I will be undergoing a couple medical procedures tomorrow so I will be taking the day off from blogging. Here are some worthwhile links.
Judicial Watch has uncovered some documents which shows that the "pro-life" executive order Obama signed after the passage of Obamacare ain't worth the piece of paper its signed on. The rest of the story is here.
Ron Paul breaks ranks from a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. He is one of four Republicans to include earmarks in the 2011 budget. More here.
Beck asked some hard-hitting questions in his interview with Newt Gingrich. I thought that it was a pretty good interview. Here is the interview.
Gingrich has affirmed his pro-life views after having made a bumbling misstatement answer to a question on when he believes life begins. More here.
Then we have some thuggery occurring in the Windy City. Two people brutally beat an 80-year old priest as he lay asleep in his rectory. Prayers for his healing. Full story here.
The NAACP has petitioned the U.N. over what it perceives to be 'voter suppression'. The NAACP claims that blacks and Hispanics will be disenfranchised in the next election. Such absurdities.... What some states have instituted is voter registration or voter I.D. requirements in order to prove citizenship when voting. The U.N. better stay the heck out of our next election. Story here.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Belmont Abbey Sues Federal Government Over Obamacare Contraception Mandate
Due to medical bills from all my health issues and my finances taking a huge hit due my inability to work my husband and I had to change internet service providers to meet our needs so until Friday when my internet access is hooked up I will have limited access to blogging. Friday I will visit all your great blogs.
I don't usually copy and paste entire articles but since I'm under time constraint here is a good article.
McDonald's & teachers' unions get exemptions but Catholic and all religious colleges do not
"A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate."
WASHINGTON,DC (Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) - On November 10, 2011, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Belmont Abbey College over the "Affordable Care Act" (aka "Obamacare"), that forces the College to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs or pay a severe fine.
The heart of the lawsuit involves the recently issued Health and Human Services' mandate that requires thousands of religious organizations to provide, against their conscience, contraceptives they consider to be abortifacients-namely Plan B and Ella-and sterilization.
Although the government has already provided thousands of waivers for a variety of special interest groups including McDonald's and teachers' unions, often for reasons of commercial convenience, it refused to accommodate religious organizations. Instead, the government permitted a religious exemption so narrowly defined that it prompted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to note that even Jesus' ministry would not qualify.
"A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate."
The current exemption from the mandate excludes only certain religious employers whose purpose is to instill religious values and that employ and serve only individuals of their same faith. Accordingly, many religious colleges and universities will not qualify for the exemption.
Belmont Abbey, as a small Catholic liberal arts college, teaches that contraception, sterilization, and abortion are all against God's law. The government mandate forces Belmont Abbey and others to make the Hobson's choice of either violating their deeply-held religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine and terminating their health insurance plans for employees and students.
"The mandate is nothing other than a deliberate attack by the government on the religious beliefs of millions of Americans," added Hannah Smith. "In the end, the government is forcing religious orders and believers to pay for services they find immoral or pay a stiff fine."
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute that protects the free expression of all faiths.
I don't usually copy and paste entire articles but since I'm under time constraint here is a good article.
McDonald's & teachers' unions get exemptions but Catholic and all religious colleges do not
"A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate."
WASHINGTON,DC (Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) - On November 10, 2011, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Belmont Abbey College over the "Affordable Care Act" (aka "Obamacare"), that forces the College to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs or pay a severe fine.
The heart of the lawsuit involves the recently issued Health and Human Services' mandate that requires thousands of religious organizations to provide, against their conscience, contraceptives they consider to be abortifacients-namely Plan B and Ella-and sterilization.
Although the government has already provided thousands of waivers for a variety of special interest groups including McDonald's and teachers' unions, often for reasons of commercial convenience, it refused to accommodate religious organizations. Instead, the government permitted a religious exemption so narrowly defined that it prompted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to note that even Jesus' ministry would not qualify.
"A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate."
The current exemption from the mandate excludes only certain religious employers whose purpose is to instill religious values and that employ and serve only individuals of their same faith. Accordingly, many religious colleges and universities will not qualify for the exemption.
Belmont Abbey, as a small Catholic liberal arts college, teaches that contraception, sterilization, and abortion are all against God's law. The government mandate forces Belmont Abbey and others to make the Hobson's choice of either violating their deeply-held religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine and terminating their health insurance plans for employees and students.
"The mandate is nothing other than a deliberate attack by the government on the religious beliefs of millions of Americans," added Hannah Smith. "In the end, the government is forcing religious orders and believers to pay for services they find immoral or pay a stiff fine."
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute that protects the free expression of all faiths.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan More Involved in Defense of Obamacare Then She Let On
From Judicial Watch: According to a January 8, 2010, email from Neal Katyal, former Deputy Solicitor General (and current Acting Solicitor General) to Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Kagan was involved in the strategy to defend Obamacare from the very beginning:
Subject: Re: Health Care Defense:Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues…we will bring in Elena as needed. [The “set of issues” refers to another email calling for assembling a group to figure out “how to defend against the…health care proposals that are pending.”]
On March 21, 2010, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health care litigation meeting that was evidently organized by the Obama White House: “This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.”
In another email exchange that took place on January 8, 2010, Katyal’s Department of Justice colleague Brian Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group to discuss challenges to Obamacare. “Could you figure out the right person or people for that?” Hauck asked. “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them,” Katyal responded. “I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.”
However, following the May 10, 2010, announcement that President Obama would nominate Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, Katyal position changed significantly as he began to suggest that Kagan had been “walled off” from Obamacare discussions.
For example, the documents included the following May 17, 2010, exchange between Kagan, Katyal and Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokesperson:
Shmaler to Katyal, Subject HCR [Health Care Reform] litigation: “Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG ]Solicitor General’s] office was consulted?...Katyal to Schmaler: “No she has never been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.”Katyal (forwarded to Kagan): “This is what I told Tracy about Health Care.”Kagan to Schmaler: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy you should not say anything about this before talking to me.”
Included among the documents is a Vaughn index, a privilege log which describes records that are being withheld in whole or in part by the Justice Department. The index provides further evidence of Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare-related discussions.
For example, Kagan was included in an email chain (March 17–18, 2010) in which the following subject was discussed: “on what categories of legal arguments may arise and should be prepared in the anticipated lawsuit.” The subject of the email was “Health Care.” Another email chain on March 21, 2010, entitled “Health care litigation meeting,” references an “internal government meeting regarding the expected litigation.” Kagan is both author and recipient in the chain.
The index also references a series of email exchanges on May 17, 2010, between Kagan and Obama White House lawyers and staff regarding Kagan’s “draft answer” to potential questions about recusal during the Supreme Court confirmation process. The White House officials involved include: Susan Davies, Associate White House Counsel; Daniel Meltzer, then-Principal Deputy White House Counsel; Cynthia Hogan, Counsel to the Vice President; and Ronald Klain, then-Chief of Staff for Vice President Biden. The DOJ is refusing to produce this draft answer.
The Vaughn index also describes a March 24, 2010, email exchange between Associate Attorney General Beth Brinkmann and Michael Dreeben, Kagan’s Deputy Solicitor General, with the subject header, “Health Care Challenges:” “…I had a national conference call with the Civil Chiefs. A memo also went out the day before. I am forwarding right after this. Let’s discuss if you have more ideas about what to do.”
As reported by CNS News:
In the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process, Kagan said she would abide by the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455 in deciding whether she felt compelled to recuse herself as a Supreme Court Justice from any case that came before the High Court.According to the law, a ‘justice … shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.’ It further says any justice ‘shall also disqualify himself … [w]here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.’
“Any reasonable person would read these documents and come to the same conclusion: Elena Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration’s defense of Obamacare. And as long as the Justice Department continues to withhold key documents, the American people won’t know for sure whether her involvement would warrant her recusal from any Obamacare litigation that comes before the High Court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
There is a definite connection between Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and her playing at least a minor role in the White House's defense of the health care law. In my opinion she needs to recuse herself from all cases which challenge Obamacare's constitutionality.
Obamacare - You Support We Reward
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said "we have to to pass the bill in order to find out what's in the bill"?
Within those 2000 pages consists of a number of goodies rewarding subsidiaries (such as unions with $2 billion) which own the Democrats. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has discovered that the health care law has allowed the government to pay out $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health care costs for early retirees. O where O where has the money gone? Let's take a look at exactly which pockets the Liberals have lined with Obamacare money.
From The Washington Examiner:
"According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086. Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538. General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818. General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.
"The program also paid large sums of money to state governments. The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044. Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.
"But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined. Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters."
Hold on a minute.... I thought that the purpose of this law was that it would lower health care costs, and not to simply dole out money to only those who supported the bill, which is now law. And these Leftist "spread the wealthers" - who are so generous with NOT their own money but thieving other peoples' money - really expected us to believe their load of malarcky when they claimed that this law was non-partisan and would benefit all the people. Do I see pigs flying? It certainly seems like this law is only targeted at helping certain groups in our society (anyone who supported the passage of Obamacare) and not the whole of society, and sure as heck not the common good. Oh... That claim was the Democrats using smoke and mirrors, by any means necessary, telling distortions and lies just to get the bill passed. These Democrats are throwing the taxpayers' money down the toilet. I thought this POS law was supposed to be about health care. No, it's all about paying off the Leftist ideological extremists who backed this government piece of garbage which is filled with mountains of red tape. This was all about power and control. The Democrats couldn't give a rats a$$ about health care. Think about it, these sadistic immoral twisted loons think killing an unborn child is health care. They think funding Planned Parenthood is considered essential to running our government. These libtards whine about values supposedly being thrust upon them when the fact is they shove their evil immorality down our throats when they force Americans to fund the murder of innocents. Do these people have a consience? These people live on their selfish egos and are ghouls who prey upon the weak and most vulnerable in our society. They make the claim that Republicans and conservatives are all about money when in fact they choose that the weak and vulnerable in our society are not worthy of living because of the money it would cost to take care of them. Congress needs to stop throwing the taxpayers' money down the toilet. How would these Green weenies and red rhinos like it if the taxpayers said enough is enough and there was a tax revolt?
Questions for Obamacare Supporters: The Challenge Posed to Liberals by the Baby Joseph Dilemma
Questions for liberals: First, I would like to ask if a relative or friend of yours was dying would you like to spend as much time with that person as possible or would you rather his/her's death be sped up because of a hospital's refusal to help aid that person medically and refusal to give that person the means to live as long as possible? Second, should a parent be in control of their child's health care or should a medical professional and a hospital be able to decide what is right for your child?
Has everyone heard of Baby Joseph? If not, he is a 13-month-old-baby who has a fatal progressive neurodegenerative disease and is laying in a hospital bed in Canada waiting to go home. His parents have requested that he be able to live out his final days at home but the hospital has refused to honor their request. Baby Joseph's parents want to bring him home to die, but to do so he must be removed from his ventilator and given a tracheostomy but there's one major catch the Ontario hospital is refusing to do a tracheostomy. In addition, the Ontario hospital is refusing to release his medical records. Baby Joseph's parents, the Maraachli’s, want him to be transferred to an American hospital so the tracheostomy can be done but American hospitals are refusing to accept Baby Joseph because the Canadian hospital is refusing to release his medical records. It seems now that the hospital is changing its tune and claiming it was always willing to let Baby Joseph go home - but with one catch - without a tracheostomy this would mean that he would suffocate to death. Baby Joseph would die quickly without the hospital being willing to do a tracheostomy, we're talking at most days versus about six months with having the tracheostomy. Being forced to suffocate to death kind of sounds like euthanasia to me.
From the National Catholic Register:
Remember Rep. Alan "Die Quickly" Grayson? Oh, I thought Republicans wanted the sick to die quickly! But this is a government run health care system similar to that of Obamacare so this is more evidence that Grayson is off his rocker and lied through his teeth when he made this sickening false claim against Republicans.
Questions for liberals: Do those who support Obamacare think that this type of dilemma won't happen in the U.S.? Do you think that worse rationing than we have now can't possibly happen under Obamacare? Or aren't these types of issues important to you?
It is outrageous that not even one hospital in the United States has been willing to help out Baby Joseph! It is extremely sad that not one hospital in America has stepped forward to accept and help this Little One even without his medical records. Its not like Baby Joseph's case hasn't been publicized and they don't know what he needs. In one of my posts on my other blog I challenged any CHA hospital and Sr. Keehan to please do the right thing and put their money and faith where there mouth is. Yes, this is the nun that lied about abortion supposedly not being covered in Obamacare. This is the same nun who gave "legitimacy" to those so called pro-life Democrats so that they would vote for the Affordable Care Act when she refused to listen to and heed the authority of the Bishops on the matter of health care and abortion.
Here is a video of Baby Joseph which shows proof that he is NOT in a vegetative state as this Canadian hospital claims (or claimed at one time).
Has everyone heard of Baby Joseph? If not, he is a 13-month-old-baby who has a fatal progressive neurodegenerative disease and is laying in a hospital bed in Canada waiting to go home. His parents have requested that he be able to live out his final days at home but the hospital has refused to honor their request. Baby Joseph's parents want to bring him home to die, but to do so he must be removed from his ventilator and given a tracheostomy but there's one major catch the Ontario hospital is refusing to do a tracheostomy. In addition, the Ontario hospital is refusing to release his medical records. Baby Joseph's parents, the Maraachli’s, want him to be transferred to an American hospital so the tracheostomy can be done but American hospitals are refusing to accept Baby Joseph because the Canadian hospital is refusing to release his medical records. It seems now that the hospital is changing its tune and claiming it was always willing to let Baby Joseph go home - but with one catch - without a tracheostomy this would mean that he would suffocate to death. Baby Joseph would die quickly without the hospital being willing to do a tracheostomy, we're talking at most days versus about six months with having the tracheostomy. Being forced to suffocate to death kind of sounds like euthanasia to me.
From the National Catholic Register:
"Family spokesman Dan Sanserone says this simply is untrue. “No one in the family knows anything about an offer to let him come home.”
"Sanserone’s own daughter is cognitively disabled and he has championed the cause of families like the Maraachlis for a decade as they fight medical professionals for control of their loved ones’ care.
Sanserone has studied medical outcomes in the U.S. and Canada and reached a disturbing conclusion. “Someone with my daughter’s disabilities is four to 10 times likelier to survive in the U.S.”
In Canada generally, he says, there is a trend “to strip the human rights of the cognitively disabled. It is spreading like a disease putting at risk anyone who isn’t contributing much to the GDP.”
Remember Rep. Alan "Die Quickly" Grayson? Oh, I thought Republicans wanted the sick to die quickly! But this is a government run health care system similar to that of Obamacare so this is more evidence that Grayson is off his rocker and lied through his teeth when he made this sickening false claim against Republicans.
Questions for liberals: Do those who support Obamacare think that this type of dilemma won't happen in the U.S.? Do you think that worse rationing than we have now can't possibly happen under Obamacare? Or aren't these types of issues important to you?
It is outrageous that not even one hospital in the United States has been willing to help out Baby Joseph! It is extremely sad that not one hospital in America has stepped forward to accept and help this Little One even without his medical records. Its not like Baby Joseph's case hasn't been publicized and they don't know what he needs. In one of my posts on my other blog I challenged any CHA hospital and Sr. Keehan to please do the right thing and put their money and faith where there mouth is. Yes, this is the nun that lied about abortion supposedly not being covered in Obamacare. This is the same nun who gave "legitimacy" to those so called pro-life Democrats so that they would vote for the Affordable Care Act when she refused to listen to and heed the authority of the Bishops on the matter of health care and abortion.
Here is a video of Baby Joseph which shows proof that he is NOT in a vegetative state as this Canadian hospital claims (or claimed at one time).
A Plan to Inoculate the Contagious Infection Obamacare
David Catron from The American Spectator has an excellent plan on how to inoculate the contagious infection - Obamacare - from spreading more than it has infected our lives already. Did you know before there was RomneyCare in Mass. that there was DukakisCare? Thankfully the GOP halted that by defunding the DukakisCare Obamacare Effects: Three Catholic Hospitals Closing in Scranton & the Power of a Social Justice Nun
- In Review
Sr. Carol Keehan, Obama’s nun, is the nun who dissented from Bishops and threw her weight to support Obamacare. She is the nun who used her clout as head of the CHA, falsely claimed that abortion wasn’t covered in Obamacare, and provided “legitimacy” for Bart Stupak and the rest of the so called pro-life Democrats to support and vote for Obamacare even though there were and still are no safeguards protecting against abortion coverage and federal funding in Obamacare. The Congressional Research Report Confirms this. She wanted us, as Catholics to trust our government over our Bishops’ prudential judgment on a matter related to morals. That sounds so nonsensical. Misplaced trust?
For anyone to think that our government is going to do the right thing in matters of faith and morals, look out for you and me, is complete and utter naivete when our government has sanctioned the murders of countless innocents since Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973.
When Sr. Carol Keehan became a religious sister she took a vow of obedience and in fact has more of an obligation than ordinary laity to heed the Bishops’ prudential judgment with relation to abortion and Obamacare. Since the Church Teaching is that abortion is an intrinsic evil is Catholic Dogma has Sr. Keehan broken her vow of obedience by dissenting from the Bishops in order to support Obamacare?
The common good must not be pursued at the expense of the morally reprehensible murders of innocent human lives.
In his first statement Kevin Cook stated, "Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely."
Notice that Cook stated “absolutely” twice.
48 hours later Cook said, sale discussions were happening "long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The decision was due to many factors."
Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?
That same day Sr. Carol Keehan made this statement, "Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation."
Okay… Like she isn’t politically motivated to ensure her support for Obamacare isn’t for naught.
Then about a couple days later Cook announced: “Mercy Health Partners recently announced our intention to explore the sale of our facilities in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain politicized media outlets and severely distorted by some special interest groups.”
Coincidental? Or Coordinated?
Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?
Would a social justice political activist nun misuse her power as CEO of the CHA to silence the truth in both instances, with Obamacare and with Obamacare playing a pivotal role in the closings of three Catholic hospitals? Did this Left wing activist nun “lower the boom” on Kevin Cook and force him to change his tune in those last two statements? Well, it kinda looks that way.
Oh - how could one forget? Since she bucked both the Bishops and the Catholic faith and instead staunchly supported Obama and his health care bill she was rewarded with one of the 21 pens that Obama used to signed the health care law. What a trade -- fidelity to Church teaching and to her vows sacrificed for fame, power, recognition, and on top of all that, a pen.
From The American Spectator - “One doctor in Scranton -- who was deeply disturbed by the announcement -- is certain he knows the answer. That answer? Mr. Cook was absolutely right the very first time he spoke to WNEP on camera. Hospitals, said this doctor -- frequently run a debt. "What's different? Why now?" he said in terms of the rationale for selling the Mercy hospitals. The reason is exactly as CEO Cook originally said it was. ObamaCare cuts in Medicare reimbursement have changed the rules so drastically for hospitals "you [Mercy Health Partners] are in an untenable situation," said this physician. Most hospitals have accumulating debt because of capital investments, says the doctor. But they can't deal with that debt if in fact their ability to earn money is cut off or drastically reduced over time.
Alarmingly, the doctor, with a lifetime of practice in hand, says that "hospitals close in clusters where there is decreased income in terms of relatively low Medicare reimbursement…because they are the most vulnerable." He adds that what is happening in Scranton, Nanticoke, and Tunkhannock with the Mercy hospitals "is just the beginning. It will happen everywhere because reimbursements will be reduced" under ObamaCare. Particularly, he adds, in areas where you have a high elderly population.”
‘The explosion, all recent with its implications of White House pressure and lost Catholic hospitals, is about to bring in media ads from CatholicVote.org. Says Communications Director Joshua Mercer: "Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney are Catholic and they both voted for ObamaCare." Citing the sale of the three Mercy hospitals, Mercer says that the pro-ObamaCare votes of the two "has had a real impact on the community." Mercer added a sentiment voiced as well by the Scranton doctor: "There are a lot of Kevin Cooks across the country…the CEO's of small Catholic hospitals are all facing the same realities of more [ObamaCare] mandates and regulations.”’
Seems like there is something fishy going on. I live in Pennsylvania, but unfortunately I don’t live in either of their districts, otherwise I would vote for the opposition.
Here is the political ad that CatholicVote.org has put out.
Cross Posted at Tu ne cede malis
The Consequences of the NOT so Affordable "Affordable Care Act"
By James A. Bacon:
Josh Dent is an early victim of Obamacare. The lanky, shaven-headed machine operator likes the medical insurance plan his employer, Acorn Signs, provides him. But under the newly enacted Affordable Care Act, his insurance policy will get less affordable. A provision in the law is putting his insurance company out of business, and whatever replaces Mr. Dent's current policy will likely be much more expensive.
The way the 29-year-old sees it, Acorn Signs will have to cut benefits or cut pay. One way or another, he figures, the switch to a new insurer will cost him.
Steve Gillispie, Acorn's president, is distressed by this unexpected development. A year and a half ago, he was facing premiums of $150,000 from an established insurer, up from $80,000 just three years before. Then along came Richmond, Va.-based nHealth. The start-up company, launched with the mission of making consumer-driven health care a reality, rescued him with a plan that kept premiums below $90,000 yearly. The plan insured his 35 employees against hospital expenses, created a $1,500 deductible for doctors' fees and set up health savings accounts (HSAs) for employees to pay for what the health plan did not. "For most employees," Mr. Gillispie says, "it netted out money in the pocket."
Lower insurance charges helped Acorn survive the recession without laying off any of its employees or cutting their compensation. Going back hat in hand to one of the dominant insurers in town, Mr. Gillispie fears, will add tens of thousands of dollars to his cost structure. Profit margins are tight in this slow-growth economy, but he hates to pass on the higher insurance costs to his employees, many of whom are paid $14 to $16 an hour. "Most of these people are living hand to mouth as it is," he says. He still does not know what he will do.
Such is the unintended consequence of Obamacare, which overhauled the health care industry with the goal of making medical insurance more affordable and accessible to all. The provision that is causing Acorn Signs so much heartache is the so-called 80/20 rule, which requires all insurance plans to pay out at least 80 percent of premiums in benefits. The goal behind the rule is to punish insurers that let administrative expenses get out of hand. In practice, the law punishes innovative, entrepreneurial companies like nHealth that kept premiums low.
The company ran afoul of the 80/20 rule by charging premiums that were so low that the administrative expenses looked high by comparison. Alan Slabaugh, a benefits specialist who brokers the policy, explains the problem this way, using very rough numbers: If a traditional insurer bills $500 monthly per employee, paying out $400 in benefits and charging $100 to administration, its administrative ratio is 20 percent - acceptable under the 80/20 rule. NHealth keeps premiums low by using HSAs to incentivize employees to reduce their spending - buying generic drugs, for instance, and shopping around for cheaper pharmacies - and by showing clients how to self-insure for physicians' fees. If nHealth charges superlow premiums of $300 per month, paying $200 in benefits and keeping $100 for administrative expenses, its administrative ratio would be 33 percent - thus failing the Obamacare test and triggering penalties.
In its short existence, nHealth passed the market test with flying colors, signing up 128 clients across Virginia. However, the fast-growth company was still burning cash when Obamacare passed, and management wasn't expecting to be profitable for several years. The 80/20 rule attacked the company's business model and pushed the break-even point out another year or more. Given continued uncertainties about how the regulations would be written, the company notified clients in June that the board had decided to shut down the company; it would honor all existing contracts but not renew them.
About 2,500 Virginia employees are the losers. Other insurers in the Richmond marketplace offer HSAs, Mr. Slabaugh says, but none is as inexpensive as nHealth's. Workers will wind up paying more for insurance - assuming their employers even can afford to continue providing insurance at the rates the big insurers charge. Even non-customers pay a price indirectly. With one of Virginia's most aggressive and innovative insurers knocked out of action, the dominant players don't have to compete as hard for their business. Just a few months out of the gate, Obamacare is falling far short of the lofty goals set for it. As Mr. Slabaugh says, "The health care reform bill was passed with the intention to increase choice and decrease the costs associated with health care. As the legislation is being implemented, I am witnessing quite the opposite, and nHealth is just one example."
James A. Bacon is author of the forthcoming book "Boomergeddon" (Oaklea Press, 2010) and publisher of the blog by the same name.
Dr. Milton Wolf (Barack Obama's Cousin) Speaks Out Against the Health Care Law
Here is the genealogy:
President Obama’s great-great grandfather, Thomas Creekmore McCurry, is Dr. Wolf’s great-grandfather. Dr. Wolf’s mother, Anna Margaret McCurry, was five years older than Mr. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. The two were childhood friends until the Dunhams moved from Kansas to Seattle in 1955.
Dr. Milton Wolf's speech really rocked!! He seems like a very caring doctor who wants to be able to provide the best care for his patients. I applaud him for being willing to stand up and speak out against Obamacare even though he is Barack Obama's second cousin. He is standing up for both America and his patients. He wants the right reform and I agree with his assessment- more government regulations is not the answer to the problems with our health care accessibility and affordability issues today. He's the type of doctor I would want treating me.
I am trying to find a video or pictures of Dr. Wolf's appearance with Hannity in Kansas City. If anyone comes across any please let me know or forward them to my email. Thanks.
Mitt Romney Wins the SRLC Straw Poll
Here are the results in the poll:
Mitt Romney 24% (439)
Ron Paul 24% (438)
Newt Gingrich 18% (321)
Sarah Palin 18% (330)
Mike Huckabee 4% (80)
Tim Pawlenty 3% (54)
Mike Pence 3% (58)
Rick Santorum 2% (41)
Gary Johnson 1% (3)
I must say I have mixed feelings about Romney. I like his policies on economics or the economy, but I am not supportive of what is probably his number one accomplishment- Romneycare in Massachusetts- because it is so much like Obamacare. I am glad that he has changed his position to pro-life from pro-choice. But, I am skeptical whether that was a real conversion or not. Or is it just political opportunism? I hope his conversion is a reality and I want to believe it, but, I am just skeptical because of intuitions of mine. I like his position on gay marriage. He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree with Mitt Romney's beliefs on having a strong national defense in the United States. Well, we've got some time before we have to figure out who our next presidential candidate will be in the 2012 elections.
via Memeorandum
Freedoms Lost Under Passage of Health "Reform" Law
Shawn Tully of Fortune sifted through both health care bills and found out that in both of them, Obama's claims that Americans will be able to keep their existing health plans isn't true. The bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
"If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction."
Here is more information on just five of the freedoms we just lost because of the passage of Obamacare.
Here are 20 more freedoms, as patients, that we just lost under Health care "reform" :
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
CONTINUED HERE
"If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction."
Here is more information on just five of the freedoms we just lost because of the passage of Obamacare.
Here are 20 more freedoms, as patients, that we just lost under Health care "reform" :
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
CONTINUED HERE
Eric Cantor Has Received Threats and Says Dems are "Dangerously Fanning the Flames"
Eric Cantor has received threats both before and after the health care bill's passage in Congress. But, a shot was fired through the window of Eric Cantor's office in Virginia after the passage of Obamacare. This is unconscionable. But, I haven't heard any Democrats denounce violence like I have heard the Republicans denounce violence. This violence is unacceptable and people who disagree must move on in discussion, and we who want to repeal this bill must reboot or reload and continue our efforts so that we may repeal this bill.
Al Sharpton Claims Citizens Voted for Socialism & Drank the Socialism Kool-Aid
So, Al Sharpton speaks at least half the truth for once. This is socialist health care. I would guess that about half of the citizens that voted for Obama did vote for him because of his socialist beliefs. When Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" that he intended to spread the wealth that should have been a clue to people of Obama's socialist beliefs. But, some may have been so enamoured with his smoke and mirrors slogan of "hope" and change" that they drank his Kool-aid and ignored the reality of his socialist and radical beliefs. Obama tried to appear as a centrist on the campain trail. Now, it is self-evident that the people who were not educated in the area of politics got snookered when they thought that they were voting for a centrist and in fact ended up voting for an avowed Leftist who surrounds himself with radicals, Socialists, Communists and Marxists, and has sorrounded himself with these types of people for years. Voters didn't want a Bush-like or a Bush-lite candidate like McCain so they voted for a political candidate that was different. But, I doubt that half of voters actually were voting for socialist medicine. They were voting for "change" and health care reform, but not this type of health care "reform". The aforementioned-Communism, Socialism, Marxist- are all related to one another. It just depends how radical the individual is, as to which of these political ideologies the person chooses to follow. Of course the poor want a free handout. Who really wants to work? Not many people. But, most people take the responsibility and initiative to take care of themselves and their own needs. Of course its different if the person is truly sick and can't take care of themselves. The sick deserve charity. They deserve to be helped. Socialists, like Obama, are just cheating the poor out of having a sense of fulfillment and personal responsibilty by having them indebted to the government. The Democrats are chaining them down like dogs who are laying around just waiting for their next meal or welfare check to come along. Conservatives see them as an indivisual human being with needs and not just a part of the collective. Conservatives love to help lift people up and help them better themselves. They want to help the poor be successful and make as much money as possible. Conservatives value that entrepreneurial spirit, want people to achieve their goals, while socialists limit the individuals' success and ability to achieve their goals in life. Yes, Al Sharpton, Obama's policies are at the least socialist and this health care bill is bad for America, and goes against everything that the Founders fought to achieve for this country-Liberty and Freedom. We will fight back, like revolutionaries, and repeal this Obamascare bill. 
I Want My Country Back!
This is a re-post from Hyphenated American's blog. His words ring oh so true today. The health care vote that took place last night has contributed to the death of America as we know it.
It seems like the ultra-liberals have been able to bribe and coerce enough congress-scumbags to pass the Obamacare. And as I said before, there would be hell to pay for this monstrosity. Obamacare is the very definition of unlimited government - the threat of which was forewarned by the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago. The federal government, which is up to its neck in debt and unfunded liabilities, decided to launch the biggest entitlement of all times – the medical care for all. The spending on this new entitlement will surely dwarf many if not most of Federal programs and will make the bankruptcy of federal and state governments inevitable. The time of reckoning is at hand, brothers and sisters. Obamacare is the last breath of the liberal order – and it’s time to take America back from the party of thieves and looters.
All patriots of this nation must stand together and fight back. United we will win! There is no blue or red America anymore – there are only those that believe in America the beautiful, America the free, America the shining city on the hill – and those that believe in welfare socialism and government servitude. Today, we fight not only for our personal well-being – but for the dignity and honor of this country, for the right to look into the eyes of our children and say – we defended this nation from the perils of socialism. In November 2010, we will answer the crucial questions of our times - are American people worthy of the efforts of the Founding Fathers? Will American people have the right to proudly say “We are Americans” – or will they forever live in infamy and indignity of welfare socialism?
I am glad that the Democratic Party passed the Rubicon. From now on, there is no coming back for the liberal elites, no talks of compromise and middle-ground. Today, it is abundantly clear that we either will live in Obama's America or America that our Founding Father envisioned. You cannot have both.
The November elections will be the most important elections in our lifetime. If you don’t vote for America in November – you don’t deserve to be called an American.
H/T HYPHENATED AMERICAN
It seems like the ultra-liberals have been able to bribe and coerce enough congress-scumbags to pass the Obamacare. And as I said before, there would be hell to pay for this monstrosity. Obamacare is the very definition of unlimited government - the threat of which was forewarned by the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago. The federal government, which is up to its neck in debt and unfunded liabilities, decided to launch the biggest entitlement of all times – the medical care for all. The spending on this new entitlement will surely dwarf many if not most of Federal programs and will make the bankruptcy of federal and state governments inevitable. The time of reckoning is at hand, brothers and sisters. Obamacare is the last breath of the liberal order – and it’s time to take America back from the party of thieves and looters.
All patriots of this nation must stand together and fight back. United we will win! There is no blue or red America anymore – there are only those that believe in America the beautiful, America the free, America the shining city on the hill – and those that believe in welfare socialism and government servitude. Today, we fight not only for our personal well-being – but for the dignity and honor of this country, for the right to look into the eyes of our children and say – we defended this nation from the perils of socialism. In November 2010, we will answer the crucial questions of our times - are American people worthy of the efforts of the Founding Fathers? Will American people have the right to proudly say “We are Americans” – or will they forever live in infamy and indignity of welfare socialism?
I am glad that the Democratic Party passed the Rubicon. From now on, there is no coming back for the liberal elites, no talks of compromise and middle-ground. Today, it is abundantly clear that we either will live in Obama's America or America that our Founding Father envisioned. You cannot have both.
The November elections will be the most important elections in our lifetime. If you don’t vote for America in November – you don’t deserve to be called an American.
H/T HYPHENATED AMERICAN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
