]

It's not just a gov problem. Baylor health care has declared smokers will not be hired. Reason? Excessive cost for their med insurance program and care. Yet, go to their health care facility as see the > 200# woman and > 300 # men working there. 'Smoking causes cancer'? Of the > 20 people I've known who died of cancer, only ONE ever smoked! Of most I've known who passed or needed major medical help, > 50% were OVERWEIGHT. Not against overweight people, just guess who is going to get the healthcare money, that which is REALLY spent for care. Auto insurance used to cost more for smokers because it distracted from driving. So what does loud music, cell phones, alchohol and drugs do? No premium increase there.

[gray wolf]

Justice Roberts’ holding that Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional as a “tax” is not only an incoherent stretching of Congress’ taxing authority, but defies the very limits of Congress‘ delegated powers which were carefully enumerated in our Constitution and subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 by our Founding Fathers ___ Obamacare being absent in the enumeration!

The Roberts ruling is immediately exposed for its absurdity when it is analyzed.

First, let us confirm beyond the shadow of doubt that Congress’ taxing powers under imposts, duties, excises and direct taxes, whatever they may be, are limited by other provisions in our Constitution, e.g., the Court in the recent decision United States v. International Business Machines Corp. - 517 U.S. 843 (1996) struck down an excise tax as violating that part of our federal Constitution which declares: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." U. S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 5.

And in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) [after the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted] the Supreme Court reminded Congress that it was not empowered by the Sixteenth Amendment to tax, as income of a stockholder and without “apportionment“, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, and, Art. I, § 9, cl. 4.

And so, although Congress has been granted power to lay and collect various kinds of taxes, each kind of tax has limits beyond which Congress may not venture when laying these taxes. Additionally, we must keep in mind that Congress’ taxing powers were granted for specific enumerated functions subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 (Clauses 2 through 11), and that Justice Roberts acknowledged the individual mandate tax cannot be sustained under Congress’ power to “regulate commerce“, one of Congress‘ enumerated functions subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1, (see clause 3).

And now that it is established that the kinds of taxes Congress may lay and collect have limits beyond which Congress may not venture, and that Congress is likewise bound to laying and collecting taxes for specific enumerated functions listed beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1, and that the individual mandate tax cannot be sustained under Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” as announced by Justice Roberts, nor has he pointed to any other function subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 which can sustain the individual mandate tax, we turn to the interesting question asking Roberts, is Congress authorized to lay a tax for the sole purpose of punishing an identifiable group of Citizens which is exactly what the individual mandate tax does?

And in regard to a tax not being a true tax but a punishment, the case Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), is quite instructive because the tax there was found to not be a true tax but a punishment and thus violated the 5th Amendment of our federal Constitution.

Bottom line is, the 26 States which filed suite against the individual mandate must now re-file and argue __ since Justice Roberts has identified the individual mandate as a tax ___ they must now challenge the tax in question as not being within the definition of an impost, duty, or excise as historically used and understood by our founding fathers. And since the individual mandate tax is not apportioned, it violates the command that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States. The following formula may be considered as our Constitution‘s fair share formula:

State`s pop.

----------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX

Total U.S. Pop.


In addition, the States must contend the tax goes far beyond the enumerated functions for which Congress may “Lay and collect Taxes” and are specifically listed beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1, Obamacare not being included in that list of particulars!

And if there is any question as to the limited functions for which Congress may tax under Art. I, § 8, cl.1, let our founding fathers speak for themselves with reference to this provision and especially the phrase “general welfare” which appears in Art. I, § 8, cl.1:

In No. 83 Federalist, which is applicable to the meaning of “general welfare”, Hamilton, in crystal clear language refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. See Art. I, § 8, clauses 2 through 11, for the subjoined “specification of particulars”.

Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."


And, Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause as being a general legislative grant of power, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, although Justice Roberts has sustained the individual mandate as a tax, he has not established which taxing authority [impost, duty, excise or direct tax] is used, nor the function for which the tax is being laid, and if it is laid to fulfill a function within the list of particulars subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1.which enumerate the constitutionally authorized functions for which Congress may tax.

Hopefully Florida’s AG, Pam Bondi, will take the lead and challenge the individual mandate tax for the above stated reasons and have our Constitution‘s clearly defined limits and protections reaffirmed.

[montana_charlie]

And so, although Justice Roberts has sustained the individual mandate as a tax, he has not established which taxing authority [impost, duty, excise or direct tax] is used, nor the function for which the tax is being laid, and if it is laid to fulfill a function within the list of particulars subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1.which enumerate the constitutionally authorized functions for which Congress may tax.
Yep, he left us with a healthy chance of voiding the entire thing thanks to the fact that as a tax, it was incorrectly legislated, can be killed with a simple majority in the Senate, and is totally unsupportable under the criteria for laying taxes.

In addition, the ruling prevents the government from taking vengence on states that refuse to balloon their Medicaid programs ... and it went a considerable distance toward closing the Commerce Clause loophole that Congress has been misusing for decades.

If you want to find silver linings in the cloud Roberts created, there are several ...
http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2012/07/01/why_john_roberts_is_mitt_romneys_secret_weapon/page/full/

CM

[gray wolf]

Thank you CM

[shooter93]

I don't think it can be overturned as easily as some people think it can and that assumes they gain a majority in the Senate and Romney wins neither of which is anywhere near a certainity. And despite the fact that it was only one state....his state Romney has a very tough sell ahead of him because of the Mass. mandate and penalty.

[square butte]

As I understand it (my understanding may be limited or flawed) - Since it was passed under rules of "reconciliation" (requiring only 51 votes instead of the usual 60 in the Senate) it may be repealed with only 51 votes. That option failing - Tax laws may only orriginate in the House. This law orriginated in the Senate. There are a couple of options - But we are dealing with a mighty crooked bunch, and not many with the balls to put a stop to the criminality.

[gray wolf]

Repubs---Dems--- all the same sold out lot, Globalist to the core.
They want the U. S. as we know it done away with.
Old Rom ain't going to repeal squat diddly.
I get tired of saying this----they have all sold out.

[Bob Krack]

As I understand it (my understanding may be limited or flawed) - Since it was passed under rules of "reconciliation" (requiring only 51 votes instead of the usual 60 in the Senate) it may be repealed with only 51 votes. That option failing - Tax laws may only orriginate in the House. This law orriginated in the Senate. There are a couple of options - But we are dealing with a mighty crooked bunch, and not many with the balls to put a stop to the criminality.Sorry friend,

Political maneuvering of the originally written H.R. 3590, introduced in the House as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.

What a travesty! Amended and completely rewritten by Harry Reid's co-conspirators. Of course, the rest of the critters in the house did not help by failing to insist on the original bill's intent!

I really had not checked into the 51 vs 60 issue but the bill did, in fact, originate in the House. [smilie=b: :groner:

Bob

[square butte]

Yep - flawed understanding on my part. Thanks for setting me straight Bob.

[gray wolf]

I am so happy that my casting brothers are starting to see the light as to whats going on.
It's the time to send De-Nile back to Egypt, and face the facts of whats going on
under our own eyes. If you get the news from the major networks you don't have a clue of whats going on.

[gray wolf]

12 Incredible Obamacare Quotes That Show That Our Wretched Healthcare System Is Headed Directly Into The Toilet








You might as well stick a fork in the U.S. healthcare system because it is finished. Even before Obamacare, Americans paid far more for healthcare than anyone else in the world. Now thanks to Obamacare we will be faced with much higher health insurance premiums, much higher taxes, much longer waits to see doctors and more government bureaucrats involved in our lives than ever before. As I have written about previously, the U.S. healthcare industry is a horrible mess, and now Obamacare is going to take the entire system directly into the toilet. All over America today, families are going broke because of outrageous health insurance costs and suffocating medical debt, doctors are going broke and leaving the profession because they can't make a living, and sick people are dying because they cannot get the care that they need. So what solution does Obama give us? A nearly 3,000 page monstrosity that will destroy what is left of our crumbling healthcare system and that will unleash 16,000 new IRS agents to hunt down the millions of Americans that do not currently have health insurance. For those that love Big Brother socialist totalitarianism, Obamacare is a dream come true. For the rest of us it is a total nightmare.

Obamacare is truly a Trojan horse. The millions of Americans that support Obamacare believe that they have been "given" something. But that is a lie.
All of us aren't going to be getting free government healthcare as a result of this law.

Instead, we are all being forced to buy health insurance policies that many Americans do not even want from deeply corrupt health insurance companies that make more money when they provide less healthcare. If we don't buy government-mandated health insurance the IRS will be coming after us. This reality was beautifully communicated by this cartoon that was posted on Facebook recently.

As a result of Obamacare, there will be more government intrusion in our lives than ever before. Hordes of government bureaucrats will now run the system, with predictable results.

If you think that the amount of paperwork in our healthcare system is bad now, just wait until this new law is fully implemented.
Is Obamacare complicated? For an answer to that question, just check out this flow chart. What sick minds came up with such a monstrosity?

Actually, we know that answer. The truth is that the big health insurance companies drafted much of the law. The Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare was very good news for health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and government bureaucrats. It was very bad news for doctors and patients.

So who is going to pay for this monstrous system?

You and I are.

Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of 21 of the new taxes that Americans will be paying as a result of Obamacare. And because Democrats have decided that they will fight to the death to save this law, the Republicans will have to take the White House, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives to have any chance of fully repealing it.
As I wrote about the other day, there are a whole host of reasons why Obamacare is bad for America. But instead of going on and on about what I think, I thought that I would share some of the very interesting things that other people have been saying about the Supreme Court Obamacare decision.
The following are 12 incredible Obamacare quotes that show that our wretched healthcare system is headed directly into the toilet....

#1 Donald Trump
Let me get this straight . . .
We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't! Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new 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 Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese , and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

#2 Senior Wall Street Journal Economics Writer Stephen Moore during an interview with Fox and Friends....
"Again, whatever you want to call it Alisyn, fines, taxes, penalties, but three quarters of those costs will fall on the backs of families who make less than $120,00 a year, so it’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families."

#3 Dr. Elaina George of the Project 21 African-American Conservative Leadership Network
"Because of the mandate, Americans will be forced to pay for a system that will increase costs for patients, remove health care decisions from both the doctor and the patient and lead to rationing. It changes health care as we know it into a system based on one-size-fits-all, cost-controlled and conveyor belt socialized medicine"

#4 The incomparable Charlie Daniels
"The United States of America took a giant step toward a totalitarian socialist government when the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare, allowing the individual mandate for the government to force American citizens to buy health insurance whether they want to or not."

#5 Ron Paul
"This is patently obvious: the power to 'regulate' commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don't want to limit federal power in any way. The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state -- a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire."

#6 U.S. Representative Todd Akin
"Today America is threatened with a stage three cancer of socialism, and Obamacare is exhibit 1. There are many of us here who have been fighting this for three years and we don’t really want the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the post office introduced in our healthcare and we are not going to rest until every single line of this bill is repealed."

#7 The Health Ranger Mike Adams
"But even if Obama is replaced in the White House, the damage has already been done. With its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a precedent of government control over private paychecks, and that precedent has fundamentally crushed economic freedom in America and opened the door to limitless taxes for everything imaginable. King George III couldn't have done it better."

#8 Documentary Filmmaker Michael Moore
"You better get on the train or watch your party implode – that’s my words of advice to the Republican Party"

#9 The communications director of the Tenth Amendment Center Mike Maharrey
"The states simply need to follow Thomas Jefferson’s prescription and nullify the entire act. They should just refuse to implement this monstrosity. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has already indicated he will refuse, and other states should follow his lead."

#10 Becky Ayers
I’ve never bought medical insurance. The only time a policy has covered me was when it came incidental to a job. The Lord has blessed me with disgustingly good health; then, too, when I was 18, my mother died of a brain tumor that had escaped diagnosis for six years despite excruciating headaches and other symptoms a professor of nursing later described as “classic.” If I were bleeding and unconscious, I might wind up in the clutches of the medical establishment, but never of my own volition.
So I deeply and personally resent Roberts’s little parlor-trick of a word-game. Forcing me to buy medical insurance is unconstitutional if we call it a “fine” but perfectly OK if it’s a “tax.”

#11 Byron Maduska in the Leavenworth Times....
"A new survey of Doctors has been released. The results are bleak.
If Obamacare is fully implemented, 83 percent will consider leaving the practice of medicine. Sixty-one percent say it's an affront to their ethics. Eighty-five percent say it destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Sixty-five percent say governmental involvement is the cause of the problems in medical care now. Seventy-two percent say the insurance mandate won't result in improved access to medical care. Seventy-four percent say they'll stop accepting Medicare patients, or leave Medicare altogether. Seventy percent say reducing governmental involvement would be the single best fix for healthcare in this country. The negatives of Obamacare went on and on in the results of the survey."

#12 Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
"This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government. This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines – a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn’t have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain. Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything."

[melter68]

Obama Care

Send him packing to the lunie bin,(memtal hospital) thats all the care he needs.

The people need more care and attention