Exodus 18:21  21 "But choose men of ability from all of the people. They must have respect for God. You must be able to trust them. They must not try to get money by cheating others. Appoint them as officials.   



"Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to 10 years. I don't know if people are aware of that." - President Barack Obama, August 2009.   We're aware Mr. President, now what are you going to do about it?


http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fiddling-while-rome-burns.html                      Our country is 16 trillion + dollars in debt, our jobless rate is through the roof, the government wants to cut our defense dollars at a time we are surrounded by enemies, gas prices keep getting higher yet we are not permitted to drill or pipeline, obamacare will destroy the private health care system, and so much more, and the liberal left is talking about the religious and private sector should pay for birth control???  Are you going to vote the Democrats back in so they can fiddle while the USA burns???


                The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit:

 Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan.

We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness. Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

 Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

 Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

 Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying

. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care

. Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

 Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
 Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?



The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554423/201011191853/Patients-Should-Pay-Their-Own-Bills.aspx                           The cost of medicine increased 98% between 1992 and 2008, a period when the consumer price index rose 53%. Health care spending now makes up 17% of the economy, a far bigger slice than it did before the 1965 creation of Medicare and Medicaid, when it never went beyond 6%. Because Americans who have employer-based coverage see little money coming out of their pockets when they visit a doctor or go to the hospital, they have little incentive to keep costs down."When patients pay their own medical bills, they are conservative consumers," Herrick writes. "Economic studies and common sense confirm that people are less likely to be prudent, careful shoppers if someone else is picking up the tab."  According to Herrick, for every dollar of hospital care that is consumed, a patient pays only 3 cents. The rest is paid by a third party, the insurance company. When a patient visits a doctor, less than 10 cents of every dollar of care consumed is paid by the patient. Again, a third party pays the balance.  And "for the health care system as a whole, every time patients consume $1 in services, they pay only 12 cents out of pocket."To show what a health care sector without similar incentives looks like, Herrick turns to cosmetic surgery, the demand for which has exploded in recent years.  Citing American Society of Plastic Surgeons data, he says 1.7 million cosmetic surgical procedures were performed in 2008, "more than 40 times the number performed two decades ago." Yet cosmetic surgeons' fees, he says, have remained relatively stable, rising only 21% from 1992 to 2008.The rather flat line of growth in spending on cosmetic surgery is due to the nature of the market. Almost all payments are made out of pocket by patients, which forces them to be wise consumers. It also requires doctors to compete on price.The third-party payer problem that has forced costs higher was not addressed by ObamaCare. In fact, the Democrats' plan to bring down costs will only make the problem worse. Their chief goal is to increase the role of the third-party payerIf Washington were to give health savings accounts the same tax treatment afforded employer-based insurance, exempting them from federal income and payroll taxes, the incentive for consumers to ration their own care would slow the rise in health care spending. 




http://news.investors.com/Article/ryan-spoils-dems-mediscare/594975/201112151914/paul-ryan-destroys-democrats-mediscare-election-plans-with-a-brilliant-compromise-reform.htm                  bi-partisan Medicare reform plan offered up by Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.  Their plan would shift Medicare from an open-ended health benefit to one in which the government provides a set amount of money for insurance. Seniors could choose from a variety of private, approved plans, as well as the traditional government-run Medicare.  The subsidy would be based on the second cheapest plan in an area, and if seniors wanted more expansive coverage, they'd have to pay the difference out of their own pockets. The reform would also cap the growth in Medicare.  But by making these changes and getting Wyden on board, Ryan has brilliantly managed to keep the essence of his reform while exposing the Democrats' attack plan for what it is: a crass effort to win votes by needlessly scaring seniors.

The Ryan-Wyden plan puts Democrats in an awkward position in another way as well, because on the surface, it's very much like ObamaCare — enrollees get to choose from a menu of approved health plans with the government subsidizing the premiums. It even borrows the term "exchanges" and has a "public option," something liberals tried and failed to get included in ObamaCare.  As the Washington Post's liberal blogger and ObamaCare booster Ezra Klein put it, the Ryan-Wyden plan "is exactly — exactly! — how the Affordable Care Act works."  So if Democrats attack this plan, they'll now have to explain why ObamaCare is any better.

But the important point here is the direction these changes would take health care. Ryan is trying to move a decrepit, bankrupt socialized health plan toward the free market, where competition and consumer choice, not government dictates, work to keep prices down and quality high.

ObamaCare, on the other hand, tries to move the existing private health care system in the opposite direction — toward single-payer-style socialized medicine.

While we prefer Ryan's original proposal to his current one, it's to his credit that he realized the political need to produce a bi-partisan compromise. Wyden, too, deserves credit for his willingness to buck his party and sacrifice short-term political gain for much needed long-term reforms.

"We know there's a campaign ahead," Wyden said. "But at some point you've got to start paving the way for the future."



ObamaCare: Twice as expensive as promised, and getting worse




Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.  According to documents from the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, was a point of controversy for Obama during his 2008 campaign for president.  the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.  Now, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review Online today, reports on documentation from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.   http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/obama-tied-to-architect-of-u-s-collapse/

Frances Fox Piven, co-architect of a strategy to overload the U.S. welfare system to precipitate a transformative economic crisis, (this was also applied to our banking system by using CRA & HUD in coercing subprime loans, now with the EPA and our energy sector etc., Obamacare regulations on insurance companies, while passing the blame onto the banks, the energy companies, insurance companies etc.) was an early builder of the socialist-leaning New Party. Scores of other New Party activists, meanwhile, have been tied to President Obama.




back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”

In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:

Obama felt so strongly about the issue that he even cut an ad attacking Clinton for her support of the individual mandate. "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan?" the April 2008 ad asked. "It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't."


Justice Anthony Kennedy "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" and "So the Federal government says everybody has to join an exercise club?"  Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli."

Chief Justice John Roberts queried: "So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?"  Justice Samuel Alito jabbed: "All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, 'You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else'. Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?"




sign petition, stay informed, stay activated.



Before the election, the GOP controlled 59 of 98 partisan legislative chambers across the country. They flipped 10 of those chambers during the election, now controlling 69 of 98 legislative chambers. The Republicans control both houses in 30 states (+3).  Remember, it only requires 34 states to call a Convention, and 38 states to ratify any proposed amendments. If Republicans in the state legislatures continue to support the Article V option, these election results could significantly expedite our efforts to turn a Convention of States into a reality.



“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

–President Thomas Jefferson





Let us count a few of the Democraps’ lies:

The Obama Administration (and the President himself) told the American voters, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”  It was a lie.  The Obama Administration told the American voters that there was no abortion funding in ObamaCare.  It was a lie.

The Obama Administration told the American voters that ObamaCare wasn’t a tax.  It was a lie.  The Obama Administration told the American voters that ObamaCare wouldn’t increase the debt.  It was a lie.  The Obama Administration told the American voters ObamaCare would help the economy.  It was a lie.  The Obama Administration told the American voters they would have no trouble signing up for ObamaCare, that it would be as easy as buying on Amazon.  It was a lie.  The Obama Administration told the American voters that health care would be affordable for millions of Americans because of subsidies – tax credits.  Turns out this may be the biggest lie of all.  The Supreme Court just decided to review a case that could cripple ObamaCare because the language of the law only authorizes federal subsidies (tax credits) for health insurance purchased on state, not federal, exchanges.  It means that all those millions of people who supposedly signed up for ObamaCare on HealthCare.gov (after it finally started working) can’t get the subsidies/tax credits they were promised, once again skyrocketing costs and making insurance impossible for millions more Americans.



Democraps’ Fraud: Act or course of deception, an intentional concealment, omission, or perversion of truth… Willful fraud is a criminal offense which calls for severe penalties, and its prosecution and punishment (like that of a murder) is not bound by the statute of limitations.  Now let’s take a look at how Obamacare was sold. Almost one year ago, I asked right here at Personal Liberty: “Is President Obama Too Big to Jail?”   I was referring primarily to the crime of fraud and misrepresentation used by Obama and his socialist cabal to sell Obamacare.  What any U.S. prosecutor could tell you is the architect of the crime (Gruber) just confessed to the crime on video. This is an ironclad case of fraud. Now use his words to take down the entire criminal enterprise.  If Obama had truthfully admitted, “This is a massive wealth redistribution scheme,” who would have supported it? If Obama had truthfully admitted, “If you like your insurance, there’s a darn good chance you’ll lose it,” who would have supported it?  Or “If you like your doctor, too bad. You’re going to need to find another.” Or “If you like your price for health insurance, too bad. Because your price is going to double or triple.” If Obama had truthfully admitted any of that, he never could have sold Obamacare to the American public. So he had to lie, deceive and misrepresent. That’s the definition of fraud. That’s exactly why Trudeau and Madoff are in prison.  But the selling of Obamacare was far more serious than typical consumer fraud. Madoff is in prison for life. Trudeau is away for 10 years. They simply advertised or promoted. Victims willingly came to them or bought from them of their own free will. Yet that’s still (of course) fraud because victims willingly handed over their money based on lies and deception.  But Obama didn’t just lie and misrepresent. No one had “free will.” Obama forced every American with the force of government and IRS fines to buy his fraudulent product. That’s more like a violent crime. That’s armed robbery. That’s a much more serious crime.  It’s time to put the architects and salesmen of Obamacare in prison. Trudeau cost about 1 million consumers a paltry $30 each. No one’s life was ruined. Madoff cost a few thousand wealthy investors a few billion dollars. Some lives were ruined, but the numbers are small.  Obamacare is the biggest fraud in world history. Over time, it could cost American consumers trillions of dollars in new taxes, higher premiums, deductibles, co-pays or, in the case of victims who are terminally ill and lose their insurance altogether, million-dollar bills. For a few victims who have terminal cancer, the stress of losing their insurance coverage or doctor may cost them their lives.  And how about the job losses and downgrades from full-time to part-time work for millions of American employees? Trudeau and Madoff damaged a few personal economies. Obama & his Democraps’ fraud damaged the entire U.S. economy. What kind of prison sentence do you get for that?  Now remember the second half of the definition of fraud straight from the dictionary:  Willful fraud is a criminal offense which calls for severe penalties, and its prosecution and punishment (like that of a murder) is not bound by the statute of limitations.  The words on video of Gruber prove this was “willful” fraud.



At a Brookings Institution meeting in 2006, Obama praised the policy accomplishments of the man who would later imperil the Affordable Care Act through repeated comments belittling the intelligence of American voters. In the video, Obama calls Gruber one of “the brightest minds from academia and policy circles,” claiming he’s one of a small group of experts from whom Obama’s “stolen ideas liberally.”



Yet another video has surfaced of Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jonathan Gruber, who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for consulting on Obamacare and has stated that he counted on the “stupidity” of Americans for the law to be adopted, but this one shows he puts Barack Obama in a different league.  “This is exactly what conservatives have been saying … What we’re hearing now is the true voice of liberal arrogance. They believe this. They believe that the voters are stupid as he said. And they believe they know the right way, they have to lead the masses to the promised land and they can only do it by deception. And that’s what he said openly.”  Krauthammer said the attitude was, “‘We wanted to get the bill and we didn’t care how we did it, so we lied about everything.’”  “As Gruber said, had they known that, it never would have passed. They lied about every aspect of this,” Krauthammer said. “But they got away with it.”  In the first video that appeared, Gruber said, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scores the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. …”  He continued to discuss the lack of transparency, which was a “huge political advantage.”  “Basically you now call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever that was really really critical to get the thing to pass.”  In a second video that surfaced he was discussing how the costs were going to be imposed on Americans, and said, “The American voters are too stupid to understand.”  Then in another, he discussed the “lack of economic understanding” of Americans:


Now a CNN political analyst, Carney told host Jake Tapper Gruber “speaks from the Ivory Tower with remarkable hubris about the American voter and by extension the American Congress.”  The Washington Times reported taxpayers paid Gruber millions for his work on Obamacare. Not only did he receive hundreds of thousands from the White House, but many states paid him as much as $400,000 each to produce reports praising the health-care law.  In “Freakonomics,” Levitt and Dubner reasoned that because unwanted children of poor, minority and single mothers were aborted before birth, society reduced the number of “marginal children” likely to become violent criminals and drug addicts.  From there, Levitt and Dubner advanced Gruber’s argument that readily available abortion not only reduced welfare costs but also saved money in the judicial system.


Gruber apparently has not objected to the fact that those same taxpayers were on the hook for $6 million in federal and state contracts awarded to him over the past six years.  Gruber — whom Obama dismissed Sunday as “some adviser” — raked in $5.9 million in taxpayer dollars through federal and state contracts awarded from 2008 to 2014 by agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services.




M.I.T. Professor Jonathan Gruber was an intellectual architect of ObamaCare, but here, at a conference last year, he said the law was written to hide crucial details from an American public too dumb to understand. 

JONATHAN GRUBER said: You get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in, it made explicit that healthy people pay and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Ok? lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to get this thing to pass and you know, it’s the second best argument. Look, I was Mark was right. I wish we can make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law then not.



The sound bites just keep coming from Democrats’ Obamacare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, that could help the GOP if they actually take up the fight to do something about the disaster known as Obamacare.  A third video as now surfaced showing Gruber talking about how the “basic exploitation” of the ignorance of American voters contributed to the passage of Obamacare.  “In America, we have a pernicious feature of our tax code, which says that if MIT pays me in wages, I get taxed. But if your employer pays you in health insurance, you do not.  John Kerry said, ‘No, no. We’re not going to tax your health insurance. We’re going to tax those evil insurance   companies. We’re going to impose a tax that if they sell insurance that’s too expensive, we’re going to tax them.’ And, conveniently, the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate under the income tax code.  So, basically, it’s the same thing: We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing.  It’s a very clever, you know, basically exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.  “The dirty secret is the American voter doesn’t actually care about the uninsured. The dirty secret is: You can’t really get a law passed by saying, ‘We’re helping the uninsured.’ You have to make it about cost control to get it passed. Because that’s what the American public cares about. (This works this way for any tax, minimum wage, regulation or any other cost forced upon businesses—the consumer will pay, workers will pay in lower or lost benefits, less hours & wages or less jobs by mechanization or outsourcing jobs to lower costs, investors/job creators also get hurt)




Where do you get your Misinformation?   Just imagine the reaction of the liberal media if a video had surfaced of a George W. Bush administration official admitting that “lack of transparency” was “a huge political advantage” in selling the Iraq war and that they relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to launch an attack on Iraq? That video would be everywhere.  However, the clip of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber using those exact phrases in talking about the passage of the Affordable Care Act has yet to be reported on ABC or NBC’s evening or morning shows. The sum total of Big Liberal Democrap Marxist Media Complex Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network coverage was a 2 minute, 50 second segment on Thursday’s CBS This Morning - six days after the tape was first discovered. On the print side the Washington Post offered a front page story on Gruber on Thursday. But the Gruber comment has yet to show up in the pages of The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times or even the Associated Press. Public broadcasting has been a no-show as well, with no Gruber mentions on PBS or NPR.  The media have been too busy bemoaning new Republican attempts to repeal ObamaCare.


Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the government tax the insurance companies and let them pass the cost on to their consumers.  This tax, combined with the regulations requiring businesses to supply their employees with ObamaCare, is the primary reason the U.S. economy has been languishing the past six years as the Democrats suck more wealth out of the economy.



In yet another revealing video, Obamacare adviser Jonathan Gruber disclosed President Obama himself was part of the discussion about the need to deceive the American people to pass his signature health-care law.  “The problem is it’s a political nightmare, and people say, ‘No, you can’t tax my benefits,” Gruber said in a June 13, 2012, interview with the PBS program “Frontline. ” … So what we did a lot in that room was think a lot about, well how could we make this work.”  Gruber describe Obama as “really a realistic guy.”  “He was, ‘Look, I can’t just do this.’ He said, ‘It’s just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phase-ins and other things?’ And we talked about it. He was just very interested in that topic,” Gruber said.  Commentator Guy Benson at the blog Hot Air observed the latest unearthed video might indicate why Obama was “so keen on obscuring the nature of his signature law’s taxes.”  “Perhaps because Obama just recently spent months relentlessly hammering John McCain over a proposal to tax health benefits ‘for the first time.’ So he needed the (deceitful, lying, Democrat) Gruber to swoop in and help craft a strategy of evasion and deflection.”



The White House can try to distance itself from Gruber all it wants, but he was paid a hefty sum by the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly $400,000, to help craft the law. According to the February 2009 notice posted on FedBizOpps.gov, Gruber's work "will facilitate the [White House] Office of Health Reform’s efforts to develop proposals to increase access to affordable health insurance for all Americans."  What's more, Gruber visited the White House nearly 20 times, according to visitor logs. The White House actively promoted his work on ObamaCare as well as his testimony to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, providing talking points for his so-called "objective analysis." It's worth noting that Gruber's contract with the administration was never disclosed to the Senate HELP Committee.  In a November 2009 blog post, then-White House OMB director Peter Orzag linked to, what he called, "an insightful article" on ObamaCare and quoted Gruber's endorsement of the bill working its way through Congress. Another blog post from the same month promoted a "compelling new report" by Gruber on the purported health premium "savings."  And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The fact of the matter is Gruber's work was the basis on which the White House and administration sold ObamaCare to the American public. There's no getting around that.



Obamacare:  Of course, the irony is that American voters must not be stupid -- else the President wouldn’t have had to lie in the first place! Obviously, he was concerned that selling the system “as is” would have exposed it for the freedom-crushing, money-sucking, job-killing measure it was.  And despite the administration’s snow job, plenty of Americans weren’t deceived. Including FRC. We warned from Day 1 that the system was chocked-full of rationing, taxpayer-funded abortion, sky-high costs, and massive plan casualties. It’s not that the American people are “stupid,” it’s that they have an expectation that they can trust their elected leaders -- or at a minimum, that their leaders won’t willfully lie to them.  As George Orwell predicted in 1984, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” The school’s role isn’t to be a Christmas cop or Menorah monitor; its role is to instill an appreciation for the history and tradition of our nation -- which just so happens to be Christian!  The Obama administration is ignoring the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 which states: “it shall be the policy of the United States…to condemn violations of religious freedom, and to promote, and to assist other governments in the promotion of, the fundamental right to freedom of religion.”


In a new Gallup poll, only 37% of Americans approve of the Democrats’ Obamacare system that’s killing jobs, spiking costs, ballooning debt, funding abortion, and destroying freedom. Thanks to ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, who credited “the stupidity of the American voter” with the bill’s passage, those numbers have nowhere to go but down.


After four years of denying the law covers abortion-on-demand, the General Accounting Office (GAO) finally blew the lid off ANOTHER ObamaCare lie and confirmed what groups like FRC have said all along: that Americans are footing the bill for the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in history. And making matters worse, the entire administration refuses to admit it. Remember “we have to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it?”

http://obamacareabortion.com/  Check out the site today and make sure you’re informed before you’re insured!




Schumer: In Retrospect, We Should Have Focused on the Economy (JOBS), Not Obamacare  Several interesting bits in that clip -- from the qualified assessment of the wasteful, ineffectual stimulus program (which failed on its own terms), to the the frank admission of misplaced priorities, to the acknowledgement that the general public didn't want Obamacare (despite all of the overwrought promises and lies), to the almost jaw-droppingly candid political calculus about uninsured Americans as a voting bloc.  Also implicit in Schumer's analysis is a concession that Obamacare is not, and never was, the "jobs bill" Democrats spent so much time and effort arguing it was.  Empirical evidence has borne out that fact for years now, but it's rather striking hearing it straight from a ranking Democrat's mouth.  Schumer is obviously grappling with the political facts on the ground, as they actually exist.  



As Jonathan Gruber, Democrat Liar and Fraudster,  the Obamacare architect who admitted that the law was a scheme to deceive, who also referred to on multiple occasions, “the stupid American voter,” testifies today on Capitol Hill, a newly discovered podcast captures Gruber admitting that the supposed cost savings that Obama used to sell the law were completely fictitious. In other words, if the facts aren’t on your side, you make them up, and you spew a lot of them to see what he calls the “stupid American voter” will believe. You find out what the American people want, according to Gruber and his leftist ilk, then you invest the lies to accommodate them.   That isn’t politics, Mr. Gruber, it’s lying and deception at its worse. The American voters really are stupid if they allow Obamacare, which was sold to the American people on a stack of intentional lies, to stand.




DEMOCRAP GRUBER MENTALITY:  The attitude of the Washington political establishment in general—and liberal elites in particular—is that Americans aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions. The public must be cajoled, misled, threatened and flat-out lied to in order to achieve the greatest good.  Jonathan Gruber Thinks Like Most Liberals: You Are Too Stupid to Run Your Own Life




Gruber has also written extensively on his view that the abortion of “marginal children” is a “social good.”  In a “scholarly” paper he co-authored titled, Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child?”, he concluded that “the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through 1994,” referring to abortion of poor children as “positive selection.”


The plaintiffs in Coons v. Lew have asked the Supreme Court to hear their case, calling IPAB "a group of unelected and unaccountable administrative officials who exercise an unprecedented amount of unchecked authority over the health care industry."  Source: Tom Coburn and Phil Roe, "A Bad Provision Even by ObamaCare Standards," Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2014.




Next year, when the employer mandate of (the Democrats’) Obamacare is activated, millions of Americans will be screaming in pain as their health insurance premiums skyrocket or as they lose their health insurance altogether. It will be just one more piece of the rapidly crumbling health care system that was forced upon the unsuspecting American people through political manipulation and deception.  Admittedly many Americans who previously had no insurance were able to obtain insurance through Obamacare. It is good that such people were able to get insurance, but it is bad that they had to obtain their insurance through someone else’s suffering. When the preamble to the Constitution of United States talks about, “the general welfare,” it is talking about things that are good for all Americans and not just the chosen few at the expense of others. There is nothing in our Constitution about health care being a right, but it is certainly reasonable for a compassionate society, which we are, to provide access to good basic health care for all of its citizens.



A major New York City Union is suing Obama (he is specifically named as a defendant) and his regime, claiming that Obamacare will bankrupt its healthcare fund.  A police union, the Correction Officers Benevolent Association (COBA), is claiming that Obamacare has caused its healthcare costs to skyrocket, and is asking for an exemption from the highly unpopular Democrat Party passed law.   Appearing on FOX News’ “The Real Story” with Gretchen Carlson on Thursday, COBA President Norman Seabrook said that not only is Obamacare bankrupting unions, but will eventually bankrupt the City of New York.   “It’s sort of like disingenuous of the administration, not to at least take a look at what they’re about to do — bankrupting not only unions, but eventually the City of New York, under Obamacare,” Seabrook told Carlson.   “You say, that you, as a union, will go broke,” Carlson reflected.   “Absolutely. There are other unions in the city that have already went broke under Obamacare,” Seabrook stated. Ironically, unions continue to overwhelmingly support almost exclusively Democrat politicians — the same ones who, according to Seabrook, are bankrupting some unions. 




The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” – Federalist No. 45

“If the clause, ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defence or general welfare.1 Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion; since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers.” – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Volume II, Chapter XIV The Powers of Congress – Taxes, Section 906, pp. 369-370 (1833)




Where do you get your “news”  A study just released by the Media Research Center reveals the big three networks have covered unknown Capitol Hill staffer Elizabeth Lauten’s Facebook post – about how President Obama’s daughters looked and acted at an official event – almost twice as much as ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber’s “stupid voters” comments.   The study found that ABC, CBS, and NBC have given Lauten’s post a total of 14 minutes, 13 seconds VS. the scant 8 minutes, 20 seconds of total coverage for Gruber since November 9 on their morning and evening news shows. While CBS, NBC, and ABC waited four days, eight days, and nine days to cover Gruber, both ABC and NBC wasted no time on Lauten covering the story on their Sunday broadcasts, with CBS joining the party on Monday. Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacts:  “This is beyond ridiculous. The networks rushed to cover a Hill staffer’s silly comments on Facebook, but waited more than a week to cover an ObamaCare architect’s serious admission that voters were deceived about a policy that affects every American; and they gave almost twice as much coverage to the silly story than to the serious story.  “The networks’ shamelessness in covering for Obama – ignoring huge news that has deep impact on all Americans while looking for any angle, no matter how trivial, to attack his critics – seemingly reaches a new low every couple of weeks.  “Until ABC, CBS, and NBC start covering genuine Democrat scandals as eagerly as they cover Republican missteps, they will continue to be nothing more than DNC-TV.”




But that all blew up last week after Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin announced that the state's long-planned single-payer system is being abandoned. The reason: It just costs too much.  To pay for it all in a state of just 627,000 citizens would have required an 11.5% payroll tax on all businesses, plus an income tax reaching as high as 9.5% for individual taxpayers. The taxes required to fund Green Mountain Care would have bankrupted its residents and sent hundreds of businesses fleeing to other states. But single-payer is a terrible idea. It delivers higher costs, lower standards of care, longer wait times and less choice than market-based systems.  America, in fact, already has a single-payer health care system in miniature: The Veterans Affairs health system — a disorganized, disgraceful mess, killing off patients, costing huge sums and leading to political scandals like the intentional misreporting of data to hide culpability for the system's failures. 



If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street, If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
The Beatles in “The Taxman”


Under the Constitution, a tax must originate in the House (which this law did not), and it must be applied for doing something (like earning income or purchasing tobacco or fuel), not for doing nothing.

In all the history of the court, it never has held that a penalty imposed for violating a federal law was really a tax. And it never has converted linguistically the congressional finding of penalty into the judicial declaration of tax, absent finding subterfuge on the part of congressional draftsmanship.

I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.

Even The Beatles understood this. 



Critics of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) need an alternative vision. What follows is a short explanation of the core ideas posted at the Congressional Health Care Caucus and developed in greater detail in the book Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis.


Fortunately, that Supreme Court does not have the last word. We do, at the polls in November. After we elect a new Congress to repeal and replace this monstrous health law, we should insist that any new legislation be 20 pages in plain English and that members of Congress read it before voting.

Twenty pages should be enough. The framers established the entire federal government in just 18.

• McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York State. Her own 20-page bill can be found at http://defendyourhealthcare.com/betsys20pagebill.html              http://defendyourhealthcare.com/home.html



Doctors are particularly skeptical about ObamaCare: 90% say premiums will go up; 70% say it will drive the best and brightest out of the profession; 65% say quality of care for their patients will decline. I am one of those doctors who fears for my patients' future care.

For 30 years, I've led physician groups who care for populations of seniors — with higher than average illness burden — at much lower than average total cost of care, with better outcomes.

I presently care for a regular Medicare population with quality rankings above 90% on six of seven measures. For an 11% higher illness burden, my total cost of care is 72% lower than average

(CMS Quality and Resource Use Report, March 2, 2012).

I also provide superior care for 1,000 Medicare Advantage members, whose illness burden, quality and satisfaction scores are even higher, under a richer benefit plan than Medicare, at a cost of care which is 50% less than average.  If all Medicare beneficiaries were cared for under this model, Medicare could be administered for $290 billion annually instead of its current $580 billion, saving $2.9 trillion in 10 years, without any cuts, serving healthier, happier seniors.

We must liberate health care providers to innovate, compete and be rewarded not only on quality care for patients, but also on their performance and costs in achieving long-term population health.

Doing so will improve long-term citizen health and access to care, and reverse rising health care costs. The solution hides in strategically reducing government's role in health care.

This modest model solution already exists; it just needs room to breathe.

• Willey, an internist, is the founding CEO of several medical groups and a Medicare Advantage health plan, currently practicing with six physicians and five nurse practitioners as Innovare Health Advocates in St. Louis.




The final myth deals with the belief that mandating coverage for preexisting conditions is a good idea. In reality, prohibiting conditions-based exclusion undermines the purpose of insurance markets and does nothing more than transfer wealth from those with good conditions to those with bad ones. Insofar as individuals can afford it, everyone should be responsible for their own, often self-imposed conditions.

Source: Cliff Asness, "The Health Care Myths We Must Confront," The American, June 29, 2012.

For text:  http://www.american.com/archive/2012/june/the-healthcare-myths-we-must-confront



the Catholic Hospital Association (CHA) on Friday pulled back the thin reed of religious support for ObamaCare the administration had been clinging to in insisting the Affordable Health Care Act,  CHA represents more than 600 of the nation's 5,000 hospitals and has more than 2,000 members, if you include nursing homes and other similar facilities. One in every six hospital patients in the U.S. receives medical care in a Catholic hospital.

President Obama now faces virtually united Catholic opposition — with the CHA lining up against ObamaCare alongside the 43 Catholic institutions in 12 jurisdictions, ranging from the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., to the University of Notre Dame, which have filed suit to protect the religious freedom they thought the U.S. Constitution already did.  These suits are separate from the case soon to be decided by the Supreme Court. The high court will decide whether the federal government can force individuals to buy a product, namely health insurance, simply because they are U.S. citizens.

"Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union," Cardinal George, archbishop of Chicago, recently wrote. "You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship — no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society."  The Supreme Court can defeat that vision in the near future. But failing that, we may have to do it ourselves in November.




ObamaCare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn?  These are the people that Roberts betrayed when he declared constitutional something that is nowhere authorized in the Constitution of the United States.

What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans — past, present and future

Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper "deference" to the legislative branch of government.

But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights.


"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy," Webster famously argued in opposition to the latter question. Chief Justice John Marshall agreed, parroting Webster's words almost verbatim in his ruling. "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy ... (is) not to be denied," Marshall wrote in 1819 .

"If the government can do this, what can it not do?"  The answer to that question is as simple as it is terrifying: Nothing.









  • First, subsidize all insurance the same way. The way government currently subsidizes health insurance is arbitrary and unfair. Employees with employer-provided insurance get that benefit tax free. There is almost no subsidy, however, for people who must purchase insurance on their own. Under ObamaCare the subsidies become even more arbitrary. All insurance should get the same tax relief, regardless of where it is obtained.
  • Second, make the subsidy a fixed sum "tax credit" -- that is, a dollar-for-dollar reduction in your tax bill. For example, offer a $2,500 credit against the first $2,500 of health insurance premiums. For a family of four, the credit would be about $8,000. These credits would be "refundable," a technical term meaning people would get the subsidy even if they owe no income taxes.
  • Third, create and fund a safety net option. If people turn down the offer of a tax credit, make that credit available to safety net institutions that provide care to people without insurance. If people can't pay their medical bills, these funds would be there as a backstop. Under this arrangement, money follows people.
  • Fourth, don't let people "game" the system. Instead of a mandate to purchase health insurance, give people a one-time opportunity to obtain insurance on a guaranteed issue basis, regardless of their health conditions. If they turn down the offer and apply later, insurers would be able to consider their medical condition and charge them a higher premium that reflects the full expected cost of their care.
  • Fifth, get rid of the mandate. With the first four fixes in place, there's no need for a mandate. Instead, there will be a strong financial incentive to obtain health insurance. Government offers everyone a generous subsidy to buy health insurance in the form of lower taxes. If they turn down the subsidy, they pay higher taxes.





the opposite is true: the Ryan budget spares older people from almost any change or sacrifice — and that's the problem. We have (and, to be fair, this is mainly the doing of Democrats and their intellectual apologists) made those 65 and over into a politically protected class, of which nothing is expected and everything is given.  At 66, I am not against older Americans. I don't want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. But I do want these programs modernized — to reflect longer life expectancy and the elderly's greater wealth; to lighten the burden on the young (whose taxes support these programs, because almost nothing has been "saved" to pay for them); and to protect government's other functions. Finally, it should be possible to discuss these issues candidly, without being accused of "throwing Grandma under the bus."  It isn't now. Democrats' relentless campaigns against Republicans as threatening to "destroy" Social Security and Medicare have succeeded at intimidation   There are no painless cures for deficits. But all cures are unnecessarily hard and harsh because we maintain a protected class excluded from any solution.




Overlooked in the furor surrounding Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal — a plan that wouldn't start until 2023 and even then would affect only new beneficiaries — is a just-published study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggesting that, well, Ryan might be right. The study finds that a voucher-type system might noticeably reduce costs compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

Three Harvard economists, including a prominent fan of the Obama health care overhaul, did the study.

The study compared the costs of traditional Medicare with Medicare Advantage, a voucherlike program that now enrolls about 25% of beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage has cost less for identical coverage. From 2006 to 2009, the gap averaged 11% between traditional Medicare and voucher plans that, under the proposal by Ryan, would serve as a price benchmark.

The central issue here is whether the runaway cost of the health sector, comprising nearly one-fifth of the economy, can be controlled without eroding medical quality. Almost all agree that the delivery system — hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses — should be reorganized to lower the price and eliminate unneeded care. The question is how.

Lower reimbursement rates are the most common form of cost regulation. The ACA cuts $700 billion from Medicare over a decade by slashing payment rates. But reimbursement cuts don't change the delivery system. Providers often react by increasing the volume of services; the system becomes more wasteful. (The Medicare cuts don't actually reduce health spending; they just transfer funds from Medicare to spending mandated by the ACA.)

The rest of the ACA's cost controls are mostly fluff.

Limits must be imposed on the health sector, and the growing evidence from large-scale experience is that market mechanisms offer the best chance of reconciling our desire for choice with cost control. If there are better ideas, let's hear them. Otherwise, don't reject the obvious because it's unfamiliar.  Voucher plans are not right-wing, extremist ideas. They enjoy support in both parties. Ryan would permit continuation of fee-for-service; if it's more efficient and effective, it would survive. If not, its decline would be no great loss. The Ryan plan's greatest defect may be that it doesn't start for a decade. We can't wait that long.




Not that Democrats are more honest. The attack on Romney-Ryan for "ending Medicare as we know it" ignores the unpleasant reality that Medicare as we know it cannot continue.  Fair questions — but here's another fair one, to Democrats and the president: What's your plan? They haven't offered one.




It's up to us to save American healthcare     I'm Dr. Ben Carson, renowned pediatric neurosurgeon and Chairman of American Legacy PAC's Save Our Healthcare Project.  It's clear that Obamacare isn't working for all Americans. It's time to begin crafting a free-market replacement that puts patients first, yielding results we can all be proud of.  But this won't happen by itself.  2014 is our opportunity to elect a new generation of common-sense leaders who understand that their job in Washington is to solve problems - not be part of the problem.  America is the most innovative nation in history, and we must use that creative spirit to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to live longer, healthier lives with less cost and more freedom.  We can do better than Obamacare, and by signing our national petition today, you and I can ensure that this message is received loud and clear by every elected official and candidate in 2014.



Ben Carson:  I wanted to understand your biggest concerns about Obamacare, and while many of you said it was difficult to only choose one, 47 percent of you said that infringements on your privacy and personal freedom is your biggest concern. This was important to know as I gathered my thoughts for my speech.   To thank you, I recorded a short video right before speaking, which you can watch by clicking below. Once there, you can also watch my full speech.  During my talk, I touched on a number of topics, but there was one point that I sought to drive home.  Everyone is familiar with the famous final words of the Star Spangled Banner: “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”  But what we must remind people is that we cannot be free if we are not brave – and right now, no issue requires our bravery more than solving our healthcare challenges, which have only been made worse by Obamacare.  You’ve taken the first step by signing up and getting involved, and the next steps will be to start laying out both the principles from which we will move forward, and the market-based solutions that we believe will best ensure access to quality, affordable healthcare for every American.  Many on the Left would have you believe that people aren’t happy with Obamacare because it doesn’t go far enough. You and I know that isn’t true.  We want a new and better direction that ensures that we are in control of our own healthcare, not politicians and centralized bureaucracies in Washington, D.C.  Again, please take a moment to watch my short video, and thank you for your continued support.

Even if you weren't at last night's event, you can still hear Dr. Carson's interview from yesterday's radio show here.





The American Legacy PAC was formed as an independent organization to help re-establish and protect the American Legacy of individual freedom, personal responsibility and unapologetic opportunity. We will support federal candidates for Congress, Senate and the Presidency who share those values.

American Legacy PAC promotes a vision for America’s future based on the following ideals:

  • A government that is limited serves its people best
  • Tax reduction removes the harnesses of American productivity and is the clearest path to economic growth and stability
  • America’s economic strength derives from entrepreneurship and the free market
  • American exceptionalism is never to be apologized for
  • The American Legacy has been passed down from generation to generation through the strength of our families and our values


we begin to lay out an alternative.  We are thrilled to announce the Save Our Healthcare “Remedy for a Free & Healthy America,” our simple, 5-step plan to replace Obamacare.  Because we want people to have time to learn about and discuss our proposals, we will be releasing our plan as a 5-part video series over the coming weeks.  We start today with Part One: Personal Accounts, Personal Control, which you can watch below in just 2 short minutes.


Rationing: Government-run VA health clinics have been caught falsifying records to hide obscenely long and sometimes deadly delays in treating veterans. Welcome to the future of health care under ObamaCare.  While delays for many of the 6,300 veterans treated at the clinic stretched out for months, clerks there were told to falsify dates so it appeared that everyone was being seen in a timely fashion. Those who didn't play along ended up on a "bad boy list," according to USA Today, which obtained a copy of the report.  This follows a report that 23 veterans relying on the VA died due to delayed cancer screenings. At least 40 others died waiting for appointments at a VA system in Phoenix. A retired VA doctor said many were on a "secret waiting list" designed to hide treatment delays.   But the VA is just operating like other government-run health care systems, which are characterized by shortages, delays and rationingMedicaid too promises access to the poor, but pays doctors so little — less than 40% of what private insurers pay — that nearly a third refuse to take new Medicaid patients. In California, the refusal rate is close to 50%.  Unable to access doctors, or forced to wait interminably for appointments, many end up in hospital ERs.  A study of Oregon's Medicaid program found patients covered by the government insurance program used the ER far more frequently than those who were uninsured, even for ailments a GP would normally handle.  It also found that, despite the massive costs involved in Medicaid, the health outcomes of Oregon's Medicaid patients were no better than a demographically similar pool of the uninsured.  ObamaCare simply builds on this failed model



The lie of the year for 2013 was President Obama’s promise that, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” The lie of the year for 2014 is going to be the claim that ObamaCare would insure the uninsured.  ObamaCare has failed to attract those who lack health insurance, seemingly because they have decided that the premiums are too high for the bare-bones coverage the exchanges offer. In other words, the Affordable Care Act has failed to offer affordable care. Instead, most of ObamaCare’s sign-ups are merely migrating over from an existing health-insurance plan—in many cases involuntarily, after their plans were canceled for failing to comply with new ObamaCare regulations.  So what, then, was the point of ObamaCare?  One of the key architects of the law, Ezekiel Emanuel, has been starting to dish the inside scoop on how ObamaCare was put together, because he has a book to flog. Emanuel gives us one big answer to our question. What was the point of ObamaCare, if not to insure the uninsured? To destroy the insurance companies.  Obamacare was not designed to help the uninsured, it was designed to destroy freedom in medicine, and to bring “change” to the relationship of citizen to government.  We're all subjects now, dependent on insane government elites who have convinced themselves they know what is best about everything.  (They will also use this to register voters to try to build more Democrap voters.)

Obama must think his healthcare law is written on an etch-a-sketch.  Obamacare is never “settled law,” as the president and others have called it, because Health and Human Services (HHS) keeps writing more regulations & delays.




According to a recent Associated Press poll Obamacare has the approval of only a lowly & resounding 26% of the American electorate.  Like Obamacare, all of the major promises that were made with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was implemented by the Volstead Act of 1919, turn out to be lies or to be charitable mistaken.  Prohibition was touted as a victory for public morals and health.  It was neither.  Obamacare was going to let you keep your doctor and your health insurance and lower costs.  It did not.  Like Obamacare, the Congress as well as the ruling class, exempted itself from the law.  Congress liked its’ health insurance and unlike the public got to keep it.  A bootlegger by the name of George Cassiday, also known as the Man in the Green Hat, set up operations in the Cannon House Office Building to supply Congress with what Congress had forbidden for the common folk.  Presidents Wilson and Harding laid in large stores of liquor in the White House.  The supporters of Prohibition also claimed as do the supporters of Obamacare that the law could not be repealed.  Obamacare proponents proclaim the law is here to stay.  It is the law of the land and cannot be repealed.  The psychology of Prohibition supporters was much the same as those of Obamacare proponents.  “Drink is the curse of the low income working class,” was their thought and we enlighten ones are going to fix it for them.  Lack of health insurance is the curse of lower income working class proclaimed the modern day left/Democrats and they proposed to fix it.  As was predicted they made their perceived problem worse in both instances.



Dr. Hotze filed federal suit on May 7, 2013 in Houston Texas.  The case is known as Hotze v. Sebelius.

In the case, Dr. Hotze has made 2 significant constitutional claims against Obamacare:

1 – That it violates Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution known as the Origination Clause.  The Origination clause says that any bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives.  Guess what?  The Affordable Care Act didn’t.  and 2 – Obamacare violates the Takings Clause in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.  The government can’t force you to buy anything, including Obamacare… which is what this clause is set up to protect us from.  This case seems like a cut and dry win… the end of the tyranny that is Obamacare… but that’s not what a Clinton appointed judge said on January 10, 2014.  Federal District Judge Nancy Atlas actually agreed with all of Dr. Hotze’s points… but SOMEHOW STILL FOUND OBAMACARE TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL!

A shocked Dr. Hotze and his legal team immediately appealed to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans.  It is by far the most conservative of the 13 federal circuit courts… but with a ruling like what happened in Houston, who knows what will happen.  This is it.  This is our last solid LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL chance to stop Obamacare.  If this fails, we lose in the courts.    Republicans know this.  That’s why Sen. John Cornyn and Congressman Pete Sessions are writing and circulating an amicus brief in support of Dr. Hotze’s case.

Battle lines have been drawn, the war has been waged and we are ready to take our final stand with Dr. Hotze.  If you want to join the Senators and Congressmen standing with him, please go to www.CitizensAgainstObamacare.com and sign the petition.





CARSON: Political correctness, the rise of Government power & control and the slavery of Obamacare

I have stated in the past that Obamacare is the worst thing to occur in our country since slavery. Why did I make such a strong statement? Obviously, I recognize the horrors of slavery. My roots have been traced back to Africa, and I am aware of some horrendous deeds inflicted on my ancestors in this country.  The purpose of the statement was not to minimize the most evil institution in American history, but rather to draw attention to a profound shift of power from the people to the government.

I think this shift is beginning to wrench the nation from one centered on the rights of individual citizens to one that accepts the right of the government to control even the most essential parts of our lives. This strikes a serious blow to the concept of freedom that gave birth to this nation.  Some well-known radicals have very publicly written and stated that in order for their idea of a utopian, egalitarian society to emerge in the United States, the government must control health care, which ensures the dependency of the populace on government. Historical analysis of many countries that have gone this route demonstrates obliteration of the middle class and massive expansion of the poor, dependent class with a relatively small number of elites in control.  It is time in America for the people to open their eyes to what is happening all around them as our nation undergoes radical changes without so much as a conversation out of fear of being called a name, of facing economically adverse actions or of enduring government harassment, characterized by the perpetrators as “phony scandals.”  Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



Col. Rob Maness (R-LA) -- the SCF-endorsed candidate http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/endorsements     for U.S. Senate in Louisiana -- has outlined a "Freedom Plan for Veterans <http://senateconservatives.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=75124207697efe9a19ed9a724&id=945f3aca97&e=981f5f15f1> " that would implement many of these important reforms.   But unless Americans demand changes, Congress won't make them.   In the next few months, the Senate could consider a VA funding bill that will likely throw more money at the problem. Some courageous conservatives may insist on making real reforms, but they will be relentlessly attacked. Liberals will say they don't care about our veterans.   Freedom-loving Americans need to stand with conservatives in demanding that Congress free our veterans from a failing government health care system so our veterans get the care they deserve.  We also need to insist on the full repeal of Obamacare, which is forcing a failed, government-run health care system on all Americans.   The VA is just another example of Washington-centric approaches letting us down. It’s one of the many reasons that SCF fights for conservative values in Washington and for conservative lawmakers on the campaign trail.




Former Pentagon spokesman J.D. Gordon says that Obama’s priorities are mixed up, saying that he’s taking better care of al Qaeda terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay at GITMO, than our own American veterans who risked their lives fighting for our country (watch video).  Gordon has visited the site where terrorists are held more than 30 times, and told FOX News’ Eric Bolling on Thursday that there are currently approximately 250 detainees being held at the GITMO facility. At the same time, Gordon says there are “about 100 doctors, nurses and healthcare support staff.” Gordon says that the ratio of healthcare workers to detainees at GITMO is by far favorable compared to the our veterans receiving care at the VA: 


Prior to the Senate hearing, in January 2005, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Obama held an emotional meeting with 500 veterans packed into a Chicago hall. The veterans complained about the way the VA was treating them, including waiting for treatment.  In June 2005, Obama and other senators, including Democrats Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein, wrote a letter to Bush demanding his administration provide for the health-care needs of America’s veterans.  The senators wrote that they foresaw a coming crisis.  “As of January 2005, over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 3 and one half years. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) annual mid-year budget review confirmed that many of these soldiers have returned home and are beginning to access the VA health care system in record numbers, placing increased demands on an already overburdened agency. Many of us saw a looming crisis and sought to take steps that would avert it.”



Cheryl Chumley, the author of the upcoming “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming Our Reality.”  “Once again, under the guise of lending a helping hand and protecting American citizens, the federal government is trying to peer into our private lives,” Chumley said. “And really, it’s no surprise. Obamacare truthers warned way back that letting the government get in the health care game would mean the government would eventually need access to our private medical records.




case, brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, is based on the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which requires all tax-raising bills to begin in the U.S. House.  But Obamacare was written in the Senate. Reid simply took an innocuous House bill that already had House approval – which helped veterans get housing – gutted it and replaced its contents with Obamacare.

On Thursday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments on the challenge that would cancel not just an Obamacare mandate or fee, but the entire law.  The case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, focuses on the individual mandate requiring Americans to buy an insurance plan or pay a penalty.  When Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote in 2012 that affirmed Obamacare against a Commerce Clause challenge, the justices labeled the mandate a “tax” to avoid violating the Constitution.  The ruling means more than a dozen provisions in Obamacare are imposing more than $800 billion in new taxes.  The individual mandate alone amounts to a $54 billion tax on individuals over 10 years and $113 billion on business,” Pacific Justice said.  “Yet Obamacare was not enacted in compliance with constitutional procedures for raising taxes.”  The organization points out that Article I, Section 7, requires that legislation to raise revenue must start in the House in order to keep the taxing power close to the people.  “This lawsuit is not just about protecting Americans from Obamacare’s heavy burden of regulations and their threat to the economy and our health care system,” said PLF’s Timothy Sandefur. “Fundamentally, we’re defending the rights of taxpayers – and holding Congress and the president accountable to the Constitution and the rules it sets for enacting new taxes.”  The district court’s June 2013 ruling in the case left a stunning precedent. The court ruled that the individual mandate tax could be arbitrarily exempted from the Origination Clause requirement “on the grounds that the mandate is intended to prod people to buy health plans.”  “There is no precedent for setting aside the Constitution’s procedural requirements for new taxes merely because a tax influences conduct,” said PLF principal attorney Paul J. Beard II. “As the Supreme Court noted in its 2012 Obamacare ruling, every tax has a regulatory purpose. The district court’s doctrine would carve a gaping loophole in the Origination Clause – essentially repealing it through judicial exceptions.”  The plaintiff, Matt Sissel, is a small business owner who chooses to pay medical expenses on his own, holding financial, philosophical and constitutional objections to being ordered to purchase a health plan he does not need or want.  “I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” Sissel said. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”  Earlier, dozens of members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed onto the case, claiming the Senate didn’t have the authority to pass the bill.  They argued taxes only can originate with the House, the representatives closest to the American people.  That requirement is so important, according to the members of Congress, that the Constitution never would have been adopted without it.  According to a brief dozens of House members have filed in the case, the principle “behind the Origination Clause – sometimes phrased as ‘No Taxation Without Representation’ – was the moral justification for our War of Independence.”

Their argument noted that at the 1787 convention, George Mason explained why the Senate was not allowed to raise taxes.

“The Senate did not represent the people, but the states in their political character. It was improper therefore that it should tax the people …



Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has released a comprehensive health care reform plan that ends the Obamacare mess while ensuring protection for Americans with pre-existing conditions.  Obama's victory celebration upon reaching seven million sign-ups for Obamacare by March 31st provides the perfect backdrop for Jindal's comprehensive health care plan that dramatically increases competitive incentives for insurers, reforms medical malpractice laws, and restores patient health care choices.




Most of America already knew the administration has been lobbying television and film writers to promote Obamacare.  President Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, arguably the most powerful woman in America, candidly acknowledged last week why she was in Hollywood.  WND posted video last week of Jarrett saying during an interview, “That’s part of why I’m in L.A. I’m meeting with writers of various TV shows and movies to try to get it (Obamacare) into the scripts.”  (and surely other Atheist  Democrap stuff like abortions, homosexuality, evolution, fairness/socialism/Marxism  etc…)




More GOVERNMENT WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE & CORRUPTIONFour states that WASTED nearly a half-billion dollars in federal TAXPAYER money to build their own state Obamacare exchanges are facing a tough decision — collect even more federal TAXPAYER dollars to salvage their websites or transition over to the federal exchange, scrapping the sites and throwing away the money that has already been spent.  Currently, the federal system serves 36 states, more than the federal health care reform plan had expected, reports Politico. But the sites for the states of Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada and Maryland are all considered failures, and the government must either write them checks to give them a second chance, or for less money include them with other states that use the federal website to service Obamacare plans.  The four states alone have already used some $474 million to build their own healthcare exchanges, and the TAXPAYER money lost could climb even higher if other states with failed exchanges, such as those in Minnesota and Hawaii, are added in.   The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates the federal government has approved $4.698 billion since 2011 for states to to create their own exchanges.  Oregon's state health care exchange has been troubled by glitches since it opened last Oct. 1, and in April, the Cover Oregon board voted to move the exchange over to the federal government, scrapping it after $303 million was spent.   Do you really want the GOVERNMENT running our healthcare?  This is why the Founders limited the Federal Gov’t by our Constitution, if it would be upheld, enforced & protected..


Democrats initiated a phony compromise with President Obama who signed a toothless Executive Order (which conflicts with the law, and is unenforceable in court) to give them top-cover to claim they're not funding abortion, when the law they all passed specifically stated on page 117:  "(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved."  [That's a direct quote from the law they passed.]  In other words, Democrats lied when they claimed to prevent public tax-payer funding of abortion, and mandated private funding of abortion (as if that should be allowed either). And Planned Parenthood clearly lied in their analysis of the law, when they claimed "forcing individuals to write two separate checks (both of which are out of private funds) and requiring health plans to administer two different payments of private funds is not necessary to insure public funds are not used for abortion care."  No public funds?  Really?  They lied, plain and simple, because the law quoted above now reads ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED through the Department of Health and Human Services, subsidizing child-killing of innocents with your tax-dollars, so welfare-moms can kill their child for a $12 co-pay, while Planned Parenthood gets rich charging YOU thousands of tax dollars against your will.  No wonder both Stupak and Nelson were labeled traitors by every credible pro-life group in America.   But the horrible Obamacare law remains law, until we help repeal it.  So let's get it done.   SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION, AND WE WILL FAX ALL 535 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE AUTOMATICALLY (saving you time!) TO REPEAL OBAMACARE, STOP FUNDING ABORTION AND DEATH PANELS  Friends, our nation stands in the midst of a spiritual war to save or destroy unborn babies and the elderly. You and I stand in this battle together.  We must stand strong!  





VA Scandal-Obamacare:  What is making headlines now has long been known in other nations with national healthcare systems. It is about control & rationing, not dispensing care; if for no other reason that is why healthcare should remain in the private sector.  Unless a future Congress repeals Obamacare, the death toll will mount. There have been some forty or more pieces of legislation to repeal it passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. No Republican voted for Obamacare when it was introduced.  What we know is that, while serving on the oversight committee, then-Senator Obama was aware of the VA problems before he ran for President. In 2009, as President, he promised veterans to fix the problems. How concerned is he in 2014? There has been a noticeable lack of public comment from a President famed for having something to say about everything that makes headlines.  Add the VA scandal to the long list of Obama administration scandals from the IRS to Benghazi, but it is Obamacare that has already been a monumental failure and, as we begin to receive news of those who will die as because a local hospital closed or because they lost the care of a personal physician familiar with their problem, it will emerge as the greatest scandal of his presidency.



The VA problem is not just Shinseki; it’s socialism. The Veterans Affairs health care system is completely government run. It is a pure single-payer program.

Despite rampant allegations of veterans stuck in limbo waiting for care (Gov’t Death Panel by delay), hundreds of jobs remain unfilled at the Department of Veterans Affairs — including at some of the very locations where doctors supposedly were too short-staffed to see patients.  A search by FoxNews.com on Friday of the USA Jobs federal employment website showed more than 1,080 current vacancies in health-related fields at the VA. A search of the words “VA” and “physician” yielded 167 jobs openings with top-range salaries of roughly $295,000 a year. There are 18 openings alone in the Phoenix VA Health Care System – the same one facing allegations that up to 40 people died while waiting for treatment.


More Democrap Lies exposed:  Actually, according to government statistics, there are far fewer veterans in the VA.  According to the VA, the number of vets declined by 4.3 million from 2000 to 2013.  Democrats such as Pelosi claim more money is the solution.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, “If the VA does not have enough doctors to see these patients, then these problems are a result of a lack of funding.”  But spending on the VA actually tripled from 2010 to 2013.  John Merline at Investor’s Business Daily crunched the numbers and found the VA’s budget has been exploding, even as the number of veterans steadily declines.  Even more telling, wounded warriors coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are not increasing treatment costs.  Those vets are actually far cheaper to treat than aging vets.  In fact, the costs of treating veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is almost half of what it cost to treat other vets.  A Congressional Budget Office report found that the younger vets cost $4,800, on average, in 2010 compared with $8,800 for other veterans who used the system.  It also found, while the Iraq and Afghan vets account for 7 percent of patients treated, they were responsible for only 4 percent of health costs.  VA officials reportedly warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the wait times the facilities were reporting were not trustworthy.

More recently, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., wrote a letter to Obama on May 21, 2013, that warned of “an alarming pattern of serious and significant patient care issues at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) across the country … (including) failures, deceptions, and lack of accountability permeating VA’s healthcare system. Miller concluded: “I believe your direct involvement and leadership is required.”   immense problems with government-run healthcare at the VA are a preview of such horrors as death panels under the Affordable Care Act.

Similarly, John Fund wrote in National Review that the VA scandal was “a warning sign of what could happen as the pressure to ration, inherent in all government-managed health care, is applied to the general population via Obamacare.”

Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., who served as a physician at the prestigious Johns Hopkins Hospital and as a medical officer in the Naval Reserve, makes the case for health-care vouchers so vets can opt out of the VA health system, calling it “the real free-market solution for helping our veterans.”



some people were boosting the VA's government-run nature as a plus. Writing in the Washington Post during the debate over Obamacare, Ezra Klein suggested that we should expand VA coverage to non-veterans, because the government just does health care better than the private sector: "Medicare is single-payer, but VA is actually socialized medicine, where the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. ... If you ordered America's different health systems (from) worst-functioning to best, it would look like this: individual insurance market, employer-based insurance market, Medicare, Veterans Health Administration."  A couple of years later, in 2011, Klein hailed the VA health system as an example of "when socialism works in America": "The thing about the Veteran's (Affairs') health-care system? It's socialized. Not single-payer. Not heavily centralized. Socialized. As in, it employs the doctors and nurses. Owns the hospitals. . . . If I could choose my health-care reform, I don't think I'd go as far towards government control as the VA does. But the program is one of the most remarkable success stories in American public policy, and it needs to be grappled with."  Now that the VA has erupted in scandals involving phony wait lists, and people dying because of treatment delays, an audit reveals a "systemic lack of integrity" in the system. According to the auditors, "Information indicates that in some cases, pressures were placed on schedulers to utilize inappropriate practices in order to make waiting times appear more favorable."  In other words, they cooked the books. And what's more, they did it to ensure bigger "performance bonuses." The performance may have been fake, but the bonuses were real. (One whistle-blower compared the operation to a "crime syndicate.")  And that captures an important point. People sometimes think that government or "nonprofit" operations will be run more honestly than for-profit businesses because the businesses operate on the basis of "greed." But, in fact, greed is a human characteristic that is present in any organization made up of humans.




Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who said it’s clear “high crimes and misdemeanors” were committed in Obama’s deal with terrorists, also talked of impeachment.  “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, outlines multiple grounds for action that could be taken against Obama.  Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!

The impeachment drive has been fueled by Georgetown professor Jonathan Turley’s congressional testimony.  The liberal professor has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.  In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton reports that the impeachment process in the U.S. Constitution is, in important respect, modeled after the procedures of the British government




This past weekend the New York Times reported on a major new study on Medicaid that discovered that "surgery patients covered by Medicaid arrive at the hospital in worse health, experience more complications, stay longer and cost more than patients with private insurance."  The eye-opening study, by the University of Michigan Health System, examined results of 14,000 Michigan patients who had operations in 2012 and 2013. Compared to those with private insurance, Medicaid patients:  Had 50% higher average hospital stay costs.  • Were two-thirds more likely to have complications.  • Were more than twice as likely to die after surgery.  The study found that Medicaid patients are more likely to choose expensive care, such as high use of emergency-room visits, are in worse health than the overall population and receive lower-quality care.  The other big scandal is the near-criminal negligence of patients at Veterans Affairs hospitals.  We would all hope that the men and women who serve our country and suffer from combat injuries would be given the highest quality of care available.  Instead, it's nearly the worst. Waiting times for surgery can be more than five months. Mortality rates are higher than in private hospitals. Dozens of veterans have died waiting for surgery, perhaps as many as 40 in the Phoenix area alone. Even Obama's defense secretary has called this outcome "outrageous."  Health care expert Peter Ferrara aptly calls Medicaid "the worst health insurance system in the industrialized world."  The new University of Michigan study exposes what these patients are in for. The scandalously poor treatment at the VA and in Medicaid are reminders that there is a big difference between giving people health insurance and giving them high-quality medical care.  ObamaCare should come with a warning label: Government health care can be hazardous to your health.


It looks like voters aren't the only ones who resent ObamaCare. The restaurant industry can't stomach the health care law either. In a long piece for the Wall Street Journal, chains from Quiznos to Dunkin' Donuts talk about how devastating ObamaCare is to business. Several franchise owners had to put their plans for expansion on hold after 2010, when Congress passed the monstrous law. With the burden of covering more employees (or facing penalties), some chains are either dropping health care options--or employees. Judy Nichols, who operates a Papa John's in Texas, says she has two options. "I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could keep my number of staff under 50 so the mandate doesn't apply. ObamaCare is making me think about cutting jobs instead." At McDonald's, stores are bracing for a $10,000-$30,000 hit at each of its 14,000 stores.  Several company heads converged on Congress last week to complain, but many fear it may be too late. Papa John's CEO John Schnatter says his business has no choice but to pass the costs on to customers. The company is planning to raise prices on pizza, which is just a preview of things to come in other restaurants--most of which are already struggling with the dip in sales. Unfortunately, this is a classic study in the effects of big government. No matter how you slice it, the more Washington grows, the less our economy can.



Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the regulation earlier this year.



The Canadian experience shows that block grants can improve the quality of government health benefits, so long as they are structured properly. Liberals laud Canadian Medicare (Canada's health insurance program, not to be confused with the American program for seniors) for its single-payer structure and universal access, but they should note Canada's health plan for all is actually run by provincial governments and funded through block grants, the mechanism Ryan now proposes for Medicaid.

Under its block-grant system, the federal government of Canada provides provincial and territorial governments with a single large sum every year to fund Medicare, and they administer the program according to a set of baseline requirements. Once they meet the federal baseline, however, they are free to innovate and get the most for their residents' money.  By fixing the maximum federal contribution, block grants offer Canada's provincial and territorial governments far better incentives to reduce the cost and improve the quality of the medical services they purchase. When costs rise, the provinces that run the programs are forced to pay 100 percent of the added costs at the margin, unlike in the U.S., where state governments pay an average of 43 cents at the margin for every dollar of added Medicaid expense.

Decentralized administration gives provinces the flexibility and the accountability to design their programs according to their needs and particular local challenges, rather than federal "one-size-fits-none" imposition. It also creates opportunities for innovation. By sharing notes, provinces and territories learn from one another and improve their Medicare programs.  Canada has been using block grants for 35 years. After several years of ruinously high growth in Medicare expenses during the 1970s, their federal government abandoned a 50-50 cost-sharing plan in 1977. Through the Canada Health Transfer program, which gives states some money directly and some through tax-shifting agreements, Canadian provinces and territories receive equal per capita aid, regardless of actual health care expenditure.




SNL nails Obama and his Democrats’ scandal filled presidency!




Obamacare: Death & Taxes in One Convenient Package T-Shirt



Breitbart)- Washington DC talk show host Chris Plante reported today that Barack Obama omitted the words “under God” from the Gettysburg Address when reciting the great speech for a Ken Burns documentary.

Burns had filmed all living presidents as well as various Hollywood personalities and luminaries to pay homage to the speech which was delivered by Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago, today.


Plante broke the story on Washington DC talk radio station WMAL on his mid-morning program, “The Chris Plante Show.”

WMAL reports:  Curiously enough, in his version of the speech, President Barack Obama’s delivery contained an omission – in a line that every other celebrity delivered as “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” the President left out the words “under God.”





Muller, who knew Obama in Chicago before he became president, said Lennix told him that, “He was the actor hired to teach Obama to be Harry Lennix – watch The Blacklist and you can see Obama – this is an actor that we hired in our president.”

“He’s leaving our studio and sees a cut-out of Obama and says ‘he’s a rat bastard’ – oh because I’m black I have to like Obama,” said Muller.  “He says, Mancow do I remind you of him?….Barack Obama is me, you’ve seen me on TV, you’ve seen me on movies, he is me.”  Mancow says Lennix told him, “He mimicked me, he followed me for years, and they wanted me to train him and teach him how to act….like a an educated south side African-American,” adding that Lennix thought Obama was “very stupid” and had “been taught to act like this.”  Mancow’s producer, who also witnessed the conversation, confirmed its veracity and added that Lennix said the only person who knows Obama better than him is Michelle Obama.  Mancow expressed the hope that he wouldn’t get Lennix in trouble for revealing the conversation, fearing that the actor could now face an audit. He also revealed that Lennix said he knew Obama would be president from at least 1998 if not earlier.  Anyone familiar with Lennix’s body language and general behavior will notice the remarkable resemblance between his demeanor and that of Barack Obama. As this photo illustrates, the two met when Obama was a Senator-elect back in 2005.  Given that one of the few things Obama has received widespread plaudits for since he came to office is his slick adeptness at reading a teleprompter, the claim doesn’t seem that outrageous.




On Sunday, appearing on ABC’s This Week with fill-in host Martha Raddatz, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) admitted that Democrats knew full well that Americans would be booted from their health insurance plans as an effect of Obamacare implementation.  When asked whether Democrats were misled by President Obama about whether Americans would be able to keep their plans in the individual insurance market, Gillibrand answered: “He should’ve just been specific. No, we all knew.”

She added that the whole point of Obamacare was to “covering things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy.” The redistributive nature of Obamacare, Gillibrand stated, was the point of the program; anyone claiming ignorance, therefore, is not telling the truth.


New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand admitted that Obama and every Democrat in the Senate lied about ObamaCare. She admitted that she lied to her constituents when she ran for re-election.

And so did every other Democrat who said “If you like your health care, you can keep it.” They knew ObamaCare would destroy health care coverage for millions of Americans. But they lied and covered for Obama anyway.

Sign the petition to demand the liars be held accountable.




Allen B. West Rips President Obama’s Credibility: “He Should Resign”

From Common Core to Obamacare, to Benghazi and Middle East stability, Barack Obama’s credibility rating with the American people has slipped down to an all time low. FNC’s Tucker Carlson interviews Col. Allen B. West who weighs in with his own suggestion as to how the President needs to come clean and admit his mistakes and should consider stepping down from office.



All the game-playing, rule-breaking, cheating and deception tactics are laid out as never before in November's groundbreaking issue of Whistleblower, titled "THE OBAMA GAMES: From stimulus to shutdown, how the president constantly cons Americans."




Sean Hannity lit the firecracker when he asked Ireland if she knew how many forms of birth control Hobby Lobby already provided to their employees before the landmark Supreme Court decision on Monday. Ireland admitted that she hadn’t a clue. “No I don’t know,” she answered Hannity, while claiming that the Christian family-owned arts and crafts chain wanted to ban some “of the most effective forms of birth control” because of their religious business. Ireland continued the Marxist meme that big government should trump the First Amendment.  Sixteen out of twenty that were mandated that Hobby Lobby not only provided already, but they were providing birth control to their employees, who they paid way above minimum wage by the way, and gave Sundays off; they were doing this before Obamacare was even a thought,” Dana Loesch explained to the uninformed Ireland. 
The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which back then was passed 97 to 3 by nearly all Democrats in the U.S. Senate & signed by Bill Clinton.  Today only the 42 Republicans defend Christianity; what are the Democraps defending now?




I don’t understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis,” Frank said, then added:  But, frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn’t true. And you shouldn’t lie to people. And they just lied to people.




The plaintiffs in the little-known case, Halbig v. Sebelius or Halbig v. Burwell,  allege that these subsidies were illegal because Obamacare only permitted tax credits to be given to people who had bought insurance from the 14 individual states with their own exchanges, as well as the District of Colombia, not federal exchanges.  CNBC reported that 90 percent of enrollees in the federal exchanges qualified for subsidies due to their low or moderate incomes. The Affordable Care Act could go into a tailspin, before finally crashing and burning, if the courts now rule that those credits are illegal.   Adds CNBC: "Take away those subsidies and many, if not most, of the enrollees on HealthCare.gov might not buy insurance next year because they will find it unaffordable at the full premium price."  "That, in turn, could create a much-feared 'death spiral,' where insurance pools have too many sick enrollees and not enough young healthy ones, and premium rates skyrocket."  Mangan also pointed out that if individuals in the states covered by HealthCare.gov cannot receive subsidies, it would also mean that the government would not be able to force businesses in those same states to provide affordable healthcare insurance to their employees under the threat of federal fines.  The so-called employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act is tied to the availability of subsidies for workers seeking individual insurance, CNBC said in explaining how Obamacare could collapse like a house of cards.  Source: Jonathan Turley, "Get Ready for an Even Bigger Threat to Obamacare," Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2014.



Under section 36B, subsidies are available only for plans ‘enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA]’… Of the three elements of that provision — (1)an Exchange (2)established by the State (3)under section 1311 — federal Exchanges satisfy only two: they are Exchanges established under section 1311. Nothing in section 1321 deems federally-established Exchanges to be ‘Exchange[s] established by the State.’”

The potential trouble for Obamacare opponents going forward may be that even the D.C. Circuit agrees with elements (1) and (3), that federal exchanges are exchanges established under section 1311. As far as textual analysis goes, then, everything will hinge on item (2), that they must be established by a state to qualify for subsidies, right?  This author happens to believe there is no ambiguity at all — “established by [a] state” means what it says — but then again, who would have thought that a penalty that Congress and the President explicitly intended not to be a tax would be treated as a tax by the courts?




We have two bites, both from January 18th, 2012, Falls Church, Virginia.  This is during a Q&A.  evidence from the man considered to be the actual architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare. His name is Jonathan Gruber.  He's a framer.  He's one of the founders of Obamacare.  He's a framer.  He's an MIT economics professor, and in a 2012 video the architect of Obamacare stated unequivocally that subsidies are not available in states that don't set up their own exchanges.  Furthermore (exactly as I told you earlier in the week), this was done to put pressure on Republican governors.  There were 36 states that did not sign on to Obamacare and did not set up their own exchanges. So these guys were running around thinking that they had scored a major political victory because they thought that every American would want a subsidy. And when they found out that they weren't gonna get a subsidy because their governor didn't sign on, that this would be very bad for their governor (which is a Republican) and they would get rid of him.  it was put in purposefully so as to hopefully do political damage to Republican governors for not setting up exchanges.  There were many Republican governors who said, "We can't afford this.  "We can't afford to take on the burden of Medicare, and we cannot afford the burden of providing subsidies. 


a 2012 video has since surfaced indicating that Gruber told an audience, "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits."  Another 2012 recording has also emerged of Gruber making similar comments, both of which may have been an attempt to try to "squeeze" the states into establishing their own exchanges, according to Politico.  Politico said Gruber's 2012 comments "demolish" the administration's case against Halbig.  "When the chief architect of the [Affordable Care Act] admits it withholds tax credits in uncooperative states, that establishes that the plaintiffs' interpretation of the statute in Halbig was not only plausible but that it had currency among the law's authors," Politico said.


First, a fact. Obamacare's legislative text reads that tax subsidies administered by the IRS to help Americans pay for health insurance they are federally mandated to purchase reads that those tax subsidies will only apply to people who purchase coverage from insurance exchanges "established by the State." An exchange "established by the State" refers to state-run health insurance exchanges, established in ACA section 1311, as opposed to federally-run exchanges, established in ACA section 1321. The legislative language is pretty clear.    PELOSI’S PASS THE LAW TO FIND OUT WHAT IS IN IT!  Max Baucus (D-Montana), chair of the Senate Finance Committee through which the health bill flowed, insisted that reading the law wasn't necessary.   “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the healthcare bill,” Baucus said, according to the Flathead Beacon.   One of the "experts" that helped write the law was Jonathan Gruber, an MIT health expert who also helped write Massachusetts' similar law. Gruber, in 2012, said that it was actually important that subsidies didn't apply to federally-run exchanges - and that it would be an incentive for states to set them up. 




For the past four years, Obama’s administration has been desperately trying to reconcile their law with reality — continually making “changes as needed” to its language, in the words of senior Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.   This ongoing, arbitrary rewriting was necessary to make Obamacare viable — and to prevent massive Democratic losses in the 2014 elections due to the consequences of its implementation.  The only problem? Such rewriting is flagrantly unconstitutional.  As much as they may wish it otherwise, Obama and his hundreds of thousands of administrative minions are constitutionally bound to enforce this law as it is written.   And the same goes for the rest of the federal code.  That means there can be no tax hikes or subsidies in the thirty-six states that explicitly rejected Obamacare’s exchanges.  But this decision is bigger than any one law — or provision of law.  If Obama can arbitrarily presume the intent of Congress to suit his ideological or political ends — then what’s to stop future leaders from doing the same?  And what’s to stop any American from deciding which laws they will follow?  This ruling will determine once and for all whether America is a nation of laws — or just another failed nation teetering on the edge of anarchy.

Government-run health care for 8 million veterans has led to negligence, disrespect, and in some cases, even death.  If the federal government can't handle health care for 8 million veterans, how can we possibly expect it to run a safe and effective health care system for 300 million Americans?
Government-run health care has proven to be a bad deal for veterans, and will undoubtedly be a bad deal for all Americans if we don't stop ObamaCare in its tracks right away.  As a personal favor for me, please watch and share
this short video. These veterans risked their lives to serve our country, and their stories deserve to be heard.  If you're ready to take the next step, you can send a message to your legislators right now, urging them to take a stand against ObamaCare before it's too late.



Obamacare Death & Delay Panel:  Linda Rolain was among 150 Nevadans suing the contractor Xerox for lack of coverage. She is the first to die of complications from an illness, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  “We are worried that this is the first of many Nevadans who have life-threatening issues that may end up in such tragic circumstances,” Rolain’s lawyers said in a statement.  Rolain was diagnosed with the tumor in early 2014 and was unable to receive treatment for months because of enrollment problems with the state’s Obamacare exchange, Nevada Health Link, Rolain’s husband Robert said in a June press conference.  Robert Rolain said his wife’s tumor went from treatable to fatal as they awaited coverage. Following multiple enrollment issues, the couple bought insurance through Xerox. The plan was supposed to begin in March, but Xerox miscommunicated its start date so the couple didn’t know they had coverage until May, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  Las Vegas insurance broker Pat Casale, who helped Rolain with the enrollment issues, told the Review-Journal that he knows multiple people who are “in serious need of care” but aren’t receiving it despite the fact that they’ve paid premiums.  Casale blames the delayed coverage for Rolain’s death.  “This poor lady was told in January that she needed immediate attention,” Casale said. “Her doctor said if she had begun treatment in March, he might been able to give her quality of care, and she might have lived longer. She had no chance because of the delay.”




ObamaFRAUD:  An undercover operation disclosed on Wednesday shows just how easy it is to defraud ObamaCare. This is your health care on government.  To test administration claims that it had strict controls in place to verify eligibility and subsidy amounts for ObamaCare applicants, the Government Accountability Office sent a dozen people out to try enrolling with made-up identities. All but one of the 12 succeeded in enrolling in a subsidized ObamaCare plan. Even for government, a 92% failure rate is awfully bad. In cases where the testers couldn't get past the identity check using an online application, they were still able to enroll over the phone.  The scale of the problem is potentially massive. According to the GAO, 4.3 million ObamaCare applications have known "inconsistencies" — most of which involve questions about citizenship or income. Only 650,000 of these — or 15% — have been cleared.


A major problem is that many people in our entitlement society see nothing wrong with forcing others to provide for their desires. In a free and open society, anyone should be able to purchase anything they want that is legal. It really should be no one else’s business. Common sense dictates, however, that it immediately becomes my business if I’m being forced to pay for it. Wouldn’t it be fairer and make more sense for people wanting some form of birth control to pay for it themselves? This is exactly what would happen if everyone had access to their own health savings account. A woman and her health care provider would decide on a birth-control method, and the cost would be deducted from her account with no involvement of anyone else in any way. It’s so simple, and upholds privacy and freedom.  Health savings accounts can be funded in a variety of different ways and give people total control of where, how and with whom they wish to spend their health care dollars. Most people will want to get the biggest bang for the buck and will independently seek out both value and quality. That, in turn, will bring all aspects of medicine into the free-market economic model, thus automatically having an ameliorating effect on pricing transparency and quality of outcomes.  Many corporations and communities already have very positive experiences with health savings accounts. Those experiences could be further enhanced by allowing family members to shift the money in their accounts among themselves. For instance, if a family member was $500 short for a procedure or test, another family member could provide the money by authorizing its deduction from his account. This provides a whole other level of flexibility to the concept of health savings. The overwhelming majority of encounters with the medical world could be handled through this type of system, eliminating bureaucratic delays and frustration.  The 5 percent of patients with complex pre-existing or acquired maladies would need to be taken care of through a different system, similar to Medicare and Medicaid, but informed by the many mistakes in those programs from which we can learn. Even this kind of system should have elements of personal responsibility woven into it.  The bottom line: Health care for all of our citizens is the responsibility of a compassionate society and is well within our grasp if we don’t make it into a political football. The majority of Americans are unhappy with Obamacare and would prefer something that is simple, effective and under their own control. We do not have to settle for something imposed upon us   Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/carson-better-than-obamacare/#ixzz36yvPomjX
Follow us:
@washtimes on Twitter




The New American recently profiled the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (SCO), a health care facility that has challenged and debunked the claim that free markets and health care do not mix. Founded 17 years ago by two anesthesiologists, Keith Smith and Steven Lantier, the facility does something remarkable in today's health care market: it provides transparent, up-front, all-inclusive pricing for its services.  SCO's founders were frustrated by the fact that pricing and quality in the American health care system were not the product of free competition but the product of deals between hospitals and insurance companies. Five years ago, SCO decided to post their prices online -- a stark illustration of just how much most consumers overpay in health care costs:

  • The national average cost of a mastectomy is between $9,000 and $50,000. But SCO offers a mastectomy for $5,005, saving consumers between $3,995 and $44,995.
  • A spinal fusion costs an average of $50,000 to $150,000. But at SCO, the procedure costs just $16,500.
  • Similarly, a hip replacement runs $40,000 at most hospitals. At SCO, the procedure costs $19,400.

On top of this, SCO boasts a near-zero infection rate -- a rate which ranges between 4 percent and 10 percent at other hospitals across the United States.  Dr. Smith told the New American that he thinks that the high prices of Obamacare may inadvertently create a new consumer market that will transform the American health care system back to an affordable system "where insurance wasn't even necessary for the most part."  Source: William F. Jasper, "Healthcare's Free Market Alternative," New American, June 24, 2014.



the Obama administration never takes either into account when it comes to their agenda of sexual tyranny. As he has for six years, President Obama's team insisted that the "right" to sex-on-demand trumps Americans' First Freedom, The First Amendment, argued attorneys at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, isn't exclusive to individuals. It applies to organizations too.   Hobby Lobby made an announcement about their Supreme Court victory on their Facebook page.  Today the Supreme Court ruled against ObamaCare and produced a narrow win for freedom. While the ruling in favor of individual liberty wasn't as broad as many had hoped for, the 5-4 decision in the historic Hobby Lobby case does chip away at the government’s authority to impose regulations on private businesses.  As the Court's decision makes headlines around the country, it’s important to realize how our judicial system influences our lives in very real ways. The judicial branch is just as important as the executive and legislative branches, and yet very few Americans pay attention to how it operates.  FreedomWorks wants to change that. That’s why we just launched our Judicial Reform Project to shine light on the shadows of our Court System.



Obama hit the milestone number of 150 golf rounds in less than five years in the White House.

Never having to run for office again has given Mr. Obama a free pass to spend every weekend on the golf course. So far in 2013, he has already passed his 2011 record with a total of 39 rounds of golf, as of today. This includes his whopping 27 holes played in one day at The Courses at Andrews Air Force Base on Sept. 14.

Mr. Obama’s supporters get enraged whenever I tweet or write about my tracking his golf games. They defend him by either saying everyone needs a break or comparing the golf outings to President George W. Bush’s time at his Texas ranch.  However, Mr. Bush stopped playing golf in Aug. 2003 out of respect for the families of servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has shown no such feeling of inappropriateness.

Even if you compare number of rounds up to that point in the first term, Mr. Obama had played three times the number of times as Mr. Bush — 76 to 29 rounds.  The difference in cutting brush in Texas and Mr. Obama’s form of relaxation is that golf is an elitist pastime that few can afford in expense or time, especially in this prolonged economic downturn.




Of Plymouth Plantation: Bradford's History of the Plymouth Settlement 1608-1650 should be required reading for every American.  Of Plymouth Plantation is an original source document. It is Governor William Bradford's eyewitness account

in 1620, the Pilgrims tried the Obama way, socialism - and utterly failed at it. For a short time, the colony raised crops (at the insistence of the Massachusetts Bay Company) as a community. And "surprise" ... it did NOT work.




Discovering that his fourth written copy could not be used, Lincoln then wrote a fifth draft, which was accepted for the purpose requested. The Bliss copy,[e] named for Colonel Alexander Bliss, Bancroft's stepson and publisher of Autograph Leaves, is the only draft to which Lincoln affixed his signature. Lincoln is not known to have made any further copies of the Gettysburg Address. Because of the apparent care in its preparation, and in part because Lincoln provided a title and signed and dated this copy, it has become the standard version of the address and the source for most facsimile reproductions of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

It is the version that is inscribed on the South wall of the Lincoln Memorial.[33]

This draft is now displayed in the Lincoln Room of the White House, a gift of Oscar B. Cintas, former Cuban Ambassador to the United States.[41] Cintas, a wealthy collector of art and manuscripts, purchased the Bliss copy at a public auction in 1949 for $54,000 ($530,000 as of 2013), at that time the highest price ever paid for a document at public auction.[49] Cintas' properties were claimed by the Castro government after the Cuban Revolution in 1959, but Cintas, who died in 1957, willed the Gettysburg Address to the American people, provided it would be kept at the White House, where it was transferred in 1959.[50]

Garry Wills concluded the Bliss copy "is stylistically preferable to others in one significant way: Lincoln removed 'here' from 'that cause for which they (here) gave...' The seventh 'here' is in all other versions of the speech." Wills noted the fact that Lincoln "was still making such improvements," suggesting Lincoln was more concerned with a perfected text than with an 'original' one.[citation neededFrom November 21, 2008 to January 1, 2009, the Albert H. Small Documents Gallery at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History hosted a limited public viewing of the Bliss copy, with the support of Mrs. Laura Bush. The Museum also launched an online exhibition and interactive gallery to enable visitors to look more closely at the document.[51]  http://americanhistory.si.edu/documentsgallery/exhibitions/gettysburg_address_1.html         


Lincoln’s words have endured for all who embrace the promise "that this nation, under God, 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."





For the first time since the Civil War, U.S. counties have voted to instruct their elected officials to pursue the possibility of forming a 51st state.  Residents of five Colorado counties voted Tuesday in favor of the resolutions.

The issue was on the ballot in 11 counties, but at the end of the night Philips, Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Yuma and Washington Counties voted in favor, while Weld, Logan, Elbert, Sedgwick, Lincoln and Moffat counties voted against the idea.  “This is an important moment for liberty,” said Jeffrey Hare, founder of the 51st state initiative. “We have five counties in this state that have said they want to exercise their rights under the state constitution and secede.”

Colorado has a strong statement in its constitution saying the people have the right to abolish the government anytime they believe it is necessary. Article II of the Colorado constitution says:  “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.”  The wording is particularly significant, because Colorado became a state in 1876, 11 years after the end of the Civil War.  The movement has inspired residents in other states to consider similar measures. In California, residents in some northern counties are attempting to secede from the state and form a new state of Jefferson. Residents of other states have also contacted county officials asking about the possibility of starting their own secession movements.  Earlier they used Article XXI to recall from office two Democratic state senators who voted in favor of a series of gun control laws that were among the strictest in the nation. The recall was the first time the constitutional provision had ever been utilized.





the word “affordable” is a misnomer. So far, all you are hearing on the news is how everyone’s premiums are doubling and tripling and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that the whole thing is a big mess. Plus, even after Obamacare is fully implemented, there still will be tens of millions of people not covered. So what’s the point? Medical care will be degraded, the costs will skyrocket, and most frightening of all, your most intimate and personal information is now up for grabs.

So, is affordable care a good thing for retirees? Perhaps over time, it might work if you don’t get too old and you don’t get too sick, and you don’t live too long. But frankly, the economic ramifications with our already swollen debt load don’t add up. Retirees who are on Medicare will suffer the consequences of 700 billions of Medicare dollars instead being used to cover the skyrocketing cost of Obamacare. In essence, less dollars for seniors, means less service. Not fair. The Boomers are going to take the “hit.” In Obamacare, “too old” has limitations of service.  Boomers are smart. They see the train wreck coming… most I speak with think the Affordable Care Act is a greater Ponzi scheme than that pulled off by Bernie Madoff.



Bill Clinton said, "I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got."

Bill told Ozy, the new liberal news site launched by some of the Clintons’ friends and allies.


Meanwhile, an administration that seeks to transform American health care cannot run a website — a breathtaking gap between ambition and competence. And its responses to failure — denial, defensiveness and secrecy — have been as discrediting to ObamaCare as any technical breakdown.  At the same time Republicans seem uninterested in governing, Democrats seem incapable of it. It is little wonder that only 19% of Americans trust the federal government to do what's right — a 7-point drop since January.   This is clearly, as I've argued, bad news for liberalism, which requires a modicum of trust in government in order to operate. Does anyone believe the failed launch of ObamaCare has increased the chances for passage of a federal law guaranteeing universal preschool education or further regulating greenhouse gas emissions?

A government fiasco is not the prelude to a more comprehensive government takeover. ObamaCare creates a powerful regulatory mechanism (the exchanges) that mandates comprehensive coverage, squeezes all insurance options into four tiers, ends risk-based insurance and replaces it with a system that is less attractive to healthy people, who then have to be compelled to participate.  Most conservative approaches, in contrast, would offer a flat, universal credit to everyone who doesn't get coverage from a large employer — a credit set high enough to purchase catastrophic coverage with no out-of-pocket premium costs. People who currently have no insurance would be protected from catastrophic expenses at no personal expense. Everyone else could, as they now do, add on to that amount — through employer contributions or their own money — to get more comprehensive coverage with higher premiums. This approach would cover more people than ObamaCare, which is likely to leave 30 million Americans uninsured.  Conservatives do not (or should not) oppose ObamaCare because they want fewer Americans to receive health care. But making this clear requires an alternative that covers more people at a lower cost, without all the regulations, taxes and mandates of the current system.  On this issue, and others, Americans will be more likely to trust Conservative, Tea Party Republicans to govern when they demonstrate an interest in governing.


obama in his own words over the years…master plan on DEMOCRAT health care


President Obama Wants A Single Payer Health Care System like the Unsustainable Medicare/Medicaid that is going BANKRUPT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhEX3rHssJI


Mandate people to buy health insurance is like Mandate everyone to buy a house to cure homelessness


Page 16 of Obamacare under Orwellian speak destroys individual health policies, You will NOT be able to keep your health plan if you like it as promised…Obama/Democrats Lying to America standard operating procedure.


Valerie Jarrett tweets out, "Well, we didn't force you off your plan.  Your insurance company does."  This is just sophistry.  This is just mendacious.  There's no other way to describe this.  They are forcing everybody to change what they're doing in order to comply with this law, insurance companies included.  (just like GOVT coerced subprime mortgages from banks w/ HUD mandates, CRA, Freddie & Fannie; the GOVT is the PROBLEM)




Referring to a section of the gargantuan Obamacare law which discusses “the president’s own commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps,” Gohmert drew attention to the notion that under the pretext of a “national emergency,” such individuals could be used to impose some form of medical martial law.  Under the Affordable Care Act, the Ready Reserve Corps is directed to “assist full-time Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.”  “It says it is for international health crises, but then it doesn’t include the word ‘health’ when it talks about national emergencies,” said Gohmert.  “I’ve asked, what kind of training are they getting….I want to know are they are they using weapons to train, or are they being taught to use syringes and health care items?” asked the Congressman, adding that “no clear answers” had been forthcoming on the issue.”  Combined with the continued DHS arms build up along with the federal agency’s hiring of armed guards with “Top Secret” security clearances, Gohmert characterized the issue as “very disturbing”.  Accusing the Department of Homeland Security of being wasteful, Gohmert said the DHS’ commitment to purchase over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition was concerning because many of the bullets are hollow point rounds which are not traditionally used for target practice.  “I’ve asked Homeland Security what is the reason for that,” said Gohmert, adding that their response “made no sense” but that he would continue to push for an explanation in Congress.





Obama Now Lying About Lies


If he keeps telling lies will he eventually stumble unto the truth? Doubtful.

“That means that 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’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” – President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009, during the debate over health insurance reform.

Obama denies saying ‘you can keep your health-care plan’ 29 times





Yes, ObamaCare is a disaster of Titanic proportions. After the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov, many are calling for the resignation of Kathleen Sebelius, head of Health and Human Services. In defense of the job that she has done and in an attempt to quash calls for her resignation, Obama’s former chief of staff Bill Daley said in her defense, “calling for the firing of Sebelius would be like calling for Captain Smith to be fired after the Titanic hit the iceberg.”

Interesting comparison considering the epic failure that both will go down as in history.




The LameStream Media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS…etc.)  is NOT covering up for the Democrats this time, why???  Do they know the truth is too BIG with too many people being hurt by the Democrats’ policies and the Big Media knows they will lose what very  little credibility it has as more viewers move to the BLAZE, WND, IBD, conservative talk radio & websites, FOX who were reporting the truth from the beginning; see this websites’ sources!

A short time later, NBC reported that four sources “deeply involved” in Obamacare confirmed that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers “who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a ‘cancellation’ letter…”

And NBC, which largely has been supportive of Obama’s agenda, said that the Obama administration “has known that for at least three years.”  Facing criticism for the website failures, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius promptly said she, as a federal public official, didn’t work for those in America who were critical of her.

Now, apparently, the paper application method is following the path of the online, “navigator” and telephone signup procedures into that no-man’s land of inoperability, according to a new report.

Writer Matt K. Lewis at Daily Caller has written about how the fourth method of getting Obamacare coverage is failing.




We appear to have a President who is either uninformed — perhaps purposefully — incompetent, or possibly lying outright to other world leaders and to the American people. Singularly, any of those circumstances would be troubling, but any combination is greatly disturbing.   If Barack Obama is not engaged in these type of decisions, then who is? The real question America must begin to ask forcefully, because certainly the mainstream media will not, is who exactly is in charge of the United States of America? Is it Valerie Jarrett? Is it George Soros? Is it David Axelrod? Is it David Plouffe?

Who is the “man behind the curtain” pulling the levers creating the great and powerful Wizard of Obama? Why is it that a Canadian company was responsible for setting up the healthcare.gov website, which over the weekend had another fatal error? There are so many questions that must be answered and just imagine, if we didn’t have House Republicans holding hearings, how much more in the dark would we be in America?

Certainly, the Democrat-controlled Senate is not serious about investigating this administration. And a Nancy Pelosi redux will not hold the Obama administration accountable in its final two years. The President who claimed he would restore America’s reputation in the world is completely destroying it. The question must be, was that his real intent?


I Timothy 6:17:  Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in GodWho richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. (NIV)


Romans 8:28:  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose. (NIV)


Colossians 3:23:  Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men. (NASB)




with the surge in errors came a surge in spending. While contractors were on the Hill, Bloomberg showed how costly the mistakes have been -- not just to the administration's image, but to taxpayers. The rollout, which was projected to cost $394 million, skyrocketed past the $1 billion mark, with the bulk shelled out to contractors in the past six months.  That isn't likely to help Sebelius's case, which she'll be forced to make to House members next week. Maybe then she can explain why she felt compelled to rush a program that the nation never wanted in the first place. "We named it the tyranny of the October 1 date," said a person close to the project.  Well, ObamaCare is tyranny all right -- but not of the urgent.   Find out why in the new Republican Study Committee report on the law, Unworkable, Unaffordable, and Unfair.




UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Quality Software Services Inc. (QSSI), which built the data hub for the ObamaCare system, has been named the new general contractor in charge of repairing the glitch-plagued HealthCare.gov.  Welters and his wife, Beatrice, have shoveled piles of cash into Obama’s campaign coffers and ­apparently reaped the rewards.  QSSI has been paid an estimated $150 million so far, but officials couldn’t say how much more the company might collect on the ­repair contract.

By all accounts, the data hub has run smoothly while many other components of the Web site have failed.





the Obamacare law specifically says that the IRS cannot attach liens or garnish wages in order to collect money from you or anybody else in the form of a tax or a fine for not having Obamacare. That they must get that money from your tax refund, and if you don't have a tax refund then there is nothing mandating that you buy Obamacare insurance, and there is nothing mandating that you pay a fine. 




With a self-insured healthcare plan, the employer sets aside cash to cover anticipated medical expenses, rather than paying premiums to an insurance carrier to cover its employees. The company may hire an insurance company to manage claims.  Today, more than 60 percent of employees in large corporations, 80 percent of unions, and 15 percent of workers in small businesses are covered by self-insured plans, although many of them don't know it.  When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, Republicans secured a provision exempting self-insured plans from many of the taxes and mandates that Obamacare imposes on businesses and employees.
"Self-insured companies can tailor their health benefits to meet the needs of their workers," Pataki writes
in an op-ed piece for the New York Post. "They don't have to pay for services their employees neither need nor want.
"And self-insured plans pay their own medical costs without having to subsidize the healthcare costs of other groups."  But the White House is seeking to close what it calls the "self-insurance loophole" with a variety of tactics explained in a paper published by the liberal Center for American Progress, titled "The Threat of Self-Insured Plans Among Small Businesses."  A new California law greatly increases the cost to self-insure, and in New York, legislation in effect bans companies with fewer than 50 workers from self-insuring, Pataki notes.  He declares: "Republicans (and independent-minded Democrats) in Congress and in the states must stand firm against these efforts.  "Democrats are panicked. If enough businesses do not join Obamacare and instead opt into self-insured plans, their prized program is sure to implode quickly as its costs skyrocket.  "Self-insurance can save countless Americans from Obamacare's over-priced, low-choice, poor-quality healthcare."


A group of entertainment celebrities are fed up with the Obama administration’s willingness to spy on American citizens through the National Security Agency, or NSA – even comparing his actions to those exposed by Nixon’s Watergate scandal.

Actors John Cusack, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Will Wheaton join director Oliver Stone, former talk host Phil Donahue and several others appearing in a new video called “Stop Watching Us.”


you know the low-information crowd that voted for Obama bought every syllable of that.  Now, we just had a bridge collapse, and none of what Obama described as being beneficiaries of new spending actually got any of it.  All of that money went to unions.  All of that money went to teachers and other public employee unions during the recession to make sure they were not laid off.  Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat voters.  Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat donors.  Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat supporters. Little to None of it went to rebuild bridges, roads or schools.  But back then it was exciting and everybody was filled with anticipation, because over 50% of the country bought into this. Now, Obama just can't go to the Treasury and write himself a $900 billion check for himself, the Democrat Party, for their campaign coffers.  So what did they do?  They wrote a check for $900 billion and told you they're gonna rebuild roads and bridges and schools and levees and broadband connections and high-speed rail lines, and all they did was send it to states who then used it to keep their public employees working so that they continued to pay union dues.  And a percentage of that $900 billion check that Obama wrote (from future TAXPAYERS--you, your children & grand children..) came back to him and the Democrat Party in the form of campaign contributions.  A fantastic, and never before described this way, money-laundering scheme. 


RUSH: Last night on Breitbart this came in over the transom.  Try this headline:

 "Experts Conclude: Limbaugh Plan Better than Obama's Stimulus." And I said, "My gosh, who remembers that?  That's five years ago."   So the federal government's gonna stimulate the economy, right?  The first question to ask yourself is where does the federal government get money?  Besides printing it (like counterfeit money which devalues the currency, stealing, fraud..), where does it get money?  It takes it from someplace, right?  It gets money via taxes, fees, bribes and kickbacks and what have you, but it all comes, no matter how they get it, it all comes from the people who produce it.  And where does that happen?  It happens in the private sector.  It happens in the economy.  It happens on Main Street. It happens on Wall Street. It happens at the mall. It happens at the gas station. It happens everywhere commerce takes place.  It happens everywhere goods and services are bought and traded.  That's the only way government gets money.  Well, they could sell some federal land, but they don't produce income.  Government destroys wealth.  They do not create wealth.  They print the money for the money supply, but they don't produce anything. Government has what it has via taxes; Taking it from the private sector, JOB CREATORS, TAXPAYERS, Businesses, you.  So, in this case, let's just call it a round number of a trillion dollars.  Where's the trillion coming from?? So they had previously taken a trillion dollars out, they didn't have it anyway, they were in debt, but they didn't stimulate anything.  If I take 10 dollars from you and then give it back to you as a stimulus, it's a wash.  You don't have any more money than you had and I've lost what I took from you.   There's no stimulus.  It's not possible.  It literally, financially, economically, mathematically isn't possible to stimulate the economy via the government.  You can't do it -- this is the Keynesian theory, that you just go into deeper and deeper debt, which is WORSE because of the extra INTEREST payments, then running it through the careless & EXPENSIVE overhead of GOVT, which is full of WASTE, FRAUD & ABUSE on top of that, then it spends it in careless ways often against Taxpayers’ values & beliefs.  Who is better in spending your money— You? Or the Wasteful GOVT?




Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told WND he is calling for nationwide rallies and protests to demand the resignations and added that a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”

In his capacity as chairman of the organization Stand Up America, Vallely issued what he termed a “National Call to Action” to force the resignations of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.  Vallely, formerly the deputy commanding general of Pacific Command, said the current crop of leaders must be forced to resign by the “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grass-roots protests and social networking. As an example, he cited the public and media pressure that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.  Impeachment, Vallely said, is not a viable option because of “partisan politics.”   Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/general-lets-make-obama-resign/#XzWsGfAueYoEhP5Q.99      http://www.standupamericaus.org/





Comedian Jackie Mason, who has made it known he thinks President Obama is a lying “maniac,” is also unloading on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an “empty-headed” invention of the press who could actually be put on trial “as a murderer” for her role in the Benghazi fiasco that left four Americans dead.    “Because the truth of the matter is she’s accomplished nothing in her life and she’s an invention of the press. The press is a Democratic Party press in this country  She flew with our money all over the world accomplishing nothing. If she had any decency, she would send us the money for all the trips she made, because they were worthless trips that accomplished nothing. …  “She should be sued by this government for accomplishing nothing and making trips for no reason, and we should get our money back as the taxpayers.”   Mason reserved perhaps his toughest assessment of Mrs. Clinton for the end of the interview.  “She has a history of criminality,” said Mason.  “What she just did with Benghazi would put somebody else in jail or at least on trial as a murderer, because she said she’s responsible for what happened at Benghazi. If she’s responsible, we know for a fact that she kept them from being protected. She kept the ambassador from his life being saved by telling them to stand [down]. The SEALs were there. They were ready to roll and they were positively in position to protect them and defend them and free this man. He paid with his life for Obama to get elected, and he paid with his life for this yenta to be in a position to run for president.”  As WND reported, Mason was just as harsh on Obama in the interview with Klein, as he uncorked a full-blown assault on the president and his troubled attempt at providing affordable health care for Americans.  “It’s such a ridiculous thing. The whole country’s walking around wondering if this guy’s really the president of a country. He sounds more like a maniac in an asylum,” Mason said.  “He’s saying things that nobody believes. He was always lying every day of his life. Every time he talks it was a lie. The only time he told the truth is when you didn’t hear from him.”  “This is becoming so ridiculous, that even the biggest liar can’t top himself,”  The Liar King.





More Privatization. Privatizing things done today by the government such as Amtrak, the Corps of Engineers, federal dams, airport screening and air-traffic control would save at least $110 billion.

Reform and Reduce Welfare: Programs such as food stamps should be turned over to the states. Phasing out just this one welfare program (federal food stamps) over 10 years would save $400 billion.

Reform Medicare: Restructure the program by directing payments to enrollees, not insurers or providers. Raising premiums and increasing cost-sharing would save $330 billion.

Tanner also recommends ending U.S. military outreach, which would save at least $200 billion, and block-granting Medicaid, which would save $760 billion if the grants' growth was limited to 5 percent a year.

Source: Michael Tanner, "Cut Spending by...Cutting Spending," National Review, November 6, 2013.


we have highlighted the 557 recommendations in our Prime Cuts 2013, which would cut specific examples of wasteful and inefficient government spending, saving $580.6 billion in the first year and $1.8 trillion over five years.  We have also pointed to the Government Accountability Office’s three reports on the hundreds of duplicative and overlapping federal programs, like the 56 programs in 20 different agencies promoting financial literacy. According to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), this unconscionable waste costs taxpayers an estimated $295 billion annually.




A letter from Karen Schoen to good citizens who are trying to stand up against the specter of an unconstitutional, power grabbing, United-Nations-dictated future & control spreading our wealth, job killing, energy cost skyrocketing scam, using the flawed, unreliable science of man-made climate change.

(Go to ClimateDepot.com or Agenda21Today.com for truth.)
Is your legislator attending a climate conference put on by a regional group funded by our tax dollars to promote propaganda? If so get them the letter below. Read this letter to AG Bondi asking for an investigation.

Americans, the House can stop Executive Orders…  Last Friday, President Obama made another Executive Order proclaiming we will spend even more money we don’t have for a problem that does not exist. The sun controls our climate along w/ cosmic rays, ocean currents, more powerful greenhouse gases etc... The climate is cyclical. Heat, cold, extreme weather has happened before and will happen again. Check history back 200 years, 400 years, ice core samples etc.. You can go back millions of years while checking every 206 years and you will see the same weather pattern. Man has no control. The sun now in hibernation controls our weather. Man can only prepare. Where is Congress?  Obama Lies again and Americans suffer.  Is President Obama telling you to prepare? NO. He lied about Obamacare. He is lying about the climate as well. Pay attention to world weather reports in addition to those in America AND satellite temperatures vs. land based manipulated data. You will hear about unprecedented cold which will cause death and starvation.  Read the rest of this Liberty Alliance article here: http://libertyalliance.com/2013/11/global-warming-hoax-take-action/#oiFxVoh8W9idt537.99





As we noted earlier this week,Democrat Alan Grayson displayed his party’s racist roots by using burning cross imagery in a fundraising email.   One of our fellow Liberty Alliance patriots, Kevin Jackson of the Black Sphere, decided to hammer the message home with this revised graphic.  And just for good measure, you can watch MSNBC David Shuster (who’s white) make himself look stupid trying to convince Kevin (who’s black) that Tea Party conservatives are racists. Watch it here.


Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.  “Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.

Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.  “They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source said.  The military is looked upon as one of the last bastions of conservative ideas, even though under the Obama administration, it, too, has become a testing ground for social experimentation. The efforts include openly homosexual behavior and women in combat


the Revolution in Mexico 1910–1920 that is celebrated this year on November 18. It was this Revolution that replaced a quasi-dictatorship with a socialist state. Out of this socialist Mexican “movement” came the Constitution of the United Mexican States which . . . wait for it . . . nationalized education. Read Article 3:  “System of life” “education” by “the Federal State.” Heard of anything resembling this before? Common Core perhaps? “No judicial proceedings or recourse.” Hitler or Stalin would be proud.  Indeed, they were! Said Constitution went on to become the model for the Weimar Constitution of 1919 (easily usurped by Hitler), and the Soviet Constitution of 1918.  People get upset when I say that government schooling is socialism. But they have no argument against it. They spew, they sputter, they fume. But this will not change the fact that compulsory payment for state-owned and -operated compulsory services is socialism.  But when the program gets a little more logically consistent with its inherent nature, conservatives react in shock. “We want control!”  Yes, you want control, alright. Common Core aside, you still want to control other people’s money to fund your children’s, and other people’s, schooling programs. Problem is, so do the socialists who actually admit they’re socialists. And since your self-deceived policy empowers their socialism, they win. Common Core it shall be.  To practice socialism and then argue against it is to present oneself as clueless, publicly


no such thing as a “gun-free zone.” A place is only gun-free until someone with a gun walks into it. And what happens next doesn’t depend on the gun: it depends on who’s carrying it. 



Observers of the war on coal that is being waged by the Obama Administration and its allies know that the war centers not just on the actual burning of coal, but on all parts of coal’s lifecycle.  These range from efforts to oppose extraction, transportation, burning, and finally the transportation and reuse of coal ash, a byproduct from burning coal.

While the efforts to make it impossible to burn coal are well known, lesser known is the battle over coal ash.  Coal ash has a number of uses; it can be recycled into building products and used for road construction.  It can also be used for fill in certain construction applications. Environmental groups, knowing that the recycling of coal ash is a necessary part of the process for power plants, have sought to highly regulate any uses of it, including attempts to get it classified as a hazardous waste.  If the ash is classified as hazardous then the costs of dealing with it will increase greatly, leading to higher costs for power plants that use coal.  This, of course, makes other means of power generation that are favored by environmental groups more economically viable if coal becomes more expensive to use. A large part of the battle against coal ash has been occurring at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the assistance of several environmental groups.








Knowing how fragile a full female mosquito is, imagine the surprise when evolutionists learned that a fully intact female mosquito was found fossilized in a layer of shale.  The fossil had all of its legs, mouth parts and swollen abdomen preserved in perfect condition.  When the fossil was carefully examined, researchers found traces of blood still in the abdomen.

Supposedly, the layer of shale the fossil was found in was dated at 46 million years ago by evolutionary geologists.  However, finding the mosquito so well preserved along with traces of blood, which breaks down very rapidly, is causing the evolutionary researchers to question the dating of this fossil.  The article, written by a team of five researchers appeared in the journal published by the National Academy of Sciences.  Part of the article read:  “The preservation of fossil female mosquito … was an extremely improbable event.  The insect had to take a blood meal, be blown to the water’s surface, and sink to the bottom of a pond or similar lacustrine structure to be quickly embedded in fine anaerobic sediment, all without disruption of its fragile distended blood-filled abdomen.”  Dale Greenwalt, team leader, told the journal Nature:  “The abdomen of a blood-engorged mosquito is like a balloon ready to burst. It is very fragile.  The chances that it wouldn’t have disintegrated prior to fossilization were infinitesimally small.”  Infinitesimally small is still an over exaggeration.  Have you ever seen a bug that has been dead for only a day or two?  The slightest touch and their legs fall off or their body breaks in two.  Yet according to the evolutionists, this female mosquito filled her body up with blood, was blown in the water by accident, sunk to the bottom of the pond and then was quickly covered over with a fine layer of silt so quickly that no bacteria reached the mosquito’s body before it was buried.  While it was being rapidly buried, none of the legs were broken off and the swollen abandon never burst.  Then it remained that way for 46 million years and somehow some of the blood was also miraculously preserved.  Brian Thomas, from the Institute for Creation Research commented about the problems with the dating of the fossil, saying:



In St. Cloud, Minn., a car full of black people came upon a college student in an alley walking two girls home from the library. The car screeched to a stop, one man got out and hit 20-year old Colton Gleason in the face. He died. His attacker was convicted earlier this year after the jury rejected his defense that Colton and the two female college students he was walking home actually hit their car.  In March of this year, six black people were convicted in the stabbing death of Matthew Chew in New London, Conn. The headline tells the story: 25-year-old victim loses Knockout Game.

In Pittsburgh last year, several black people were caught on video punching a teacher in the face as they passed each other in an alley. That happened twice: Earlier that year, another teacher was almost killed as he slipped and fell in traffic while fleeing the Knockout Game, on video.  Last year in Meriden, Conn., DeAndre Felton and his 10 of his friends thought they found an easy mark for a bit of the old Knockout Game. They chose the wrong guy: He pulled a knife and killed DeAndre and wounded one other attacker. The attackers’ parents said their children were innocent, just like Trayvon Martin in Florida.

In St. Louis earlier this year, a black person was sentenced to life for the Knockout Game death of a 72-year old Vietnamese immigrant.  In St. Louis alone, a judge said one person was responsible for 300 episodes of the Knockout Game.

In Oklahoma earlier this year, an accused killer of the Australian college student Chris Lane tweeted that he was “playing golf” and hitting “woods” prior to the murder earlier this month. Woods is short for “peckerwoods:” White people. The Knockout Game.

He said he did that five times since the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin.

Anyone looking at the hundreds and hundreds of examples – many on video – knows this: The victims can be white. Or Asian. Or women. Or homosexual. But this much they have in common: All of attackers in the Knockout Game are black.

documented in “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore it.”

At the University of Illinois in Champaign, the game has a different name: Polar Bear Hunting. But with dozens of examples, including a local TV reporter, the black mobs play by the same rules: Find a defenseless white or Asian person, and punch them in the face until your arms are tired. Or they are knocked out. Or dead.  “Glossing over black thugs’ ‘game’” by Thomas Sowell

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/fox-launches-full-frontal-assault-on-black-mobs/#l4ZVCPPIgpZ0jmUR.99





An openly homosexual columnist in Ireland has written a piece blasting his country for considering same-sex marriage, warning the state has no business reinventing the family and undermining children’s “right” to a mother and father.  “People get married for their own reasons, but we have marriage because marriage has a meaning and does a vital job – not just for individuals, but for society,” Manning writes. “Claiming that equality demands that men and women be as interchangeable as Lego blocks shows you don’t understand men and women, marriage or much else.”  Manning insists marriage isn’t just about two people who “love” each other, but about “a man and a woman committing to making and raising children.”  When the government steps in and changes that, he reasons, the children will suffer.  “We can ignore reality all we want, but the outcomes for children are not the same across all family models,” Manning insists. “Marriage of a man and a woman gives children the best chance. That doesn’t mean there are not great parents in other circumstances, just that the weight of evidence is stacked against them.”  The Iona Institute, a campaign group that promotes the place of marriage and religion in society, agrees.




the reason why Adam and Eve’s offspring would not have that problem in those early generations, despite the inevitable intermarriage of close relatives—see our Creation Answers Book chapter on Cain’s Wife (from creation.com/store) or see the Free Resources section on the front page of creation.com for free chapter downloads).




A bill that would require Pennsylvania public schools to put the national motto "In God We Trust" on display was passed by a committee in the state House of Representatives on Wednesday.  The legislation, called the National Motto Display Act, passed the House Education Committee by a vote of 14 to nine on Wednesday.




American parents who hold traditional American values — such as belief in small government as the basis of liberty, in a God-based moral code, that American military strength is the greatest contributor to world peace and stability, or in American exceptionalism, not to mention in the man-woman definition of marriage or in the worth of a human fetus — are at war with almost every influence on their children’s lives. This includes, most importantly, the media and the schools.  Here, then are some suggestions for raising a child with American, i.e., conservative, values.

First, parents who are not left-wing need to understand that if they do not articulate their values on a regular basis, there is a good chance that after one year, let alone four, at college, their child will adopt left-wing views and values. Do not think for a moment that values are automatically transmitted. One hundred years ago they may have been — because the outside world overwhelmingly reaffirmed parents’ traditional values — but no longer.

You have to explain to your children — repeatedly — what America and you stand for. (That, if I may note, is why I wrote “Still the Best Hope” and why I started PragerUnversity.com.)

Second, they need to know what they will be taught at college — and now in many high schools — and how to respond. When they are told from day one at college that America and its white citizens are inherently racist, they need to know how to counter this libel with these truths: America is the least racist society in the world; more blacks Africans have immigrated here of their own volition than were came here forcibly to be slaves; and “racist” is merely one of many epithets — such as sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and bigoted — that the left uses instead of arguments.  Third, when possible, it is best that your child not go to college immediately after high school. One reason colleges are able to indoctrinate students is that students enter college young and unworldly. It is very rare that adult students are convinced to abandon their values and become left-wing. Why? Because they have lived life and are much less naive. For example, someone with life experience is far more likely than a kid just out of high school to understand that the best formula for avoiding poverty is to take personal responsibility — get a job, get married and then have children — not government help.  Teenagers who spend a year before going to college working — in a restaurant, for a moving company, at an office — will mature far more than they would after a year at college. And maturity is an inoculation against leftism.




A Huffington Post headline screamed: “Harvey Milk Was An ‘Evil Man’ Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber.”  Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.  And a “progressive” martyr was born.

Merriam Webster defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.” It defines “statutory rape” as “the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law.”  Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist.  Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, “Explaining Milk’s many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one ‘lover’ why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously: ‘As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model. … We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don’t have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There’s no reason why you can’t love more than one person at a time.’”  Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.  Years later McKinley committed suicide.  So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday (“Harvey Milk Day”) and, more recently, his own commemorative postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration’s USPS.




Genesis, chapter 19, in which two angels visit the city of Sodom, which was home to the same type of sexual deviants that make up today’s LGBT community.  According to the previous chapter, the angels went to Sodom “because their sin is very grievous.” It was notorious for what Romans 1:27 described as the “vile” (v. 26) sin of men “leaving the natural use of the woman” and “burn[ing] in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly…” (v. 27). Sounds uncannily like a gay-pride parade, no?, and like what the Democratic Party is successfully advancing.  So the two angels arrive at Sodom, and a man named Lot sees them. He greets them, tells them to please come in, eat some food, get clean. He even offers to let them stay the night at his house to rest, which they accept.  That night, before Lot, his family, and the visiting angels go to bed, Lot’s house is surrounded by homosexuals, who knock on the door and call out, “Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (“Know,” translated from the Hebrew verb for “to bang.”)

Read more at http://zionica.com/2013/10/28/gays-sodom-lot-like-modern-ones/#ERPP8qctzcPwaluK.99




Liberty Counsel is conducting a massive legal and citizen action campaign to fight the pro-homosexual agenda and passage of the ENDA law both nationally and state-by-state. Our petition calls for Congress to OPPOSE ENDA and stop this travesty from becoming the law of the land!  

Please go here right now to sign our petition:  www.libertyaction.org/292/petition.asp

By a 61-30 margin, the Senate cleared the last hurdle between the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and final passage before heading to the House. Unlike dozens of other versions, this bill takes the radical agenda a step farther by including "gender identity" as a protected class under the law. According to 61 U.S. Senators, American schools, organizations, companies, and charities would have to swallow their concerns about safety, profits, and future business and not only encourage men to dress like women (and vice-versa) at work -- but make special accommodations for them to do so.

As far as Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) are concerned, U.S. businesses should be punished for not taking a person's sex life into consideration when making employee decisions. "It shall be unlawful," the bill explains, "for any employer -- to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." To these 61 senators, it doesn't matter if you work with small children, have religious objections, or stand to lose significant business -- the entire marketplace needs to bow to the agenda of 3.4% of the population, or else.

Hidden AgENDA: "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" -- not experience or performance -- would be the most important factor in any hiring, firing, or promotion decision.  The vast majority of employers wouldn't consider an employee's sexual orientation relevant -- or even want care to know. But in ENDA's case, those same businesses could be hit by costly lawsuits from disgruntled workers suing for "discrimination" over a characteristic which isn't visible. In the case of public employers, such laws at the local and state level have led to large settlements being paid at taxpayers' expense. Regardless, the government shouldn't force a tolerance test on any business -- let alone daycares, summer camps, Christian book stores, and elementary schools.  If Democrats are serious about ENDA, they should call it what it is: a club to beat small business and Christian employers into submission on homosexuality.





There is a question that all of us need to ask. How we respond makes all the difference in what type of life we lead and what type of world we make.   That question is: Does an action feel good or do good?

Let me give three areas of examples -- personal life, the left and most recently, unfortunately, the right.

In the personal sphere, many parents, especially in this last generation, have done what feels good rather than what does good.   It feels good to give one's children what they want, but it rarely does good. It feels good to build children's false self-esteem -- giving them trophies for no achievement, for example -- but it doesn't do good. It feels good to provide one's adult children with money and other material benefits when they should be providing for themselves, but it doesn't do good. And it feels good to coddle children rather than discipline them. But it doesn't do good.   In the social and political spheres, feeling good rather doing good has characterized virtually every left-wing policy.





Lightning-generated cracks may not be a well-known erosional process, but earth scientists are generally more familiar with fulgarites—long, branched tubes of quickly melted and re-solidified materials created when lightning strikes sand and other ground debris. Yet, Earth's surface does not display billions or even millions of years' worth of fulgarites.  Physicist Don DeYoung described this problem in the Spring 2013 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly: "With approximately one hundred lightning strokes [sic] per second occurring across the earth, throughout the alleged 4.6 billion years of earth history….there should be…more than 1,000 fulgarites per square meter of land everywhere."4 And this is if only "1% of these land strikes resulted in fulgarite formation."4

Where are all the missing fulgarites? Why are continents and high mountains still standing despite dramatic lightning damage and relatively fast erosion rates? The answers to these questions are the same—the world is only thousands, not billions, of years old.




Learn more about the potential for an American Blackout and the ever-present and ongoing risk of cyber-terrorism by visiting National Geographic's website.  Furthermore, the National Geographic Channel will be airing "American Blackout" again on these dates:  Wednesday, November 13 | 9PM & 11PM, Wednesday, November 20 | 5PM 

You can also watch it on an unofficial YouTube channel herewatch "American Blackout" as only one aspect of the danger of an EMP attack - and then ask yourself, "Why isn't the Obama Administration taking this seriously? Why aren't they using their regulatory authority (that they seem all too willing to use without restriction in so many other areas) to urge regulated utilities to install relatively inexpensive shielding and system redundancy?"

if you're discouraged about the headlines in Hawaii and feel tempted to throw in the towel, check out this great article by Pastor Kevin DeYoung, "Five Reasons Not to Give up on the Marriage Debate." It might just give you the hope you need to keep fighting!


Dr. Maureen Condic, a pediatric expert who is also an Associate Professor of Neurobiology, explained that even at eight weeks, children begin establishing the spinal circuitry for pain. By nine weeks, when the baby is barely an inch long, their sensory nerves have already reached the skin.  At five months, these tiny children are completely vulnerable to the pain of their own abortions. While liberals rant and rave about the "extremism" of bills like Graham's, they're actually putting themselves at odds with modern medicine. As several people pointed out in the House debate, there's a reason doctors provide anesthesia when they perform surgery on "wanted" babies at the same stage. Anything less is inhumane. But the Left/Democrats are so fiercely protective of America's culture of killing and sex without "consequences" that it's unwilling, even for a second, to consider the torture abortion inflicts on defenseless innocent children.




These are just some of the more obvious connections between the Cause (God) and the Effect (The Universe).  The obvious question is: How do these connections establish the truthfulness of Christianity as opposed to Hinduism and Islam?

 A careful comparative analysis of the sacred writings of Hinduism (the Gitas, the Upanishads, etc,), of Islam (the Koran and the Hadith) and of Christianity (the Bible) reveals a startling yet predictable outcome.  The only sacred writings that reveal a god that fits EACH AND EVERY ONE of these necessary characteristics is the Bible. Thus, the God of the Bible is a perfect fit for the Cause of the Universe as we observe it.  Whereas neither Allah nor the thousands of deities of the Hindu religion come anywhere close to have such a list of characteristics.   

PLEASE NOTE that we can easily compare Christianity to Islam or Hinduism on MANY other points and we would find that the truthfulness of Christianity far surpasses either of these religions.


That leaves us with Christianity vs Judaism—since both are based at least partially on the same sacred text (The Old Testament).  In order to determine which of these religions presents the truth we must consider the differences between the two as to the primary source of contention: JESUS.  The Case for Jesus the Messiah (Christianity vs. Judaism)

 Jesus either was the promised Messiah or he was not. Therefore, both Judaism and Christianity cannot be true (law of non-contradiction).  Nevertheless, the evidence is overwhelming as to the veracity of the claims of Christianity.  Consider the following lines of evidence:




“I’m not sure if I deserve this,” Putin said modestly of the distinction. “I don’t think I have earned such a high dan.”

He did, however, promise that Russia would push for more development of martial arts.  While growing up in his hometown of Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, Putin was actually a judo champion. In 2008, he starred in an instructional video titled, “Let’s Learn Judo With Vladimir Putin.”


More than 103 million kids in 130 countries have celebrated Christmas with gifts they could have never afforded -- all thanks to the vision and generosity of Samaritans' Purse. At East Point Academy in South Carolina, administrators were careful to avoid any religious undertones in their two-year partnership with Operation Christmas Child. And while the school intentionally didn't collect or distribute Christian material, that didn't matter to AHA, whose attorneys sent a menacing letter to school administrators warning them to cut ties with the charity -- or else.  To the disappointment of families across East Point, principal Renee Matthews reluctantly agreed, and in a letter to parents explained that the school couldn't afford a courtroom battle over a Christmas toy drive. "We have a very small budget and a very small legal budget. We felt that we could not risk using our school funding for classrooms and teachers to fight a court case." In an "abundance of caution," Matthews wrote, "we are not going to accept Operation Christmas Child Boxes. If you and your child had planned to donate a shoebox of supplies, you are encouraged to find a charity of your choice for the gift."  Unfortunately, this isn't the first time atheists have punished poor children to make a political point. Two years ago, a group of anti-Christian extremists bullied the Air Force Academy into dropping its endorsement of Operation Christmas Child. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation grumbled that cadets were promoting Christianity by participating. Mikey Weinstein, the Foundation's President, said it amounted to "proselytizing." No, what it amounts to is a fringe movement that's willing to snatch toys out of needy kids' hands to fuel their own intolerance.

And liberals/Democrats claim we're intolerant bullies!


Legendary singer Pat Boone tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview that seniors should not fear Paul Ryan’s plan to help save Medicare and Medicaid as much as they should fear President Obama’s alternative.
“The way we’re going with Obama we cannot afford it. We can’t go on giving you the kind of benefits you want, or are used to, because the money is gone,” charged Boone in an exclusive interview this week.
“We’re wading terribly in debt and unless somebody like Romney and whoever he chooses — now it’s Ryan — step in and strengthen, and reform all of the entitlements they’re doomed. They’re already down the drain.”  “I’ve been hoping and praying for this very choice before he was really considered in the top three, four or five,” confided Boone, who is a spokesman for the 60 Plus Association, which is the nation’s leading conservative seniors’ organization. Founded 19 years ago as an alternative to AARP, 60 Plus has 7 million members. Recently the association sponsored a “60 Plus Healthcare Freedom Bus Tour,” with Boone and group chairman Jim Martin speaking about issues critical to this year’s election in Florida and other states.  “Paul Ryan is the only man in Congress who has come up with a workable plan, and it’s not that it’s necessarily perfect,” Boone explained.



Obama's compromise may be: Let's do both. Remember the story of when the British Admiralty sought six new battleships, the Treasury proposed four, so they compromised on eight.

Those proposing higher taxes on the wealthy note that when the income tax began in 1913, the top rate was 7%.

But in 1917, war brought a 67% rate. Between 1925 and 1931, the rate was 24% or 25%, but in only five of the subsequent 80 years — 1988-92 — was the top rate lower than it is today.

Paul Ryan's "premium support" proposal for Medicare. Their recoil is, however, essential to the liberal project.

Ryan's supposedly radical idea is that people should shop for health insurance, with government subsidizing purchases by the less affluent. This would introduce what soon will be inevitable — means-testing, aka progressivity. But liberals reject it with a word the incantation of which suffices, they think, as an argument — "voucher."

This is peculiar because perhaps the most successful federal program of the 20th century was essentially a voucher program. The purpose of the 1944 Servicemen's Readjustment Act — aka the G.I. Bill of Rights — was to ease demobilization by helping men and women acquire educations and buy houses — and hence form families.

The government did not build universities or houses. It, in effect, gave individuals conditional cash — vouchers — by helping to pay for home loans and college tuition. Liberals' strenuous objection to vouchers is that vouchers, as the functional equivalent of cash, empower individuals to make choices. It is the business of the liberals' administrative state, staffed by experts, to make choices for inexpert individuals.

When the Republican House majority acts as though it has a mind — and a mandate — of its own, this is not Washington being "dysfunctional," it is the separation of powers functioning as the Founders intended.

Their system requires concurrent congressional majorities — one in the Senate, with its unique constituencies and electoral rhythms, another in the House, with its constituencies and rhythms.

And at least 219 of the 234 House Republicans won in November by margins larger than Obama's national margin.





HHS, 2010:

President Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation. A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15% of hospitals into the red and “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

The mixed verdict for Obama’s signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012:

When President Obama began pushing national health care legislation in 2009, he argued that reform was needed to rein in the unsustainable growth in health care spending that was crippling the budgets of businesses, states and the federal government. But a new government actuarial study finds that as a result of the law, health care spending will be $478 billion higher over the next decade than it would have otherwise been had no law been passed.

Furthermore, as a result of the health care law, about 50 cents of every dollar of health care spending in the United States will be financed by government by 2021, according to the report from the actuary’s office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, unveiled today in the journal Health Affairs.

The Government Accountability Office, 2013:

The Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s annual audit of the government, released Thursday, raises serious concerns about the federal government’s long-term financial stability and the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act’s cost-curbing measures.  The report found “that—absent policy changes—the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.”






Officials estimate the company could face $1.3 million in daily fines for refusing to pay for abortifacients as Obama demands.  Sonya Sotomayor, (appointed by Obama), responds to emergency actions to the Supreme Court from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, simply told the company that officials could pay up for the abortifacients or face crushing penalties while its case continues in the lower courts.

Duncan’s statement confirmed those appeal efforts will continue.  “The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the 10th Circuit,” he wrote.


the fact that they operate a business doesn’t mean they give up their rights.
Pastor and author Rick Warren
said in a statement about Hobby Lobby’s stance:

Every American who loves freedom should shudder at the precedent the government is trying to establish by denying Hobby Lobby the full protection of the First Amendment.


Planned Parenthood: Making a Killing

It's been 1,350 days since the Senate passed a budget, but the checks to Planned Parenthood keep flowing! While American companies suffer, business at Cecile Richards's group couldn't be better. According to the organization's latest annual report (FY 2011-12), it looks like the government helped Planned Parenthood to another record year. For the second time in as many years, Richards's "nonprofit" is celebrating more than a billion dollars in total revenue--and almost half of it came courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

America's abortion provider managed to squeeze $542.4 million out of federal, state, and local governments last year--a $55 million bump from 2010. And judging by its $155 million profit, the organization hardly needed the money! Still, Congress insists on being Planned Parenthood's biggest benefactor--even if it means borrowing millions from China to pay for it. The government chipped in the lion's share of Richards's budget (45%) last year, and then raised taxes on us to keep the killing machine afloat. That should outrage every American, regardless of how they feel about abortion. The President complains about tax breaks for millionaires--while Obama supports welfare for billionaire organizations!

Fox News crunched the numbers and was shocked to find that government support for Planned Parenthood had jumped by 167% in the last 10 years alone. Of course, as more states aggressively step in to defund Planned Parenthood, the Left has been just as aggressive in filling the gap. They claim the money helps women, but based on this report, Planned Parenthood was too busy reelecting President Obama to help anyone! Cancer screenings (the theme of Richards's incessant election ads) dropped by a stunning 29% in 2011-12, and contraception services slumped 12%. Of course, the number of mammograms performed at Planned Parenthood stayed the same: zero.

While all of this "vital medial care" plunged, the group's primary moneymaker-abortion--raked in more than ever. It was one of the bloodiest years in the organization's history, as unborn babies killed climbed to 333,964 for 2012--enough to fill Yankee stadium six and a half times. In just three years, Richards's group has claimed credit for 995,687 deaths through abortion--and that doesn't include the handful of women lost to botched abortions in the last 12 months. Perhaps the biggest misnomer about the organization is this: most people aren't planning parenthood when they visit these clinics; they're planning abortions. That was obvious from the tiny sliver of adoption referrals from Richards's network: 2,300--barely one half of one percent of the total abortions performed.

Of course, Planned Parenthood is quick to point out that, by law, none of those dollars can directly finance abortions. But by paying the clinics' other bills--like overhead--there's no telling how many millions of dollars the government is freeing up for Planned Parenthood to pursue the darkest side of its business. For Planned Parenthood, abortion is a profit-making mechanism. When they join with NARAL, NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation in opposing pro-life legislation, they’re not looking out for women, they’re looking out for their financial bottom line.

And, as of New Year's Day, abstaining from abortion is no longer an option for Richards's clinics. In its words, "...[Planned Parenthood Federation of America] does not provide abortion care itself, but its member affiliates offer that service throughout the United States , and as of January 2013, all member-affiliates will be required to do so."

That makes what Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) is proposing all the more important. Today, the Tennessee Congresswoman introduced a bill that would stop HHS from wiring "family planning funds" to abortion businesses under Title X unless they certify that they won't provide or refer for abortions. That eliminates Planned Parenthood altogether, now that Richards is ordering affiliates to offer the procedure. Rep. Black, who led this fight as far back as 2011, is hoping to build on the support her former colleague, Gov. Mike Pence, won for the legislation in previous Congresses.

Obviously, Planned Parenthood isn't the only abortion company that receives Title X funds, but it's certainly the largest. And since abortion still makes up a jaw-dropping 91% of Planned Parenthood's services for pregnant women, it's time for Congress to put some meaningful distance between taxpayers and the Left's "health care." You can help by contacting your representative and asking him to co-sponsor Rep. Black's Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. In the meantime, find out where your tax dollars are going by checking out FRC's pamphlet: What Everyone Should Know about Planned Parenthood.





As WND has reported, the “Roe” plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, Norma McCorvey, repudiated her role in the decision and campaigned for its reversal. McCorvey became a pro-life Christian in 1995.  Both McCorvey and Cano are now a vocal defenders of the unborn.

Cano said she needs to speak out for two reasons, to explain the lies, fraud and deceit behind the case connected to her and because of her ardent belief that all life should be defended.

“Abortion is wrong. It’s so terribly wrong,” said Cano, who argues adoption is an excellent option for anyone who feels they cannot care for a child. “How can we play God and how can we take the life of an unborn child because it’s not convenient, we made a mistake or the timing wasn’t right?

“In other words, the baby has to pay the price for the sins of the mother and the father. That’s not right. That baby is entitled to life.”








a missing element in the Medicaid redesign: the role of patients themselves.


Navigate this Paper:

Executive Summary


1. New York Medicaid at a Crossroads


2. New York's Call to Action


3. Why Experiment with Medicaid Incentives


4. A Deeper Look at Incentive Programs


4.2 A Deeper Look at Incenitve Programs (con't.)


5. Recommendations




Many of the most costly-to-treat health conditions – for example, those linked to obesity -- are caused or exacerbated by lifestyle and behavioral factors. Even the best-designed and best-coordinated system of managed care will fail to deliver the desired results if too many patients continue to smoke, or fail to exercise adequately or indulge eating and drinking habits that make their health problems worse.


This paper focuses on the Medicaid population with or at risk for chronic diseases (excluding the elderly and disabled in institutional care). It details how incentives to practice healthy behavior and reasonable requirements that patients take ownership of their health care by seeking early preventive care in appropriate settings can lead to better health outcomes and lower costs in Medicaid.


The persistence of unhealthy behaviors among some chronically ill individuals is a daunting problem – seemingly every bit as intractable as the dependency issues confronting welfare prior to major reforms in 1996.


Yet, in the case of welfare, a true transformation did eventually occur. The historic, bipartisan federal welfare reform of 1996, using the findings from multiple state experiments, turned public assistance from what had been a program with few expectations of the recipient into a system of incentives and responsibilities designed to encourage work. The result was that more people left welfare for work, especially single mothers, and states were able to experiment with finding avenues to encourage and reward work, including incentives, case management and various support services such as child care and transportation.


Some of the central lessons of welfare reform can be replicated in Medicaid, not in order to reduce the caseload, but by understanding that incentives matter, rewards can make a difference in promoting healthy behavior and client responsibility can play a major role in success.





Currently, nineteen states are rejecting the state exchanges, sixteen states are enacting them, three are attempting a state/federal exchange hybrid, and twelve will decide before the new December 14 deadline.  The undecided states are:  Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

Maine Governor Paul LePage wrote to Sebelius explaining why his state won’t implement the state exchange saying, “In the end, a state exchange puts the burden onto the states and the expense onto our taxpayers, without giving the state the authority and flexibility we must have to best meet the needs of the people of Maine.”

No state exchanges = No mandates + No subsidies = Obamacare doesn’t work



For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is willing to disregard the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes.”  The court’s opinion, which accompanied a preliminary injunction, said, “the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable…. Christian principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays from its faith-oriented mission. The court has no reason to doubt, moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”




“As relevant here, they contended that the minimum coverage and employer responsibility provisions were beyond Congress’s Article I powers to enact and also that those provisions violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”

The constitutional issue is the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause – and the question is whether the government can order people to violate their faith. Also involved is the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Back in 2010, Liberty Counsel filed the first private lawsuit against Obamacare on the day it was signed into law. In 2011, an appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the Anti-injunction Act barred the court from addressing the merits in the Liberty University case, which challenged the individual mandate (Section 1501) and the employer insurance mandate (Section 1513) of Obamacare.  Already, three different federal judges have decided to issue injunctions preventing enforcement of the mandate against the companies in those cases until a resolution is reached.




Sixteen Democratic senators who voted for ObamaCare are now decrying the medical devices tax, which is set to go into effect January 1, as “job-killing.”  In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the sixteen senators (including hypocrites extraordinaire, Al Franken and Chuck Schumer) are now asking that ObamaCare’s 2.3% tax on medical devices, scheduled to take effect January 1, be delayed. (Franken wants it repealed altogether.)  Reprising arguments made by Republicans for years against Obamacare, the Democratic senators say the new tax will not only cost jobs, but will also harm American competitiveness in the medical device field.  We have Al Franken and Chuck Schumer – two of the senate’s most arrogant, loud-mouthed, liberal know-it-alls – now – all of a sudden – coming out of the Republican closet? Of course, not – but for these ideologues to admit that, a: excessive taxation does, in fact, kill jobs, and, b: excessive taxation does, in fact, make American companies less competitive in world markets is nothing short of remarkable. And hypocritical. . . .  Lest you think these people are off their liberal rockers, there’s a “rest of the story” aspect here. While none of them found the medical devices tax a sufficient reason to vote against ObamaCare – ideology - many of those who signed the letter, Franken included, just so happen to have medical devices manufacturers in their representative states - reality - to consider.




It explains that the government failed entirely to consider “that the mandated drugs increase risk of disease rather than preventing disease.”

Among the factors the brief cited are that oral contraceptive pills boost the risk of heart attack, stroke and complications, the risk of breast cancer increases, cervical cancer chances increase, uterine perforations from IUDs happen, and a surgical implant to reduce pregnancies can cause “serious thromboembolic events, including cases of pulmonary emboli (some fatal) and strokes.”

In fact, the 8th Circuit already has affirmed a South Dakota law that requires abortionists to inform women seeking to terminate the lives of their unborn babies they also face an increased risk of suicide.

Officials noted that recent ruling was the fourth separate decision from that appeals court affirming the state of South Dakota”s attempts to crack down on unhealthy medical practices by abortionists.

“As a result of this case upholding all eight major provisions of South Dakota’s Abortion Informed Consent Statute, pregnant mothers will now be informed: 1) that ‘an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;’ 2) that the mother’s ‘relationship with that second human being enjoys protection under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of South Dakota;’ 3) ‘that relationship and all rights attached to it will be terminated;’ and 4) the abortion places the mother ‘at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide,’” he said.

Understand Planned Parenthood’s agenda. Get “Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”

Earlier in the O’Brien case, the government determined that the mandate is a “burden” on religious rights.

  • Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America: “The only solution that has been provided to the majority of Americans is to stand up and fight for their religious rights by refusing to comply or battling in court. … We must remember the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.’ To force religious groups to deny their deeply held convictions is not called balance; it is called tyranny.”
  • David Stevens, MD and CEO of the Christian Medical Association: “What will stop this administration, with its radical pro-abortion agenda, from further undermining conscience rights and pursuing policies that effectively force out of medicine physicians with life-honoring convictions? Who will keep government panels from effectively denying physicians and patients choice about what are the most effective and appropriate medicines, surgeries and treatments? We call on Congress to turn back this law’s assault on our freedoms and restore American values and constitutional principles in health care.”





GREEDY Planned Parenthood:  The lawsuit claims that Planned Parenthood’s “C-Mail” scam began by automatically sending a year’s supply of birth control pills to women who came into one of the organization’s clinics. The pills were usually sent without a physician’s order, often dispensed to women “at levels not medically reasonable or necessary … constituting ‘abuse or overuse’” and were even shipped without the patient’s consent or foreknowledge.  Planned Parenthood then billed Medicaid $26.32 for each month’s worth of pills, the lawsuit claims, even though the cost to the clinics was only $2.98.  Thayer claims the scam proved to be so profitable Planned Parenthood even held competitions among its clinics to see which of them could enroll the most women in the “C-Mail” program.   This is GREED.

Planned Parenthood reported 329,445 abortions in 2010, and abortions made up 91 percent of the “pregnancy services” the company offers.  For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 392 abortions, SBA List reported.

Another crack in Planned Parenthood’s foundation also was revealed recently when a manager of an operation in Storm Lake, Iowa, was fired for questioning her affiliate bosses about the mandate to provide “webcam abortions.”  She later launched a lawsuit against the company for potential Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse.  The claim by Sue Thayer alleges the abortion provider’s Heartland branch has scammed American taxpayers by filing nearly 500,000 fraudulent Medicaid claims over 10 years, netting the organization an illicit $28 million.  Dannenfelser said Planned Parenthood’s mandate requiring that all affiliates provide abortions beginning in 2013 “is the ultimate evidence that Planned Parenthood’s chief concern is making money from abortion – not the health of vulnerable women and girls.”






Checks And Balances: A president with no respect for the Constitution warns of judicial activism by a Supreme Court reviewing his landmark legislation's constitutionality. It would be unconstitutional to let it stand.  Someone will have to remind President Obama the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, part of a system of checks and balances designed to rein in precisely the kind of runaway government exhibited by his administration. Our community-organizer-in-chief has a different opinion.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Is this the same Congress Obama has pledged to go around through executive orders and regulations?  This is precisely what the Supreme Court is designed to do — determine the constitutionality of laws passed by democratically elected legislatures and Congress.

Surely Obama, the constitutional law professor has heard of Marbury v. Madison, the 1802 case that formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional." Such an action is not unprecedented. The court has invalidated at least two laws for violating the Commerce Clause in the last 20 years, and ObamaCare, with its unprecedented invocation of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty, would qualify. By one estimate, the Supreme Court has struck down 53 laws between 1981 and 2005 alone.

The president speaks of a law passed by a "democratically elected Congress" yet it was a bill no one had read and which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass to find out what was in it. The fact is, most of the rules and regulations are written by unelected bureaucrats authorized by a bill that refers not to "we the people" but to "the secretary shall determine."

To say the bill passed "a strong majority" of a democratically elected Congress is an overstatement. The bill passed the House with a vote of 219-212, a majority of seven, with 34 Democrats defecting. It passed in the Senate through a series of bribes such as the "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase," and after the legislative gimmick of attaching it as an amendment to a budget reconciliation measure to avoid a filibuster.




Freedom Of Religion: Deciding not to go quietly into the secular night of ObamaCare, 43 Catholic institutions have sued for the right to practice what they preach and they thought the Constitution already guaranteed them.  The 43 institutions are situated in 16 jurisdictions from the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., to the University of Notre Dame.  Yes, that Notre Dame, where President Obama in 2009 gave a commencement address in which he called for "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words" in the pursuit of "common ground."  Seeing that common ground shifting under their feet, the Catholic institutions have decided to pick up their cross and haul it into court to challenge the ObamaCare mandate that employers provide insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, as well as contraceptives and sterilization procedures.

Indeed, it's about the free exercise of religion that the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to protect.

In its brief, the Archdiocese of New York said the lawsuit and debate are not about "whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception," but rather "an oppressive federal government that seeks to require plaintiffs — all Catholic entities — to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by providing, paying for, and/or facilitating access to those products and services."  The lawsuits are a ringing statement that these 43 institutions will not comply.

Ironically, they may be helped in their efforts by a law liberal Democrats helped pass, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Mentioned in many of the lawsuits, RFRA was passed in 1993 — by an overwhelming voice vote in the House and a 97-3 vote in the Senate.

This is an issue of religious freedom, but it is also about government power and America's future. The president knows his "fundamental transformation" of America can never be complete as long as institutions such as the Catholic Church and the valuable social services they provide remain in place and resistant to Obama’s freedom-shredding federal government.




You'd think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major news story. But ABC, CBS and NBC don't judge news events by their inherent importance as relates to the future of our freedoms. They deliver the news according to a simple formula: Does it or doesn't it advance the re-election of Barack Obama?  If it doesn't, it isn't news.

On May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations sued the Obama administration over its ridiculously narrow idea of how a "religious institution" can be defined under the ObamaCare law. Never has the Catholic Church — or any order, for that matter — undertaken something of this magnitude.

It's truly jaw-dropping that ABC and NBC completely ignored this action on their evening newscasts, while "CBS Evening News" devoted just 19 seconds to this historic event.  Let's be blunt: They spiked the news.  This is the worst example of shameless bias by omission

The Catholic Church, with 60 million Americans describing themselves as Catholic, has unleashed legal Armageddon on the administration, promising "we will not comply" with a health law that strips Catholics of their religious liberty. If this isn't "news," then there's no such thing as news.  This should be leading newscasts and the subject of special, in-depth reports.   Catholic taxpayers who help fund National Public Radio were also ignored on the evening newscast with that sad joke of a title—"All Things Considered."

If only some deceased priest had been accused of sexual improprieties in 1953 ... then Catholics would be seen as newsworthy. These "news" operations can't argue these are more important stories than the loss of religious freedom in America.  The print press isn't much better.  Washington Post, USA Today, The New York Times….where do you get your news & who controls the news you get??





In a homily last Saturday, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, warned Catholics that Pres. Obama “seems intent on following a similar path” as Hitler and Stalin – and that Obama’s “radical, pro-abortion, secularist agenda could shut down “all our public ministries.”  In his homily, “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith,” Peoria, Ill., Bishop Jenky explains that government attacks against Christians have been going on for centuries, even in countries like Italy, Germany, and France:

The bishop then explained how Obama, like Hitler and Stalin, is determined to eradicate the “competition” of the Church – especially, in areas like education, social services, and health care:

“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

“In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

Bishop Jenky then warned that all Catholic ministries, except church buildings, could be shut down by the fall of next year, due to Obama’s efforts:

“This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down.

“Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.”




The Obama Record: When V.I. Lenin sought to remake Russian society into a "proletariats' paradise," he targeted three sectors for control: health care, banking and education. Sound familiar?

Of the three, however, Lenin viewed socialized medicine as the "keystone" to building a socialist utopia.

The Bolshevik leader told the Russian people everybody would be able to afford going to the doctor, not just the "greedy rich." He also claimed centralized control of the medical industry would "reduce costs" and end the "waste" from "unnecessary duplication and parallelism" in a competitive market.

In 1918, the USSR became the first nation to promise "free" universal health care.

As a result, "there still exists a great shortage of physicians and hospitals," they wrote in their report, "Red Medicine: Socialized Health in Soviet Russia." "Drugs are almost fabulously dear and scarce."

"Overworked doctors" couldn't handle the flood of new patients. A bloated new medical bureaucracy, led by the People's Commissar of Public Health, only worsened delays in treatment.

As bad as Soviet medicine was, it was anything but "free."

"Most workers and their families receive free medical treatment as insured persons," the report said. "But the funds for this treatment do not come from insurance funds, but from general taxation."

This is how President Obama intends to pay for his own universal health care plan, which will subsidize some 28 million uninsured and underinsured Americans through tax hikes on the rich.

In a little-noticed 2009 speech, Obama vowed to demolish "structural inequalities" in America and rebuild the economy on three new "pillars" — socialized medicine, banking and higher education.

"My administration is working hard," he told the NAACP at its 100th anniversary conference in New York, "to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity that will put opportunity within the reach of not just African-Americans, but all Americans. Of every race. Of every creed. From every region of the country."

As the Foundation for Economic Education's Anna Ebeling — born, raised and educated in the USSR — recently warned:  "Let us remind ourselves that in the Soviet Union the road to medical-care hell was paved with the same good intentions."




Less than a century ago, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia portrayed a life-or-death "class struggle" between capitalists and workers. The Bolsheviks were inspired by Karl Marx, another trained lawyer who never spent a day in the private sector. They followed his 1848 blueprint for worker revolution, "The Communist Manifesto."

Marx argued that capitalism splits industrial society into two hostile camps: the "bourgeois" — whom he described as anyone employing a worker, owning a business or making money from investments — and the "proletariat" that he figured made up the other 90% of society. He claimed that the wealth controlled by the top 10% "exists solely due to its nonexistence in the hands of those (other) nine-tenths."  In other words, profits produced by merchants, entrepreneurs and investors don't really belong to them. Marx believed they were stolen from workers and that workers would one day rise up and, justifiably, "wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois."

Turning the tables, the working class would then become the ruling class — though Marx believed this would happen in stages.  Socialism was the first or "lower" phase of communist society, he envisioned, where democracy and vestiges of capitalism are still present but only as a means to an end.

The final or "higher" phase of communism abandons state capitalism altogether and runs a centrally planned economy under a new constitution.

Marx argued the dreams of the "individual" should be sacrificed for the "collective."

"Individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations." (Actually it wasn't Marx who said that — it was Obama, in a little-noticed 1995 interview he conducted with a liberal Chicago journal.)

Marx also called for abolishing the traditions, institutions and religions of the old order, arguing that the masses couldn't fully serve "the State" if they still clung to religion. (Again, hearing any echoes?)

The Bolsheviks struck in 1917. Their leader, V.I. Lenin, immediately declared war on banks, scapegoating "vile" and "greedy" bankers and merchants for all the problems of the underclass. His battle cry, as he seized banks and shops, was "Loot the looters!"

For the revolution to succeed, Lenin said he had to first control capital. And if he controlled banks, he could more easily control the industries they financed.

Nationalizing medicine was also key. If the communists controlled health care, Lenin said, they could own and control families — from cradle to grave.

Lenin's other main target was the education system. If the Reds socialized schooling, from kindergarten to college, they could brainwash the masses into serving the state instead of their own "selfish" interests.

By 1920, Lenin had established "free" universal health care (excluding the "deprived class" of merchants) and "free" higher education for all (except for the sons and daughters of merchants, who were blocked from college).

He also had succeeded in nationalizing all commercial banks as well as transportation.

How did the new ruling class finance (at least in the initial stages, before the USSR went bankrupt) its "fairer" economy? By soaking the rich with punitive taxes, redistributing their wealth and shaking down bankers. Sound familiar?

Such battle lines have, tragically, been redrawn in America, the same capitalist nation that defeated Soviet communism only two decades ago.

On one side are the people who create wealth. On the other are those who loot it.

This election, the most critical in American history, will decide who wins.


The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1][2] informally referred to as Obamacare,[3] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. PPACA requires individuals not covered by employer- or government-sponsored insurance plans to maintain minimal essential health insurance coverage or pay a penalty unless exempted for religious beliefs or financial hardship, a provision commonly referred to as the individual mandate. The Act also reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, expands access to insurance to 30 million Americans,[4][5] and increases projected national medical spending[6][7] while lowering projected Medicare spending.[8]

PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against.[9] It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.[10]

A majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of some or all of the elements of PPACA.[11] As of January 2012[update], two of four federal appellate courts have upheld it; a third declared the individual mandate unconstitutional, while a fourth ruled the federal Anti-Injunction Act prevents the issue from being decided until taxpayers begin paying penalties in 2015.[12][13][14] The Supreme Court heard six hours of oral argument on March 26–28, 2012, and is expected to issue its decision by the end of June.[15][16]



“The Supreme Court essentially just declared that Congress and the President can force upon the American people anything they want and call it a tax,” the Arkansas Republican, who sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, said on Thursday. “So it’s come to this: The only way we will repeal Obamacare is to elect Mitt Romney, regain the Senate majority and maintain control of the House.”


What we have been told by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and four liberals on the court: Obamacare is just a massive tax increase.  That's all it is.  Obama lied to us about that.  The Democrats lied.  The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, said, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."  Not our job. 

Well, what about when we are deceived?  The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be.  What has been upheld here is fraud, and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama's domestic army.  That is what we face now.  We were deceived.  Obamacare was a lie.  It was a stealth tax on all Americans, and nobody knew it until today.  Not officially.  Obama told George Stephanopoulos it wasn't a tax.  And Stephanopoulos was trouble-making for trying to suggest otherwise.   Let's go to the audio sound bites. September 20th, 2009, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, interviewing President Obama, discussion about the health care reform bill, Stephanopoulos said, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money and fining them if they don't. How is that not a tax increase?"   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio&feature=player_embedded





Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito forcefully disagree with Roberts in their dissent. “[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not,” the four Justices write. “[W]e have never—never—treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’ Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a ‘penalty.’”

The dissenting Justices also argue that “judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling,” since the Constitution requires tax bills to originate in the House of Representatives, “the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1.

The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry. [...]

The Government’s opening brief did not even address the question—perhaps because, until today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that §5000A is an exercise of the tax power. And once respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere 21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. Petitioners’ Minimum Coverage Reply Brief 25. At oral argument, the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50 words. Tr. of Oral Arg. 79 (Mar. 27, 2012). One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult constitutional question of first impression.



I hate it when the Supreme Court raises… taxes?… I guess this really is a SCOTUS tax.

Are they allowed to do that? I’m pretty sure they are not.  So Levin was on fire this afternoon. I encourage everyone to read the dissenting opinion from Scalia. He makes some very good points. If this is a tax as Roberts has deemed then the law is invalid. Our Constitution clearly specifies that tax law is to originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare originated in the Senate. So if Boehner has any cajones at all, he will simply re-assert the House’s power under Article 1, Section 7 and declare that with this re-classification as a tax the law is no longer constitutional as it did not follow proper procedural process as required in our Constitution. There is no need for a repeal at that point. What would they be repealing, an invalid law?



The Supreme Court has shocked the nation by declaring ObamaCare constitutional and ruling the individual mandate as a “tax.” This unprecedented and abhorrent attack on our freedoms must not be allowed to stand. Our grassroots efforts have already changed the course of our country in 2010 and 2011, and now in 2012 we must redouble our efforts to fully repeal ObamaCare.   We cannot count on the Supreme Court, as a part of the federal government, to limit the federal government’s power over our lives. America was founded on the principal of limited, decentralized power in order for individual’s to live free from radical government edicts. As Ronald Reagan once said, “As government expands, liberty contracts,” and that is exactly what has taken place.  Click here to Stand with me and show Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court that the power belongs with us, the people – not government bureaucrats.  If you thought ObamaCare was bad, imagine the implications and consequences that will flow from the Court’s decision and precedent. If the government can force you to buy insurance, what else can they force you to buy? What else can they force you to do? The floodgates are now open, and the government’s power is near limitless.

In one of the most egregious examples of judicial activism in the history of the United States Supreme Court, ObamaCare was ruled constitutional last Thursday. But you and I know better. We understand that the federal government was never given - and does not have - the authority to force individuals to purchase a product in the private sector. Celebrate this 4th of July by declaring YOUR Independence from ObamaCare!    Click here to Declare your Independence from ObamaCare.

While the Court ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it claimed the law is constitutional as a taxing power of the Constitution. The novel aspect of this ruling is that this tax is the first in American history that does not require any positive action your part. The only requirement for this tax to apply to you is that you are alive.

To my knowledge, this is the first tax on breathing that has ever been imposed.

236 years ago Thomas Jefferson and a small band of brave patriots declared that the long train of abuses and usurpations committed by King George III against the American colonies were too much to bear. They took the extraordinary step of declaring their independence from the British Empire, risking their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to be free.

Today, we’re asking patriotic Americans to Declare their Independence from ObamaCare.

In his immortal document, Jefferson listed the British abuses:

  • King George refused to obey the law
  • He created new agencies and sent enforcement officers to take the property of the American people
  • He imposed taxes without the consent of the people
  • He fundamentally altered the government of America

Sound familiar?



it should never have been the job of the Supreme Court to clean up a terrible piece of legislation perpetrated by Congress and the White House.  ObamaCare may have been declared constitutional by five justices – although not in the manner the White House sold it, which is telling – but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a horrible law that will bankrupt this country, explode health care costs and diminish the quality of care throughout this nation.
Government tyranny has been slowed, but not stopped.
What today’s ruling means is that anything government can call a tax, it has the power to do. Regardless of the semantics, we are subjected to government tyranny.  This merely emboldens the government to keep taxing and taxing and taxing.




A Supreme Court decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will punish businesses of all sizes, the National Retail Federation (NRF) said Thursday.
The Supreme Court upheld the law, including its mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance and employers with 50 employees or more to provide insurance to their workers.
“As the voice of retailers of all types and sizes, we’re disappointed by today’s ruling. The Court missed an opportunity to redress the many shortcomings of the law," NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said in a statement.   “As it stands, the law wrongly focuses more on penalizing employers and the private sector than reducing health costs. For these reasons, NRF has been a consistent skeptic of the Affordable Care Act."  Costs will rise for retailers, which will hurt the economy.  ( costs are passed on to you the consumer..)  “Although the Court upheld the law’s constitutionality, many problems remain: it penalizes employers too much; it doesn’t do enough to reduce the cost of healthcare; and it is unreasonably complicated and difficult to implement and administer," Shay said in the statement.
“This law will have a dramatic, negative impact on every employer and employee in the United States and further constrain job creation and economic growth.  “NRF will redouble our efforts to repeal the law while we continue to work, in good faith, with regulators to smooth implementation for retailers and businesses alike.”



The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the healthcare law, including the individual mandate. NFIB will still fight to repeal this healthcare law and put real healthcare reform in its place.

The National Federation of Independent Business is the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses. A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded in 1943, NFIB represents the consensus views of its members in Washington and all 50 state capitals.

NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. NFIB also gives its members a power in the marketplace. By pooling the purchasing power of its members, the National Federation of Independent Business gives members access to many business products and services at discounted costs. NFIB also provides timely information designed to help small businesses succeed.


sign the petition!


Allahpundit posted this clip from Barack Obama’s town halls, adding feet stealers to the new ObamaCare lexicon of GREEDY Evil Medical Professionals, a new entry after Tonsil Vultures. There is a point that the well-deserved avalanche of criticism misses, though.  The clip has Obama explaining that government needs to take over the American health-care system to stop doctors from getting rich off of amputations of limbs from diabetic patients: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjDveIZ5-g&feature=player_detailpage


"A Principled Prescription for America's Health: The Perspective of a Doctor-Turned-Lawmaker"
Congressman Tom Price, M.D.  U.S. House of Representatives (GA-6)

Watch this Lecture
About Congressman Price:  Congressman Tom Price was first elected to represent Georgia’s 6th district in November 2004.  For nearly twenty years, Rep. Price worked in private practice as an orthopedic surgeon.  Before coming to Washington he returned to Emory University School of Medicine as an Assistant Professor and Medical Director of the Orthopedic Clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, teaching resident doctors in training.  He received his Bachelor and Doctor of Medicine degrees from the University of Michigan and completed his orthopedic surgery residency at Emory University.



We pay our presidents for judgment, and President Obama committed a colossal error of judgment in making health-care “reform” a centerpiece of his first term. Ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — and regardless of how the court decides — it’s clear that Obama overreached. His attempt to achieve universal health insurance coverage is a massive feat of social engineering that, by its sweeping nature, weakens the economic recovery and antagonizes millions of AmericansLet’s review why the ACA (“Obamacare”) is dreadful public policy:

(1)    It increases uncertainty and decreases confidence when recovery from the Great Recession requires more confidence and less uncertainty.

(2)    The ACA discourages job creation by raising the price of hiring. This is basic economics. If you increase the price of labor, companies will buy less of it.

(3)    Uncontrolled health spending is the U.S. system’s main problem — and the ACA makes it worse.

(4)    Obama’s program also worsens the federal budget problem.

(5)     The ACA discriminates against the young in favor of the old.



Doctors are particularly skeptical about ObamaCare: 90% say premiums will go up; 70% say it will drive the best and brightest out of the profession; 65% say quality of care for their patients will decline. I am one of those doctors who fears for my patients' future care.  Real health care reform is possible and necessary

For 30 years, I've led physician groups who care for populations of seniors — with higher than average illness burden — at much lower than average total cost of care, with better outcomes.

I presently care for a regular Medicare population with quality rankings above 90% on six of seven measures. For an 11% higher illness burden, my total cost of care is 72% lower than average (CMS Quality and Resource Use Report, March 2, 2012).

I also provide superior care for 1,000 Medicare Advantage members, whose illness burden, quality and satisfaction scores are even higher, under a richer benefit plan than Medicare, at a cost of care which is 50% less than average.  If all Medicare beneficiaries were cared for under this model, Medicare could be administered for $290 billion annually instead of its current $580 billion, saving $2.9 trillion in 10 years, without any cuts, serving healthier, happier seniors.

Show More

Show Less




In Singapore, by contrast, they already have universal coverage. They also have world-class quality care at world-competitive prices.    Dr. Yap is referring to the higher costs that come from an American system that depends on regulation and oversight to accomplish what Singapore tries to do with competition and choice. At the Raffles lounge for international patients, he shows me an example of the latter. It's a one-page, easy-to-read list of fees. This is no accident. Like ours, Singapore's system is a mix of public and private care and financing. Unlike ours, Singapore's system is anchored, as the Ministry of Health puts it, "on the twin philosophies of individual responsibility and affordable health care for all."

"Individual responsibility" is not just a buzzword. All but the abjectly poor have to pay for some of their care, another downward pressure on prices. Perhaps most important, almost all working Singaporeans are required to put money in a medical savings account that they use for out of pocket expenses. It's their money, and they control it. As a result, they are careful about spending it.

"In Singapore almost everyone has to pay something for their care," says Dr. Yap. "When it's your money, you really ask yourself: Do I really need this?"



government control of your healthcare represents government control of YOU.

That's precisely why ObamaCare MUST be stopped.

Barack Obama's administration is moving forward with a series of plans that will lock ObamaCare into place forever...unless the Supreme Court decides to uphold the Constitution by striking down the government takeover of your healthcare.

Obama's handpicked Health and Human Services Director Kathleen Sebilius announced that she will establish ObamaCare "Hubs" in public schools across the nation, using loosely written "healthcare" appropriations to pour hundreds of millions of your taxpayer dollars into socialized medicine.

This latest expenditure of $75 million will create full-fledged federally operated health care centers in your child's school. And, the medical information data gleaned from your child will be stored by the school and the Feds to make "data driven decisions" on your child's health and learning.

Say goodbye to the school nurse and hello to Dr. Obama.

This insanity must stop.

Our only hope is for a Conservative/Tea Party Republican Landslide in the House, Senate and Presidency, plus any & all other offices.  Vote accordingly.





Leadership? The Obama administration denies funding for a Texas program that serves low-income women because of a law saying the program can't fund Planned Parenthood. Is this how the president protects women's health?

WHP provides health services to 130,000 low-income women. Of the more than 1,000 certified WHP providers across the state, the Texas law excludes fewer than 100 Planned Parenthood providers. Yet the Obama administration is willing to cut off all the other providers and all the women who receive health care through them in pursuit of its ideological agenda.

Texas considers Planned Parenthood, which performs 300,000 abortions a year, a poor allocation of public funds intended to promote women's health, noting they cannot treat breast cancer and do not have a single mammogram machine in the entire state of Texas. But if you want an abortion or contraceptives, Planned Parenthood provides one-stop shopping for that.  Nor does Planned Parenthood need public funds. As we've noted, when the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation announced it was planning to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood, within hours some 6,000 donors pledged a total of $400,000. A family in Dallas offered $250,000, and New York's Mayor Bloomberg promised to match that.

There is enough private money to keep any number of Sandra Flukes from bankruptcy without shredding the First and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by forcing a contraceptive mandate on religious institutions and sovereign states.

We would argue that ObamaCare in its entirety is a war on women's health and that of everybody else because it rations care through cost controls, inhibits medical innovation and will determine not only what care will be available but who is valuable enough to get it.

It is regrettable that in order to satisfy Planned Parenthood's agenda, the Obama administration would cut funding of needed health care services by other providers and let these women fend for themselves.






Chairman Lamar Smith, who led the hearings at the House Judiciary Committee, rebuked Holder, as the Washington Times reports that Smith "demanded to know what role she played [in writing, lobbying, and passing Obamacare] between then and March 2010, when President Obama tapped her to sit on the high court."

"The issue is how involved was she in health care discussions between Jan. 8 and March 5," Smith said.  "Just as President Nixon had an 18½-minute gap, does Ms. Kagan have a two-month gap?"  Kagan as then Solictor General would not have been "walled off" from attending Obamacare meetings during these two months, because she was not yet nominated as a Justice.

Hiding records from Congress violates AG Holder's oath of office, since he "again declined to cite a specific legal privilege that would allow him to withhold documents or prevent committee investigators from interviewing department employees about Justice Kagan’s involvement."

Judges can be impeached by Congress under the Constitution, just like Presidents, with 50% vote in the House and 67% in the Senate.  Historian David Barton says "Sixty-one federal judges or Supreme Court Justices have been investigated for impeachment, of whom thirteen have been impeached and seven convicted."

So please explain again, AG Holder, why separation of powers protects law-breaking Judges from investigation by Congress?  It doesn't.  President Obama's chief law enforcement officer Holder hates the Constitution, Article II section 4: "All civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." (That includes Kagan.) Let's demand Congress impeach Justice Kagan if she won't recuse from Obamacare.

SELECT HERE TO SIGN PETITION, and we will instantly fax all 535 Congressmen and Senators demanding impeachment hearings if Justice Elena Kagan does not recuse herself from the Obamacare case NFIB v. Sebelius. (Saving you much time and postage!) <http://news.dienerconsultants.com/ct/7330285:10617926167:m:1:303208754:1B4B373BF1DB5D85249CCC456A043396:r>

"Federal law requires recusal from a case if a judicial officer of the United States 'has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.' 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3). In addition, a federal judge must disqualify herself from participating in a matter if her 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' Id. at § 455(a). It appears that former Solicitor General Kagan’s participation in the Obama Administration’s defense of the PPACA may satisfy both requirements for recusal," the letter said.  You can read the Senators' full letter here <http://news.dienerconsultants.com/ct/7330288:10617926167:m:1:303208754:1B4B373BF1DB5D85249CCC456A043396:r> .



 http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html     Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Doing nothing to save Medicare will lead directly to bankruptcy, rationing, and benefit cuts. Don't let Obama and the Democrats do nothing—sign our petition to tell them you stand with Paul Ryan.

Consumers in Canada and the United States spend nearly the same proportion of their per capita gross domestic product on prescription drugs (1.6 percent in Canada and 1.8 percent in the United States) and of their per capita personal after-tax income (2.5 percent in Canada; 2.3 percent in the United States). The number of prescriptions dispensed per capita in both countries is roughly similar (14.9 in Canada; 12.9 in the United States). Why is the personal affordability of prescription drug spending roughly the same in Canada and the United States?              While brand-name drugs in Canada are significantly cheaper on average than in the United States, generic drugs in Canada are about 90 percent more expensive on average. Americans also tend to substitute lower-cost versions of drugs for relatively more expensive brands more often than Canadians; and per capita after-tax incomes are higher in the United States than in Canada.             The Canadian government's greater intervention in prescription drug markets offers no affordability advantages for consumers compared to competitive markets in the United States.Source: Brett J. Skinner and Mark Rovere, "Average Personal Affordability of Prescription Drug Spending in Canada and the United States," Fraser Institute, July 2011.For text:http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/average-personal-affordability-prescription-drug-spending.pdfFor more on Health Issues: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16  


 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/522954/201003041521/Health-Reform-30-Lipstick-On-A-Pig.aspx   No less than the Mayo Clinic has given the proposed reforms two thumbs down. "The proposed legislation," Mayo says on its policy blog, "misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite." If President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want to see GOP ideas that work, let them look at the Indiana of GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels. After he was elected five years ago, a plan including health savings accounts was added to the plans available to state employees.Indiana deposits $2,750 a year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he or she pays all health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. Unused funds are the property of the employee.  The system encourages both cost- and health-consciousness.Daniels reports that state employees enrolled in the plan will save more than $8 million in 2010 compared with preferred provider organization alternatives. The state's total costs will be reduced by at least 11%. Better care at lower cost — isn't that the whole idea?Real health care reform is possible, and voters may decide in November that they know how to get it done.  Means testing can be used also along with other common sense approaches.

   http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/568443/201104071720/The-Ryan-Plan-Bold-Reckless-Suicidal-Superb.aspx                        When you hear this being denounced as throwing the poor in the snow, remember these same charges were hurled with equal fury in 1996. On the contrary. Within five years child poverty declined by more than 2.5 million — one of the reasons the 1996 welfare reform is considered one of the social policy successes of our time.   the idea is essentially to apply to all of Medicare the system under which Medicare Part D has been such a success: a guaranteed insurance subsidy.  Thus instead of paying the health provider directly (fee-for-service), Medicare would give seniors about $15,000 of "premium support," letting the recipient choose among a menu of approved health insurance plans.  Call this privatization if you like, but then would you call the Part D prescription benefit "privatized"? If so, there's a lot to be said for it. Part D is both popular and successful. It actually beat its cost projections — a near miraculous exception to just about every health care program known to man.  The final charge — cutting taxes for the rich — is the most scurrilous. That would be the same as calling the Reagan-Bradley 1986 reform "cutting taxes for the rich." In fact, it was designed for revenue neutrality.  It cut rates — and for everyone — by eliminating loopholes, including corrupt exemptions and economically counterproductive tax expenditures, to yield what is generally considered by left and right an extraordinarily successful piece of economic legislation.  Ryan's plan is classic tax reform — which even Obama says the country needs: It broadens the tax base by eliminating loopholes that, in turn, provide the revenues for reducing rates.  Tax reform is one of those rare policies that produce social fairness and economic efficiency at the same time. For both corporate and personal taxes, Ryan's plan performs the desperately needed task of cleaning out the many accumulated cutouts and loopholes that have choked the tax code since 1986.  The only thing left out is Social Security, which needs serious help too.  this reform is far more likely to ensure the survival of Medicare than the current near-insolvent system.  What other serious plan is being offered by Obama and the Democrats?





http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572523/201105171900/Bill-Of-Goods.aspx                  According to the Daily Caller, 204 waivers for a provision of ObamaCare were approved last month — bringing the total waiver count to 1,372.  The owner of Tru Spa, one of the San Francisco businesses granted a waiver, told the Daily Caller both ObamaCare and new local laws have "devastated" businesses in the region.

A coalition of groups operating under the name http://www.wheresmywaiver.com/  says that "50.26% of waiver beneficiaries are unionized, despite union workers only making up 11.9% of the workforce."  


 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572386/201105161848/Editorial-Gingrich-On-Wrong-Side-In-Medicare-Debate.aspx                 the core of Ryan's plan has, in one form or another, been championed by sensible Democrats for many years.  Under Ryan's plan, rather than creaky government-run insurance, future retirees could choose from a menu of private plans, with the feds picking up the bulk of the premium tab.This "premium support" idea was first advocated more than 15 years ago by health experts at two liberal think tanks, and by a bipartisan Medicare commission that President Clinton put together in 1998. An earlier version of Ryan's plan was drafted with the help of Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin.And instead of casting it as scary "right-wing social engineering," Gingrich could have noted that Ryan's reformed Medicare would look very much like what most workers have today — a choice of private plans, with the bulk of the premiums paid by somebody else.Finally, he could have reminded the public that what's really radical is what Obama and his fellow Democrats are advocating — do nothing, hope to win some votes by scaring seniors and let Medicare bankrupt the country.  the classic dodge for politicians unwilling to make any hard choices. 



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/568441/201104071720/Taking-A-Path-To-Prosperity-Or-Low-Road-To-12-Election.aspx                 For the release of Paul Ryan's proposed budget offers the American citizenry a clear and unavoidable choice: liberty and prosperity, or statism and insolvency.  We are $14 trillion in debt. According to White House projections, for every $4 that the federal government brings in this year, it will spend a little over $7. The White House also projects that mandatory spending ("autopilot" spending) alone will exceed total federal revenues for this year.  In other words, if we didn't spend a dime on national defense, national parks, interstate highways, homeland security or any other discretionary programs, we still wouldn't be able to make ends meet — let alone start to pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt we've already accrued.  Ryan's budget would cut deficit spending by a whopping 46% — a savings of $4.4 trillion (according to the CBO). It would cut nonsecurity discretionary spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels and would set caps on that spending.  Ryan also proposes to reform Medicare, making it the same kind of premium-support program that is enjoyed by members of Congress, as the government would give future beneficiaries a choice of various plans and subsidize their costs.  (Look at the FEHBP website:  http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/    http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/index.asp  Those who are 55 and older would not be affected by these reforms. They would continue to go into Medicare as it is currently structured, although they could choose to enroll in the newly reformed Medicare program if they would like, once it starts in 2022.)

Philip Klein, writing in the American Spectator, notes that if either the president's or Baucus' plan passes, Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85% of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policyholders (keeping only 15%). For the kinds of policies sold by AARP, the required payout is only 65% (keeping 35% or more than twice the competition PROFIT). So if you like the coverage you have, as most seniors and other Americans do, you can kiss it goodbye.  This was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history. It is. We can see right through it.

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/504246/200908241838/Tort-Reform-Is-Key-To-Health-Reform.aspxA 2006 Harvard School of Public Health study found that four out of every 10 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in America each year were "without merit." Nonetheless, defending against such lawsuits imposes costs on doctors, hospitals and insurers that invariably are passed on to health care consumers.According to the 900 doctors anonymously surveyed, on average, 18% to 28% of tests, procedures, referrals and consultations and 13% of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits. All of this adds at least $1.4 billion to annual health care costs in Massachusetts alone, and national estimates range as high as $200 billion.the Association of American Medical Colleges predicts that the overall shortage of doctors practicing both primary care and high-risk specialties may grow to nearly 125,000 by 2025. Texas has since joined 24 other states by enacting reforms that include a reasonable limit on non-economic damages for pain and suffering of up to $750,000 per incident. This essential reform does not limit compensatory awards for calculable lost wages and medical expenses, but it does balance the interests of patients and care providers while helping to ensure access to necessary care.Now, according to Gov. Perry, doctors' insurance rates have declined by an average of 27% while the "number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas has skyrocketed by 57%. In ... just the first five years after reforms passed, 14,498 doctors either returned to practice in Texas or began practicing here for the first time."Joyce is president of the American Tort Reform Association ( www.atra.org ), the only national organization exclusively dedicated to reforming the civil justice system. 

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/514618/200912071930/Just-Say-No.aspx                      the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. But the left is never going to accept that, because the FEHBP that senators and congressmen have enjoyed for nearly 50 years is private insurance — with oodles of different plans.  Look at the FEHBP website:  http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/    http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/index.asp   The president last year said health reform's purposes were to reduce costs and cover nearly everybody. Yet this bill will cost trillions, raise middle-class families' health premiums by thousands of dollars a year — and in the end still leave millions uninsured     

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/514427/200912041915/Reform-For-You-But-Not-Congress.aspx                               Coburn and Vitter's idea of politicians living under a government plan "was opposed unanimously by Democrats during interviews on Thursday," the Hill newspaper reports. FEHBP members can easily switch plans if they become dissatisfied; that puts competitive pressure on insurers to provide quality and value. Surveys show that members love their coverage, which is why almost all federal employees join the program.The FEHBP is shielded from state regulation and Uncle Sam subsidizes premiums by more than 70%. Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Dr. David Gratzer, whose opposition to government-run health care comes from first-hand experience, observes that "the federal government's role in the FEHBP is to pay the bills," unlike the fiscally doomed Medicare program, of which "Washington is the designer of benefits."Today, instead of the federal takeover Democrats are rushing to enact, lawmakers could give Americans the kind of high-quality health care choices they enjoy. A simple system of vouchers would allow recipients to choose any health plan on the market. The system could be means-tested, with Medicare giving "larger vouchers to poorer and sicker seniors and smaller vouchers to healthy and wealthy seniors, using current health-risk-adjustment mechanisms and Social Security data on lifetime earnings," says Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.top of the lies is the hypocrisy the American people have come to expect from their politicians: continuation of the nearly 50-year-old loophole providing senators and House members with a wide choice of private health plans.

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/507539/200909301817/Health-Care-Reform-For-You-Not-US.aspx                          National Association of Retired Federal Employees, The group warns its members that "without the opportunity to study nonfederal enrollees in a separate FEHBP risk pool, the introduction of any new community into the FEHBP could result in unanticipated premium increases." Should it really be a surprise that politicians in Washington have bestowed upon themselves the best health care scheme available? Should it amaze anyone that even liberal lawmakers pushing for a single payer Euro-socialistic health system for the rest of us found that a system squarely based on robust competition and the widest range of consumer choice was what they would want for themselves and their families?The number of private health insurance plans available to federal employees through FEHBP is well over 200, ranging from fee-for-service policies to HMOs and PPOs. The geographical location of the federal worker may limit availability, but no government employee has fewer than a dozen choices available.Plus, every year, the millions of Americans who form the federal work force can switch their plan if they've decided they don't like it, and every year tens of thousands of them do just that.  "This puts tremendous pressure on health plans to be competitive and innovative," notes Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute. "Not surprisingly, most are." And while most U.S. private employers don't offer consumer-driven health insurance plans, the FEHBP offers a selection of more than a dozen such schemes.Uncle Sam helps out with the premiums too, to the tune of over 70%, and regulation is very much on the light side: no state-mandated benefits or premium taxes and no specification of standard benefits by the federal government.As Dr. Gratzer puts it, comparing the FEHBP to federal health care entitlements, "the federal government's role in the FEHBP is to pay the bills; under Medicare, Washington is the designer of benefits." What's more, FEHBP costs have grown at a far lower rate than private insurance spending. That's the beauty of an arrangement that embraces competition.

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/509943/200910221845/Gun-Control-By-Way-Of-Health-Reform.aspx                      Considering the drive for health care reform and the views on private gun ownership held by this administration and appointees such as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, this renewed linkage between gun control and public health is of interest to defenders of the 2nd Amendment as well.After the 1996 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, Scotland, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. But that didn't cut down on violent crime, which nearly doubled from 1998-99 to 2002-03.Australia also saw violent crime pick up after it banned private possession of most firearms in 1996. Increases in violent crime averaged 32% a year in the six years following the ban. Armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.Nothing increases gun violence like the sure knowledge your potential victim is unarmed. Such studies ignore the lives saved and the rapes and assaults prevented by guns in the home or by citizens in "right to carry" states.According to data from the Census Bureau, 65.7% of the U.S. population lives in the 39 right-to-carry states, and there is no indication that such laws have turned our neighborhoods into the O.K. Corral.  To the contrary, all the stats we've seen show a steep decline in murders and violent crimes after a state adopts a right-to-carry law.Dr. Glen Otero of the Claremont Institute reports that where U.S. counties have enacted conceal-carry laws, murder rates have fallen by 8%, rape by 5% and aggravated assault by 7%, with the highest declines in urban counties.As researcher John Lott notes, much of our violent crime is also gang-related, with 70% of American murders occurring in just 3.5% of U.S. counties — inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated and gangs fight over turf.  Most of the mass shootings of recent vintage, from the Trolley Square Mall in Utah to Virginia Tech, occurred in gun-free zones where only the predator was allowed to be armed.

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/480380/200906231821/Why-The-Big-Bang-On-Health-Care-If-Smaller-Targeted-Plan-Will-Do-.aspx                        Instead, we can give the truly uninsured vouchers or debit cards that will allow for choice and coverage, and even health savings accounts for retirement wealth. According to expert Betsy McCaughey, rather than several trillion dollars and socialized medicine, this voucher approach would cost only $25 billion a year — with no socialized medicine."Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as he spends his own," Friedman said. He also fingered the tax code, which allows for an exemption from the income tax only if health care is employer-provided.This is a free-lunch syndrome, one that removes incentives for competition and cost-control because we're all playing with somebody else's money. the Democratic agenda has always been a class-warfare, anti-business attack on private-sector doctors, hospitals, insurance firms and drug companies.  In the name of cost-cutting, what's really going on is a major knockdown of profits. Liberals have always railed against the "excess profits" of insurance firms, drug companies and physicians.  Knocking down profits and telling people what to do because government planners know best, right?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/479964/200906181835/Why-Scrap-A-Health-Care-System-That-250-Million-Americans-Like-.aspx                        We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million — 15% of us — with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85%, with it.And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News-Kaiser Family Foundation-USA Today survey. It found that 89% of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone.With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video (available at  http://reason.tv/video/show/560.html ) of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings.  These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them.With a change in priorities, these young folks — far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing — could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They just consider it a low priority.So here's the question: Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn't already run, for 10 million to 15 million or so without health insurance on a permanent basis?  Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89% of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.What's wrong with charity — people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate.  People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/480067/200906191739/Public-Option-To-Cut-Health-Costs-Medicares-Record-Says-Dream-On.aspx   The centerpiece of President Obama's plan is a "public option," described by Tom Daschle as "a government-run insurance program, modeled after Medicare." The president asserts that this new Medicare-like program would cut costs.But there are nearly 40 years of experience to consult, and they offer a resounding rebuttal. Across the years, Medicare's costs have risen far more than the costs of privately purchased care.A new study I've completed, published by the Pacific Research Institute, takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient. The president himself says that "over the last decade" Americans "have seen their out-of-pocket expenses soar." But, according to official government figures, per-patient out-of-pocket costs have risen only 35% since 2000, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen 59% — again, even without the prescription drug benefit.



 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/482299/200907151740/Let-Customers-Control-The-Money-And-Market-Will-Cure-Health-Care.aspx                                Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told Congress last year: "Imagine what the world would be like if workers (understood) that today it was costing them $10,000 a year in take-home-pay for their employer-sponsored insurance, and that could be $7,000 and they could have $3,000 more in their pockets today if we could relieve these inefficiencies out of the health system." Nothing will increase consumers' understanding like giving them that $10,000 directly.Letting consumers control the money requires two steps.  First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and sick to ensure they could afford coverage.Second, Congress needs to give consumers who purchase their own coverage the same tax break as workers with job-based coverage.Leveling the playing field — whether with tax credits, a standard deduction for health insurance or "large" health savings accounts — would boost purchases of non-job-based coverage, which is critical to cutting the overall number of uninsured.As important, it would give workers control over the entire $10,000 Orszag mentioned, for a total effective tax cut of $532 billion each year. Consumers would eliminate wasteful spending quickly, because they would keep the $3,000 in savingsAmericans deserve the freedom to purchase coverage across state lines. One study estimated that that move alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without costing taxpayers a dime. Leveling the playing field will force employers to give sicker workers more than the average $9,000 or $10,000 "cash-out," which will help them purchase coverage. When workers buy coverage directly from an insurer, far fewer will end up uninsured when they lose a job.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/483646/200907291749/History-Of-Govt-Run-Health-Care-Is-A-Study-In-Skyrocketing-Costs.aspx                            In 1968 total spending by the federal government was $178.1 billion dollars. Forty years later in 2007, total spending had risen to $2,728.9 billion dollars. So the budget of the U.S. increased in dollar terms 15.3 times in that 40-year span.But all programs did not rise in unison. Some rose more, others less.  Outlays for Social Security rose from $23.3 billion in 1968 to $581.4 billion in 2007, an increase of 25 times. So Social Security drove the budget higher at a substantially faster rate than the budget rose as a whole.ObamaCare plans to expand the government's role in insuring the American people.   What kind of impact did Medicare, the first large government health insurance plan have in budgetary terms? Medicare rose from $5.1 billion in 1968 to $436.0 billion in 2007 an astounding increase of 85.5 times over the 40-year period. Will Obama-Care be better?Beware of government estimates about the future cost of ObamaCare. When Medicare was being considered in the mid-1960s, the government projected that the outlays for the program 25 years down the road would be $10 billion. Instead, in 1990, 25 years later, the outlays were $107 billion. Government estimates were off by a factor of more than 10!Medicaid, the other large medical program currently in effect, outdid Medicare. Medicaid outlays in 1968 were $1.8 billion. In 2007 they had risen to $190.6 billion, an increase in dollar terms of 105.9 times.And that is only the Federal outlay number. There is a roughly equal Medicaid amount spent by the states due to federal mandates. Without those mandates we would not be reading about the large deficits that most states endure.The idea of expanding the federal role in the medical arena is truly fiscally irresponsible.   If in the 40-year span from 1968 through 2007 Social Security went up 25 times, Medicare 85.5 and Medicaid 105.9, why did the total federal budget increase overall only 15.3 times? What held the budget back?  It was largely defense. Defense outlays rose from $82.2 billion in 1968 (or 46.1% of the total budget) to $547.9 billion in 2007 (20.1% of the total budget). In dollars, that is an increase of a bit less than 6.7 times.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/504570/200908271729/No-Reform-Without-Skin-In-The-Game.aspx                        After evaluating a patient I recommend a particular course of treatment. More often than not, the first question from the patient is not, "How effective is the treatment?' or "How safe is it?" Rather, the refrain is "Will my insurance cover it?"If I tell them, yes, your insurance will cover the treatment, their eyes glaze over and they couldn't care less what their care will cost. If, on the other hand, the procedure is not covered, the bargaining begins: "Do you give cash discounts?" "Can I set up a payment plan?" Or, "That's too much right now."It's easy to spend someone else's money. It's a different story when your wallet is on the table.Currently, patients largely have no incentive to control health care costs because they do not directly bear the brunt of these costs. Sure they bear it indirectly. But we have become coddled into thinking that if we are not directly writing a check or forking over cash, then we're really not paying.In reality it's the insurance companies and the government currently that are the purchasers of health care, not patients.Few patients realize that doctors by and large do not get paid what we bill. By virtue of the contracts we have signed with insurance carriers, we agree to a reduced reimbursement, allegedly in return for the promise of having access to that insurer's patient pool.Therefore, our motivation with regard to the insurance companies is to get the maximum reimbursement to which we are entitled, not to control costs. This certainly does not mean, contrary to the pablum spouted by President Obama, that we perform needless tests or procedures in order to pad the bottom line. Hardly.Rather, it means that physicians are not incentivized to keep costs down. Why would I charge $50 for an office visit for which an insurer will pay me $75?The bottom line is that neither patients nor physicians have "skin" in the game, to use a popular sports phrase, with regard to controlling costs. The patient has no stake if the care is covered by their insurance. And the physicians stand to lose more if they don't seek the maximum reimbursement allowed.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902261.html           Dr. Denis Cortese, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic. He's already doing what the nation needs -- that is, providing high-quality health care at relatively low cost. Every time I listen to Cortese explain what's wrong with the system, I have the same reaction: Let him and other smart health professionals lead us out of the political morass. Talking to Cortese this week, I heard two themes that cut to the heart of the debate. First, he thinks Obama has made a mistake in moving toward the narrower goal of "health insurance reform" when what the country truly needs is health system reform. Imposing a mandate for universal insurance will only make things worse if we don't change the process so that it becomes more efficient and less costly. The system we have is gradually bankrupting the country; expanding that system without changing the internal dynamics is folly. Second, Cortese argues that reformers should stop obsessing over whether there's a "public option" in the plan. Yes, we need a yardstick for measuring costs and effectiveness. But we should start by fixing the public options we already have. Cortese counts existing public options that should be laboratories for reform: Medicare, with its 45 million patients and a fee-for-service structure that all but guarantees bad medicine; Medicaid, with an additional 34 million beneficiaries; military medicine, through which government doctors deliver state-of-the-art care; the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has improved performance at its hospitals by embracing new technology; the "Tricare" insurance plan for military retirees; and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. What difference would such Medicare reform make? Take a look at estimates prepared by the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (which developed the national "health atlas" that was the basis for the widely read New Yorker article by Dr. Atul Gawande). At current spending rates, Medicare will run a $660 billion deficit by 2023. But by cutting the annual growth in per-capita spending from the current national average of 3.5 percent to 2.4 percent (the rate in San Francisco, for example), Medicare could save $1.42 trillion and post a big surplus.   This "pay for value" approach would amount to a cultural revolution in American health care.  

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/508314/200910071900/Does-Medicare-Care-.aspx      Premium rates are affected in no small way by government policy. Mandates handed down by lawmakers add significantly to costs.The Congressional Budget Office believes mandates such as requiring insurers to sell policies to anyone who wants one and rules on what treatments must be covered increase premium costs by 15%. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance says the increase is higher — 20% in some states and as much as 50% in others.As for denial of care, Medicare, which we've described as the government's public option for senior citizens, has the highest denial rate in the country, according to the American Medical Association's 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card.  From March 1, 2007, to March 10 of last year, Medicare rejected 475,566 of 6.94 million claims for a rate of 6.85%.Aetna was the only private insurer that had a similar number, denying 43,317 of 637,239 claims for a rate of 6.8%. But the average of seven carriers was 4.05% including Aetna. Dropping Aetna as an outlier takes the denial rate down to 3.08%.Medicare's biggest reason for rejection (27.8%) was claims lacking information "needed for adjudication," the AMA report says. More than one-fifth (20.9%) of the rejections were in response to procedures deemed not to be a medical necessity by Medicare.  Nearly 4% were rejected because they were noncovered services performed during a routine exam or screening. In 3.1% of the cases, Medicare said the expenses were incurred before the patient was covered — a pre-existing condition.  Other claims were denied because the patient wasn't covered by Medicare or couldn't be identified as a Medicare recipient, or there were paperwork problems. 

Not surprisingly, the private insurers didn't deny a single claim due to corporate greed.                http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=2ISS2a_091008.png&docId=508314&xmpSource=&width=408&height=264&caption=        

  http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/507689/200910011904/States-Show-How-Not-To-Fix-Health-Care.aspx Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Maine have all created some version of government takeover or administration of health care, and all are a mess.Government intrusion is not reform. Congress must use the failures of state-run health care as cautionary tales of change to avoid. It's time to start pushing for real reforms that increase access and portability and, above all, protect the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship.• Houston Toloczko is senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Liberty and director of its Center for Health Security and Access.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/527930/201003191907/Truth-Is-A-Casualty-Of-The-Final-Push.aspx                        "Our proposal is paid for ... our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people's premiums and bring down our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades." Government programs always cost more than projected. Medicare, which has $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities, was supposed to cost $10 billion within 25 years of its implementation. It actually cost $107 billion.The real cost of the Democrats' reform plan, according to the Cato Institute, which isn't handcuffed in its estimates like the Congressional Budget Office, is $2.5 trillion over the first decade.        "If this vote fails, then insurance companies will continue to run amok." They're not exactly wildcatting as it is. Health plan providers boast a profit margin of 3.4% — placing them 88th of 215 industries in Morningstar rankings. More than 2,000 state mandates dictate what coverages they provide.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/510340/200910261849/Insuring-Doom.aspx                   As the Associated Press recently reported, the health insurance industry's profit margins tend to be in the 6% range, not impressive at all when compared with other areas of insurance. Margins shrank to 2.2% last year, with health insurers ranking 35th on the Fortune 500 list of industries. As a result, the credit ratings of some leading insurers have been downgraded to negative.Health insurers' earnings grew less than 9% in the last five years, and they now rank below communications firms, railroads, beer companies, detergent makers, fast-food restaurants, kitchen utensil manufacturers, and chocolate makers.  Watch out — one of those might be Uncle Sam's next target. 

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/515934/200912212013/Socialism-Creeps-InCW-As-America-Sleeps.aspx                             the United States Senate, at 1 a.m. Monday, rushing to vote in the middle of a snowstorm to close debate on the most important piece of legislation of our time — the nationalization of the U.S. health care system. And we've been scrambling ever since to make sense of it.        The vote was taken without any members having read the main 2,074-page bill, let alone the 383 pages of amendments that were tacked on at the last minute to buy off senators, including Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. The bill's requirement that Americans buy insurance is a major step toward that takeover. It's the first time in our nation's history the government has made Americans buy something. Get used to it. It's going to become a pattern.

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/555013/201011261902/Americas-Standard.aspx           When King Abdullah flew out of Saudi Arabia Monday to be treated after a blood clot had complicated a slipped disc, he didn't choose France, Italy, Britain, Canada, Morocco, Oman or Cyprus, all nations that stand higher than the U.S. in the World Health Organization's ranking of health care systems.  Neither did he stay in Saudi Arabia, travel to relatively nearby Malta or Greece. He avoided Andorra, Spain, Monaco and the United Arab Emirates, again, all judged by WHO to have better health care than the U.S.So why did the man who has the resources to go anywhere in the world choose America? The answer isn't one Michael Moore, who thinks Cuba has better medicine than the U.S. and once said "we have the worst health care in the Western world," wants to hear.said "               The WHO used five factors in its rankings: health level, 25%; health distribution, 25%; responsiveness and responsiveness distribution, 12.5% each; financial fairness, 25%. Health level would be a good measure of a nation's overall health care system. Responsiveness is another legitimate benchmark.  But the other three? They're not related to the quality of care. They are more of a gauge of a country's statist disposition.Not everyone in the U.S. lives in a luxury home, drives the best car or eats the finest food. Why should health care be any different, especially when trying to do so drives down the quality of care for all?Don't be fooled. The best health care in the world is found in America. When comparing survival rates, waiting times, screening outcomes, and medical innovations and technologies, the U.S. comes out on top. Our care is why kings, premiers and the ultra-rich who can go anywhere they wish choose the U.S. for their care.  


  http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19213                   In the United States, Medicaid "Cash and Counseling" programs -- underway for over a decade -- allow home bound, disabled patients to manage their own budgets and choose services that meet their needs. ·         In Germany and Austria, a cash payment is made to people eligible for long-term care -- with few strings attached and little oversight on how the money is used. ·         In England and the Netherlands, the disabled and the elderly manage budgets in a manner similar to Cash and Counseling in the United States. ·         Also in this country, Florida and Texas have SDC programs for patients with serious mental illness and the Veterans Administration has an SDC program operating in 20 states for long-term care and mental illness.   Further, it appears that we have barely scratched the surface in taking advantage of patient power opportunities.  The greatest potential in this area is in the treatment of chronic illness.  Studies show that chronic patients can often manage their own care with results as good or better than under traditional care; and if patients are going to manage their own care, it makes sense to allow them to manage the money that pays for that care, says Goodman: ·         The British National Health Service (NHS) is already contributing to SDC budgets for muscu­lar dystrophy, severe epilepsy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. ·         The NHS believes it is saving money in reduced hospital and nursing home costs. ·         The NHS is also about to launch pilot programs that will include mental health, long-term chronic conditions, maternity care, substance abuse, children with complex health conditions and end-of-life care.  The advantage of empowering patients and families in this way are straightforward: lower costs, higher quality care and higher patient satisfaction, explains Goodman.   Source: John C. Goodman, "An International Trend Toward Self-Directed Care," Health Affairs, April 9, 2010. For text: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/04/09/an-international-trend-toward-self-directed-care/                     For Commonwealth Fund study:            http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2010/Feb/1370_Alakeson_intl_devel_selfdirected_care_ib_v2.pdf 






November 21, 2011    Florida's Medicaid Reform

During its five years of operations, Florida's Medicaid Reform Pilot has been a decided success, improving the health of enrolled patients, achieving high patient satisfaction and keeping cost increases below average.  Since then, Florida has passed its Statewide Reform, which promises to extend these benefits throughout the state.  If Florida's Medicaid Reform Pilot experience were replicated nationwide, the outcomes in almost every facet of the program would be significantly improved and would offer participants meaningful reforms to a system that has been falling into decay, says Tarren Bragdon, of the Heritage Foundation.

The pilot program, which was isolated to five counties in Florida, saved an estimated $161 million per year, with an aggregate estimated annual savings of $1.9 billion when the reform is put in place statewide.  Researchers suggest that if a similar program were to be put in place nationwide, it would save $91 billion annually.

The pilot program's results can be fairly projected on the nation as a whole because the program served a diverse population of 2.93 million, which includes 290,000 Medicaid recipients.

The program's success is not only fiscal -- it has exceeded expectations in almost every one of the six objectives that were established to measure its performance.

First, the program drastically increased the number of options with meaningful distinctions, with enrollees sometimes having as many as 16 plans to choose from.

Second, the pilot ensured greater access to services that are often ignored.

Third, pilot patients are obtaining better health outcomes, with Reform Pilot counties outperforming non-Reform Pilot counties and the national average in 64 percent and 53 percent of health measures, respectively.

In its fourth objective to ensure the ability to opt-out of Medicaid, the program performed poorly with little participation or interest.

Fifth, enrollee satisfaction was promoted, with 83 percent of satisfaction measures for Health Maintenance Organizations and 100 percent for Provider Service Networks above national averages.

Sixth, the program achieved these broad gains while holding costs far below national averages.

Source: Tarren Bragdon, "Florida's Medicaid Reform Shows the Way to Improve Health, Increase Satisfaction, and Control Costs," Heritage Foundation, November 9, 2011.

For text: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/11/Floridas-Medicaid-Reform-Shows-the-Way-to-Improve-Health-Increase-Satisfaction-and-Control-Costs



November 16, 2011  A Better Way to Approach Medicare's Impossible Task

As Congress faces mounting pressure to rein in Medicare spending, two sides seem to be squaring off.  The don't-touch-a-thing-other-than-squeezing-provider-fees position seems to appeal to mainly Democrats, while eat-your-spinach reforms, including more cost sharing and higher premiums, seem to appeal mainly to Republicans.  Neither position is very appealing to voters, however, nor should they be, say Thomas Saving, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and John C. Goodman, president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Is there a third way that appeals to voters -- young and old?  Saving and Goodman think there is.  To see how it might work, it first must be understood that what Medicare is currently trying to do is virtually impossible.  Indeed, Medicare isn't just setting prices -- it is regulating whole transactions.

A more sensible approach is to quit asking for the impossible.  Instead, let's begin the process of allowing medical fees to be determined the way prices are determined everywhere else in our economy -- in the marketplace.

In trying to do that, we face two problems.

First, we have completely suppressed normal market forces in medical care for many years.

Second, many people believe that Medicare is using monopsony (single buyer) power to push provider fees below market levels. However, economic theory predicts that monopsony not only results in lower input prices, it also results in less output. In this case, that means less medical care.

Saving and Goodman believe there are at least nine important policy changes that can circumvent these two problems and free the marketplace in the process.  They include:

Retail outlets.

Telephone and e-mail services.

Concierge doctors.

Billing by time, rather than task.

Paramedical personnel, such as nurses and physician assistants.

Bundling services.

Medical tourism.

Selective relaxation of price controls.

Health care stamps, similar to how food stamps are used.

In each of these cases the principle is the same: let markets do what only markets can do well.  Essentially we let the market replace the gigantic Medicare regulatory apparatus.

Source: Thomas Saving and John Goodman, "A Better Way to Approach Medicare's Impossible Task," Health Affairs Blog, November 15th, 2011.  For text: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/11/15/a-better-way-to-approach-medicares-impossible-task/#more-15114






Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.             Take Obamacare: Most people know the GOP-led House of Representatives repealed it (though the Democrat-controlled Senate almost certainly will not, nor will Obama ever sign it). And many also know 27 states are challenging Obamacare in court. But what few understand is that at least 11 states are attempting to legislatively nullify Obamacare within their borders. So far, an act to nullify the entire federal health-care law has become state law in Montana and Idaho, has been approved by one house in North Dakota, and introduced in eight other states – New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota and Oklahoma.  What about the federal government's labyrinthine gun laws? Eight states have already passed laws – signed by their governors – telling Washington its firearms regulations are not valid in those states for weapons manufactured and purchased in-state. Many other states are on the same legislative track.  There's much more: Utah last month became the first state to make gold and silver legal tender in that state. Twenty-four states are defying Obama by copying Arizona's immigration law – the one the Obama Justice Department sued Arizona over. Lawmakers in 40 states are working to halt the epidemic of "anchor babies" establishing "birthright citizenship." And 13 states are considering laws that would require every presidential candidate – including Barack Obama – to prove he is a natural-born citizen before his name can be placed on that state's ballot in presidential elections.  Highlights of "STATES OF REBELLION" <http://superstore.wnd.com/SUBSCRIPTIONS/whistleblower/Whistleblower-Magazine?promocode=110412> 

 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567804/201103311843/The-Golden-Years-Of-AARP.aspx                        "AARP's financial gain from the health care law," the report states, "could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of (Medicare Advantage) plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead."    http://blogs.forbes.com/merrillmatthews/2011/04/06/state-health-care-flexibility-the-good-the-bad-and-the-broke/http://www.healthcarecompact.org/http://americaisrising.com/      Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) is here to protect your interests, and to offer an alternative perspective on how to best solve the problems seniors face today. AMAC will be on your side when it comes to fighting high taxes, which are especially harmful to those living on a fixed income.  You can count on AMAC to speak out to preserve the values that helped make America a great nation.  AMAC is not afraid to say we still believe in God and Country.  We are the new senior organization.  And we need your help to grow. AMAC was developed for anyone age 50 or above, and to provide discounts not available anywhere else. Discounts for AMAC members include hotel and motel discounts at over 7,000 locations across the country, discounts to help you save on auto and homeowners insurance, and we’re working very hard to provide exclusive discounts in your local area. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/568383/201104061838/Pain-And-Suffering.htm            ObamaCare model, how does it work in Britain? 


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/504749/200908281827/Government-Isnt-The-Only-Answer-To-Helping-Needy-Get-Health-Care.aspx                  The Founding Fathers vigorously debated the role of the federal government and defined it in Article I, Section 8 — spelling out the specific duties and obligations of the federal government.Most notably, these included providing a military for national security, coining money, establishing rules for immigration and citizenship, establishing rules for bankruptcy, setting up a postal system, establishing trademark and copyright rules, and setting up a legal system to resolve disputes.Charity is not there.Congress began ignoring its lack of authority for charity before the ink dried on the Constitution. When Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist French refugees in 1792, James Madison — a Founding Father and principal author of the Constitution — wrote:          "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."What about the Constitution's general welfare clause?Madison said: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."And consider government welfare's effect on people's willingness to give. During the Great Depression — before the social programs that today we accept as givens (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) — charitable giving increased dramatically.  After FDR began signing social programs into law, charitable giving continued, but not at the same rate. People felt that they had given at the office and/or that government was handling it.Government "charity" is simply less efficient than private charity. Every dollar extracted from taxpayers, sent to Washington and then routed to the beneficiary loses about 70 cents in transfer costs — salaries, rent and other expenses.The Salvation Army, by contrast, spends 2 cents in operating costs, with the remainder going to fundraising and the beneficiary. It achieves this, among other ways, by relying on volunteers to do much of the work.Three in four families donate to charity, averaging more than 3% of their income, with two-thirds going to secular charities. In total, Americans give more than $300 billion a year — more than the gross domestic product of Finland or Ireland. More than half of families also donate their time.Absent (unconstitutional) government programs, individuals and charitable organizations can, will and — in many cases — already do provide services to the needy. A limited government — one that taxes only to fulfill its permissible duties — would allow even more disposable time and money.People-to-people charity is more efficient, less costly, more humane and compassionate, and more likely to inspire change and self-sufficiency in the beneficiary.



June 30, 2011     Five Percent of Population Responsible for Half of U.S. Health SpendingAbout 5 percent of the population is responsible for almost half of all health care spending in the United States and for rising premium rates, according to a new report from the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, says the National Journal.The report stated about half of the U.S. population accounted for only 3.1 percent of all expenditures. But 10 percent of the population hogged 63.6 percent of all health spending, the survey found. The top 5 percent of the population accounted for 47.5 percent of all spending, and the top 1 percent accounted for 20.2 percent. While the average person incurred about $233 in costs in 2008 for health care services, those in the top half of spending cost insurers, the government or themselves $7,317.  The top 1 percent cost $76,476. Adults 55 and over made up a larger proportion of the high-spending group, while those in the lower spending group tended to be younger.  The report also found that people with at least one chronic health condition were two to four times more likely to have spending in the top 5 percent group.The likelihood increased as the number of chronic conditions rose.  Nearly half of people in the top 5 percent of health care spending had high blood pressure, a third had high cholesterol and a quarter had diabetes.As health care spending rose, so did private health insurance premiums.  During the 2005 to 2009 stretch in which health care spending rose, premiums for private health insurance increased by nearly 15 percent.Source: Althea Fung, "Report: 5 Percent of People Account for Half of U.S. Health Care Spending," National Journal, June 27, 2011.  "Understanding U.S. Health Care Spending," National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, July 2011.For text:http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/report-5-percent-of-people-account-for-half-of-u-s-health-care-spending-20110627  July 1, 2011  Health Care Costs Vary WidelyPatients pay as much as 683 percent more for the same medical procedures, such as MRIs or CT scans, in the same town, depending on which doctor they choose, according to a new study by a national health care group, reports USA Today.That means patients who pay for a percentage of their care, instead of a copayment, may end up spending hundreds of dollars more for a certain procedure than they would if they chose treatment somewhere else -- often within a few minutes' drive.Change:healthcare looked at claims data from May 2010 to May 2011 for 82,000 employees of small businesses to determine price differences for several procedures: MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds and PET scans.For a pelvic CT scan, they found that within one town in the Southwest, a person could pay as little as $230 for the procedure, or as a much as $1,800. For a brain MRI in a town in the Northeast, a person could pay $1,540 -- or $3,500. Howard McClure, CEO of Change:healthcare says health plans are moving toward "reference-based pricing," in which they look at the average price of a procedure for a region, then say that's all they'll reimburse.  But if a patient does not know how much a procedure costs, he or she gets stuck with the remainder of the bill if it goes above that average price.Providers, he said, often don't know real costs, either.  When asked by patients for the cost of a procedure, providers often say they need to check with the insurer.  The patient only learns the real cost when the bill arrives, McClure says.Source: Kelly Kennedy, "Health Care Costs Vary Widely, Study Shows," USA Today, June 30, 2011.  "Healthcare Transparency Index," Change:healthcare, June 2011.For text:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2011-06-30-health-costs-wide-differences-locally_n.htm 



January 27, 2012      Medical Loss Ratios

Beginning in 2011, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), insurers were required to maintain a medical loss ratio (MLR) of 85 percent for large group plans and 80 percent for small group and individual plans.  This ratio represents the fraction of insurers' premiums that are dedicated to cutting medical costs as opposed to "administrative" expenses, says Spencer Harris, a health care policy analyst with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

But the PPACA also grants authority to the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to grant waivers to states that sufficiently demonstrate that the MLR regulations would destabilize their insurance markets.

Since passage of the PPACA, HHS has received 15 requests from states for MLR requirement waivers.Only one of those 15 waiver requests was fully approved. Five other states were granted limited approval, while six others were rejected outright.  Texas and two other states await a decision.

The MLR mandate is damaging because it needlessly interferes with the way in which insurers conduct business, and can actually have the opposite of its intended effect.  By limiting how insurers spend their premium revenues, MLR requirements will limit optimal business strategies and distort priorities away from activities deemed "administrative," such as fraud investigation and agent compensation.

Furthermore, MLR requirements can raise premiums by forcing insurers to leave a given state.  Companies that cannot operate under the new regulation stop doing business, thereby limiting competition and driving up prices.  This was seen clearly with MLR regulations in Kentucky and North Dakota in the 1990s, and there is evidence to believe it will happen again: in seven states, insurers have signaled their intent to stop offering coverage in the individual market or have left altogether.

Insurers in Texas are no more ready to take on this additional burden.

In 2010, only seven of 26 carriers subject to the regulations achieved an MLR of 80 percent.

The largest carrier in the state individual and small group market, representing 56.1 percent of the market, had an MLR of 69.9 percent. In 2010, the cost of noncompliance would have totaled $158.1 million for an industry whose total underwriting profits were only $158.6 million for that year.

Source: Spencer Harris, "Medical Loss Ratios" Texas Public Policy Foundation, January 2012.

For text: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2012-01-PP02-MedicalLossRatios-CHCP-SpencerHarris.pdf


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/05/why_i_apologized_to_sandra_fluke        Barack Obama wants the government, his government, making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums.  He isn't willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself. It was just another non-expert person in this case, in Sandra's case: A 30-year-old, longtime birth control activist who went back to law school after a career of years of championing birth-control issues. In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool (which was, of course, the left's true agenda) and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy. To the left, pregnancy is a disease. If you're listening to me for the first time, you may say, "Well, that's crazy." It's not. They treat pregnancy as a disease for political purposes. All of this, folks, is political.

Sandra Fluke gave vague examples based on unnamed friends who she says couldn't afford birth control to treat medical conditions they had, since Georgetown University wouldn't pay for them. Georgetown paid for all of their other medical treatment, but it wouldn't pay for the birth control pills that these doctors prescribed should they be necessary -- or so she says. We still don't know who any of these friends of hers are, these other women, and we don't know what happened to them. Her testimony was hearsay, and it was unprovable. And Issa was right not to let her give the testimony, particularly when the Democrats foisted her on the committee at the very last minute for the express purpose of pulling this fast one, this trick.

Now, let's get a few facts on the record here. Georgetown is a Jesuit University. It's Jesuits, run by the Jesuits, which are a Catholic order of priests. Their policy on birth control is not exactly a secret. It's not given to you in a sealed envelope after you sign up. It's out there for everybody to see. It's a Catholic university! Everybody that goes to there knows. Miss Fluke stated on occasion she went there specifically to change the policy. If birth control insurance is important to you as an enrolling student, and you find out that Georgetown doesn't offer it, you might want to attend (or work at) a school that isn't run by Catholics or someone with morals. I mean, just a thought.

This represents a tiny, tiny slice of what the Democrats really want here. They use Sandra Fluke to create a controversy. Sandra Fluke used them to advance her agenda, which is to force a religious institution to abandon their principles in order to meet hers.

I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability, people providing for themselves when they're totally able to. The government has no business doing any of this, getting in people's bedrooms and mandating that other citizens pay for other citizens' social activities and so forth.


Before you BURDEN someone else for something you want consider these options:

  1. Restructure and reprioritize your current spending & budget (Wants vs. Needs), so you can buy it yourself.
  2. Work more.  Get a second or third job for more income to pay for it yourself.
  3. Who else benefits from what you want?  Shouldn't they help pay for it??
    1. Birth control example.  You are making a public case, so who are you having sex with?  They benefit, so they should help pay for it.  If they can’t provide, then maybe you shouldn’t have sex with them.
  4. Get work or go to places that have what you want or have similar ideology.
    1. For birth control go to planned parenthood etc.  (don’t expect taxpayers to pay)
    2. Liberals &/or progressives should pool their money to fund their “belief” systems and causes.  They should donate their own funds (NOT other peoples’ money) to places like planned parenthood etc.
  5. Family and friends.  (If your parents won’t pay for it, why should someone else?)
  6. Do without / abstain.  If you can’t afford it, don’t do it.  Find something else to do.  Grab a Bible for guidance, training and learning.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law                CNSNews.com confirmed, however, that the Target store at 3100 14th St., NW, in Washington, D.C., which is 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus, offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Target sells a month's supply of this birth control pill for just $9 to individuals without health insurance coverage for the pills.  A CVS pharmacy only two blocks from the Georgetown Law campus also sells a month's supply of the same generic birth control pills for $33.

a Target store only 3 miles from the law school currently sells a month's supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives.  That would make the total cost for birth control pills for a student who decided to use them for all three years of law school just $324.

Fluke was the sole witness who appeared on Feb. 23 before an all-Democratic panel chaired by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).  Fluke, the 30-year-old past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice

$3,000 does sound pretty high, unless you think abortion is also contraception then you could throw in one or two of those and be in the ballpark. According to my calculations, for that same amount a coed can buy 11,256 condoms from Amazon ($15.99 for 60) and have them delivered to the dorm. If she paces herself, she could use 10 a day. That's pretty busy, but if she puts her mind to it.... Now, how many free clinics were in driving distance of these sexually promiscuous women? the Planned Parenthood Downtown Center at 1108 16th St. Northwest, DC (about 1.85 miles from your dorm)  Georgetown's healthcare plan does cover BC pills for medical reasons such as menstrual and other women's health issues. They just don't cover it for contraceptive purposes only because they are a Catholic university. She even admits that HERSELF in her testimony.

What if OBAMA, has promoted this to appease a large pharma company (who recently bought out a company who manufactures the bc pill) for the massive donations they have made. Think about how much more profits this company would generate if the Pill was on EVERY Insurance formulary?  This same pharma company, makes Viagra.  When Viagra was introduced, the company gave out Viagra ties (yes, suit ties with little Viagra pills) to government officials and Drs.  (This happened on the Clinton and Bush watch)   Presently, pharma companies are not allowed to "gift" government officials or physicians. Viagra is on the formulary of not only private insurance companies but State Medicaid formularies as well.    hmmmmm?

Maybe they should go to a community college and save some money on tuition so they can pay for other things?

There is NO FREE lunch, NO FREE condoms and NO FREE Birth control; it all costs money and the only question is WHO will pay for it???  Money does NOT grow on trees and counterfeiting is still illegal..  

On Monday's Mark Levin Show: Sarah Fluke is being used by the Left as a spokesperson and an advocate to advance their healthcare agenda. What kind of liberal movement puts free contraceptives ahead of cancer and other diseases?  Rather belatedly, we are becoming aware that this supposedly typical Georgetown coed is not very typical at all:

[B]irth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.  The title of the article . . . is “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review.




http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/02/wanting-a-retro-active-abortion/          “I wish pro-choice advocates felt the same way about ultrasounds and scientifically accurate information about prenatal development. However, most seem to feel that it’s ‘extreme’ to provide that kind of information and allow women to ‘attach value and meaning’ to it. Isn’t it strange of how information that could lead to the decision to have an abortion is so valued in the pro-choice community while information which could lead to a choice not to have an abortion is so despised?”

It would be difficult to come up with a harder hard case than that posed by Emily Rapp. Her nearly two-year-old son, Ronan, has Tay-Sachs, an awful disease that is inevitably fatal.  No one doubts that Rapp’s situation—and Ronan’s—is difficult beyond words. The question is would killing him have been “an act of love”?   “Rapp also believes killing her child in the womb would have been an ‘act of love’ because it would have stopped his suffering. I wonder if she thinks killing him now (he’s nearly 2 and beautiful) would also be an act of love since it would also end his suffering?  “But that’s the sort of obvious question abortion advocates never really answer or even seem to consider, isn’t it?”




Website Builder