Economist Thomas Sowell: "ObamaCare is in many ways old wine in new bottles. For example, when confronted with the fact that millions of Americans stand to lose their existing medical insurance, as a result of ObamaCare, defenders of ObamaCare say that this is true only when those people have 'substandard' insurance. Who decides what is 'substandard'? What is older than the idea that some exalted elite know what is good for us better than we know ourselves? ... ObamaCare ... began as supposedly a way to deal with the problem of a segment of the population -- those without health insurance. But, instead of directly helping those particular people to get insurance, the 'solution' was to expand the government's power over everybody, including people who already had health insurance that they wanted to keep. Since there has never been a society of human beings without at least some segment with some problem, this is a formula for a never-ending expansion of government power. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are all on record as believing in a 'single payer' system -- that is, a government monopoly able to impose its own will on everybody. Even the current and future problems of ObamaCare can help them to reach that goal."
National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke: "There have been 17 shutdowns before this one, and a host of debt-ceiling fights to boot. Some of these happened during periods of divided government; others happened during periods of unified government. All told, they are a bipartisan game, although it seems that Democrats prefer to shut down things more than Republicans do. Fifteen of America's previous funding gaps occurred when Democrats controlled the House, and five of them came to pass while Democrats ran every single branch of government."
Columnist John Stossel: "Government wants you to play a role in the 'shutdown' of the federal government. Your role is to panic. ... If the public starts noticing that life goes on as usual without all 3.4 million federal workers, we might get dangerous ideas, like doing without so much government. ... The federal government remains the biggest employer in the country. President Obama says so with pride. Compare this to what happens in the private sector in tough times: AT&T cut 40,000 workers. Sears cut 50,000. IBM: 60,000. They weren't easy decisions, but they enabled the companies to stay profitable. With fewer workers, leaner companies found more efficient ways to get things done. And the rest of us barely noticed. We expect change and adaptation in free-market institutions. But it doesn't happen in government. Government just grows. ... No wonder politicians and bureaucrats are convinced big government is essential to keep the economy going -- it is essential to keep them going."
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 2006
Columnist Ann Coulter: "Responding to the people's will, House Republicans first voted to fund all of government -- except Obamacare. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. Then the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but merely delay the implementation of Obamacare for one year. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. Finally, the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but added a requirement that everyone live under Obamacare. ... Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. So as you can see, Republicans are the big holdup here. ... If you are in the minority of Americans not already unalterably opposed to Obamacare, keep in mind that the only reason the government is shut down right now is that Democrats refuse to fund the government if they are required to live under Obamacare. That's how good it is!"
Justice Roberts declared this bill was Constitutional as it was a tax. So in essence, SCOTUS disagrees with what BO has been selling us all along. The president did raise taxes on the middle class in defiance of his well-worn campaign promise not to... this is the largest tax hike in U.S. history.
- ObamaCare allows insurers to charge 50 percent higher premiums for smokers, but prohibits insurers from increasing premiums for those with HIV/AIDS.
- Nationally, ObamaCare will increase men's individual insurance premiums by an average of 99 percent and women's by 62 percent.
- Health plans valued at $27,500 or more for a family of four will be taxed at a rate of 40 percent.
- No doctors who went to an American medical school will be accepting ObamaCare.
- To be eligible for millions of dollars in grants from the federal government under ObamaCare, education and training programs are required to meet racial, ethnic, gender, linguistic and sexual- orientation quotas. That's going to make health care much better!
- ObamaCare is turning America into a part-time nation. According to a recent report by economist John Lott, 97 percent of all jobs added to the economy so far this year have been part-time jobs.
- ObamaCare is such a disaster that the people who wrote it refuse to live under it themselves. That's right. Congress won a waiver from ObamaCare.
According to Associated Press:
Health insurance of at least 3.5 million Americans has been issued canceled, but the exact number is unclear. A survey by The Associated Press stressed that data from half the states still is unavailable.
According to a Duke University researcher:
Even more alarming, a Duke University researcher says that more than two-thirds of the U.S. population could see some turmoil to their plans as a result of Obama's signature legislative achievement. That's 129 million people.
"Bottom line: Of the 189 million Americans with private health-insurance coverage, I estimate that if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous healthcare plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014," healthcare economist Christopher Conover at the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke told the conservative Daily Caller.
Another study released Monday and quoted on Forbes suggests that in the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent.
According to Judicial Watch (dot) org, some $91 million in benefits and $29 million for prescriptions was paid out for illegal aliens this year. Why is so hard to get legal US citizens coverage??? Oh yeah...libs need their votes.
Columnist Arnold Ahlert: "A remarkable quote from president's speech last week further underscores the bankruptcy of progressivism. After once again blaming everyone else for the debacle of the website's rollout, he said something that should stun every American. 'What we're also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.' Obama and Democrats concoct a 2000 page healthcare bill and another 11,000 pages of regulations that apply to it, and the president is just now discovering that buying insurance is complicated? A gargantuan case of hubris, coupled with stunning level of ignorance about how the real world works, is the essence of progressivism. ... Are you aware of that fact that even if this disaster comes to full flower, the Congressional Budget Office projects that 32 million people will still be uninsured ten years from now, even as an additional $1.8 trillion will be spent by the federal government to achieve that result? How come our progressive champions never mention that reality? Because, in the end, what's going on isn't really about healthcare. It's about control. And if 32 million people are left out in the cold? So what."
Barack Obama reciting the Gettysburg Address: "[T]hat we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Obama conveniently left out "under God" as spoken by Abraham Lincoln. The official transcript reads, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."
Why do libs hate any reference to God, Jesus, etc? They seem to forget this country was founded on Judeo Christian values...
One more thing on the legality of the law...there is a lawsuit moving its way through the courts in Oklahoma that strikes at the heart of the law. The state's attorney general is filing suit alleging that the federal exchanges are wrongfully extending subsidies and tax credits, a power the law explicitly leaves only to the states. If the court agrees that the IRS illegally stretched the power of the government to extend subsidies and tax credits, the whole law could be undone. Wouldn't that be a pity?
Repeat a Lie Often Enough...
"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what." --Barack Obama in June 2009
Well, never mind. NBC News now reports that "50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a 'cancellation' letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law." Surprise!
The administration, of course, has known this since the law passed and its regulations were written. Those regulations set specific standards for health insurance, and the administration acknowledged (though not publicly) in 2010 that between 40% and 67% of customers would lose their plans. It wasn't passive knowledge that the market would react a certain way, either; it was writing the rules so that people would lose their policies. And not only are policies being canceled, but many insurers aren't participating in the ObamaCare exchanges at all. The goal is to crush private insurance.
The mean the progressive tax code that penalizes people as they work harder to make more money? Or the progressive tax code that allows 47% of the people in this country to pay no income tax while putting the burden on the rest of us? I'd rather help the poor with private charity and by encouraging them to lift themselves out of their situation rather than enable them to continue to be poor like these programs do.
With all the talk about the failures of Obamacare and dismal economic numbers, something happened last week that you may have missed. On Friday afternoon, which means it was overlooked by most members of the media, Barack Obama issued an executive order which could bring sweeping new power to himself and could allow him to bypass Congress all in the name of combatting "climate change."
Under the title Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, Obama's executive order seeks to pour more federal funds into controlling... the weather. That's right. Apparently Obama feels that controlling America's healthcare is not enough. Now, he wants to put the federal government in charge of actions that could affect the weather.
As the AP reports, "President Obama on Friday used his executive powers to elevate and take control of climate change policies in an attempt to streamline sustainability initiatives - and potentially skirt legislative oversight and push a federal agenda on states."
Obama's new task force, which is created in the executive order, is stacked... stacked with liberals who will be willing to advance his agenda:
The executive order establishes a task force of state and local officials to advise the administration on how to respond to severe storms, wildfires, droughts and other potential impacts of climate change. The task force includes governors of seven states -- all Democrats -- and the Republican governor of Guam, a U.S. territory. Fourteen mayors and two other local leaders also will serve on the task force.
All but three of those appointed are Democrats. The task force will look at federal money spent on roads, bridges, flood control and other projects. It ultimately will recommend how structures can be made more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and warming temperatures.
It was but two weeks ago that the government "shutdown" ended with a partial deal to fund the government through early next year. Congress began negotiating last week on the next fiscal deal. At issue is nothing particularly new -- Democrats want spending to increase a lot, and Republicans want it to increase a little less.
In his weekly address Saturday, Barack Obama lectured about budget negotiations. "It begins," Obama said, "by ending what has done more than anything else to undermine our economy over the past few years -- and that's the constant cycle of manufactured crisis and self-inflicted wounds." But of course it was Obama's former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who uttered what has become the motto of this administration: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Indeed, Obama governs from one crisis to the next.
Then he launched into a ridiculous boast about the federal deficit: "[S]ince I took office, we've cut our deficits by more than half. ... On my watch, they're falling at the fastest pace in 60 years."
And broke almost every bankruptcy law on the books during that take over. Scr*wing bond holders in favor of the unions was just one example of BO's illegal take over of GM.
Craig the puppet and his fellow libs keep wishing death on tea party folks - so much for that whole 'tolerant left' mantra...
We have all seen the new studies showing how food stamps fail to alleviate poverty and hunger. Now there is another study on the effects of unemployment benefits. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, "[M]ost of the persistent increase in unemployment during the Great Recession can be accounted for by the unprecedented extensions of unemployment benefit eligibility."
The recession has been bad, but the "recovery" has been hardly better. However, most states increased unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks -- i.e., six months to nearly two years. Rather than finding work, recipients opt to continue getting checks for nothing.
Of course this is a broad generalization as many unemployment recipients are hard workers who have simply fallen on hard times not of their own making. However, the bigger problem, according to researchers, is that long-term unemployment benefits deter job creation. I quote The Wall Street Journal: "What brings unemployment down is not mainly the effort made by people to find jobs; instead, it's the incentive employers have to create jobs. Long-term unemployment benefits deter that job creation." Unemployment benefits force wages higher. Working for a paycheck must be more attractive than free checks -- and so make jobs more expensive for employers to create. So even if we concede that leftists have good intentions (a big "if"), their efforts only exacerbate the problem.
Why work when you can do better sitting at home collecting checks? Uncle Sam's Welfare Plantation is alive and well...
I talked to Mier, who is a consulting engineer; his wife works for his business. The couple does not qualify for subsidies. He's in his 60s. She's in her late-50s. He has a pre-existing condition, and she has diabetes. One insurer turned down his wife. I asked him if he thought his claims experience, because of the family's medical history, explained the couple's high premiums. Mier answered, "probably, no doubt."
I've been hearing from healthy Californians who were kicked off their private plans because of Obamacare and were informed they would have to pay much higher premiums on Affordable Care Act exchanges. It could be that his family's boon spells a financial hit for healthy individuals who had good affordable health care before Obamacare.
The White House doesn't hold events with families who have been burned by Obamacare. The president had promised Americans that if they liked their heath care plans, they could keep them. But the president doesn't read letters from people who feel they were betrayed and deceived.
Couples who decide to earn less money so that they can qualify for federal subsidies don't swoon on the White House steps as the president crows about how swell Obamacare is. There is no "rate shock" on Pennsylvania Avenue.
So let me quote from an e-mail from a San Francisco contractor who is "very angry over this new health care act." Kaiser informed him that for him to comply with the new law, his deductible would rise from $2,700 per year to $4,500, and his premiums would rise from $356 to $567. "All I ever heard was that if you currently had health insurance, you need not worry, you could keep your same coverage, your doctor and nothing would change for you. Wrong, wrong, wrong."
Voters never should have believed that Washington could provide the same benefits to millions more Americans and that people would pay less. That thinking, not computer glitches, is the real "kink in the system" of Obamacare.
San Francisco Chronicle 10/23/2013