Federal judge in VA rules ObamaCare’s individual mandate unconstitutional
It is but one win in the war against socialism and nanny statism. But it is a big win nonetheless, especially for the Constitution!
Media Matters: Fox News is equating “public option” with “government-run”! Can you believe that?
I don’t know how to break it to you morons at MM, but Merriam-Webster just called to say that “public” and “government-run” are one and the same. Sorry ’bout that.
Rumor has it that the Media Morons crowd will now protest equating “horse” with “equine” and “cow” with “bovine”. Then again, anything these imbeciles report is no more than “bovine feces”.
Well, at least the MSM doesn’t play rhetorical favorites. Oh, wait…
ObamaCare needed to be passed so badly that…the feds exempt 222+ companies from complying
Pelosi: We need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.
Over 200 companies: We found out. We’re dropping coverage for our workers.
Obama: OK, you’re exempt. But as for everyone else…
The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.
One of the more recognizable business names included on the newly-expanded list of waivers issued by the feds is that of Waffle House, which received a waiver on November 23 for health coverage that covers 3,947 enrollees.
Another familiar name was that of Universal Orlando, which runs a variety of very popular resorts in the Orlando, Florida area. Universal was given a waiver for plans that cover 668 workers.
These waivers deal with limited health benefit plans, sometimes referred to as “mini-med” policies, which companies as large as McDonald’s use for some its employees.
The plan have limits on how much can be paid out in coverage, limits which would be phased out under the new health reform law.
The feds though have granted waivers from that law, amid concern that certain groups would drop their health insurance programs entirely. Those waivers are good for one year, and can be considered for renewal.
A spokeswoman for Waffle House refused to explain the need for the waiver, saying “because Waffle House is a private company, we are going to decline to comment.”
As for Universal Orlando, a spokesman defended the waiver in an email on Monday evening.
“The new legislation would have left our part-time workers without their medical coverage,” said Tom Schroder of Universal Orlando Public Relations.
“We sought the waiver so that we could continue to provide them with the coverage they need and deserve,” Schroder added.
Only a fool (or a liberal, same diff) would think this number won’t skyrocket even further over the coming weeks and months.
Health care reform group: Hey, can we get exempted from ObamaCare?
Obama administration to health care reform group: Of course you can get a waiver! I mean, you guys fought so hard for us to pass this monstrosity, so it’s only fair we grant you a waiver from it, no?
In early October, the Obama administration announced it had granted waivers not only to McDonald’s, but also to several other firms and labor unions.
Now comes word that Torquemada HHS Secretay Kathleen Sebelius has approved a whopping 111 waivers for businesses of all sizes, along with more unions and other providers of health insurance. The escapees include employers of many low-wage and part-time workers whose health insurance plans would otherwise be dropped, including Darden Restaurants — the parent company of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster and other chains, which employ some 34,000 people.
One of the entities seeking an exemption from ObamaCare? New England Health Care. Who are they?
Founded in 2002, the New England Healthcare Institute – known as NEHI – is a nonprofit, independent health policy institute dedicated to transforming health care for the benefit of patients and their families.
Hypocrites…and shamelessly so.
AARP jacks up their employee’s health care plan costs due to the very same ObamaCare package they heartily endorsed
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that the AARP isn’t so much interested in their members’ best interests as they are being a leftist tool for the Democrats. If I didn’t know any better, that is. Details:
AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.
In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.
And AARP adds that it’s changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.
“Most plan co-pays and deductibles have been modified,” Jennifer Hodges, AARP’s director of compensation and benefits, wrote employees in an Oct. 25 e-mail. “Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP’s plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform.”
Naturally, AARP is attempting what we like to call “damage control”:
AARP officials said medical inflation is the main reason employee costs will be going up. The health care law is “a small part,” said David Certner, legislative affairs director.
Uh huh. Sure it is. But they have to say that, don’t they? They can’t exactly say “We didn’t see that coming!”, can they?
Seniors were quite vocal in the town halls and in meetings with AARP (meetings where AARP reps pulled a Baron Hill-type “This is my meeting!”), and the AARP did what Congressional Democrats did to the country: they ignored their constituents. Now, the very things that seniors were worried about (specifically, increased costs) have come to fruition, just as they feared and just as we told them would happen.
I do hope that the AARP is thrilled with their increased costs. Like Babs Boxer, they “worked so hard” for it.
ObamaCare’s latest victim: Boeing
If you like your health plan, you get to keep it. Unless you work for Boeing, that is. Details:
Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers.
In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
“The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years,” wrote Rick Stephens, Boeing’s senior vice president for human resources.
…
Deductibles, the share of medical costs that employees pay annually before their plan kicks in, will go up to $300 for individuals, an increase of $100. For families, the new deductible will be $900, an increase of $300.In addition, Boeing is instituting a copayment of 10 percent after the deductible has been met. The copayment will rise to 20 percent in 2012.
Those changes will reduce the value of the Boeing plan, but it’s unclear whether that will allow the company to escape the tax (Cadillac tax. – CL) looming in 2018.
For the left, this isn’t a bug in ObamaCare. It’s a feature. In order to get to government-run (i.e. socialized) health care, the private sector must collapse first…one Boeing at a time.
Yet another company dumps retirees from its health care coverage, thanks to ObamaCare
Pelosi: “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in it!” Retirees of 3M: We just found out what’s in it, and it sucks for us. Details:
3M Co., citing new federal health laws, said Monday it won’t cover retirees with its corporate health-insurance plan starting in 2013.
Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs, and will provide reimbursement for that coverage. It’ll also reimburse retirees who are too young for Medicare; the company didn’t provide further details.
The company made the changes known in a memo to employees Friday; news of the move was reported in The Wall Street Journal and confirmed Monday by 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry.
Exit question: How soon until HHS Chairwoman Sebelius punishes 3M for exposing the lie that President Kick#ss told us about “If you like your coverage, you get to keep it”?
ObamaCare doesn’t suck as bad as we thought. It sucks worse than we thought.
Here is a great rundown (short, to the point) about how everything we were told by the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) about ObamaCare was crap. Takeaway line:
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
Crist: I was against ObamaCare, before I was for it…before I was against it again…sort of!
Crist in March, when he was still a Republican registered as a Republican:
“I think what we need to do is go ahead and repeal this thing,” said Crist, while on “Fox News Sunday” on March 28. “Let’s start over. Let’s take an opportunity to do what’s right for the people.”
Crist in July, after he dropped his party affiliation:
After switching parties, Crist softened his rhetoric on the issue. In a July 14 interview with the Wall Street Journal, he said the law “should be modified,” and didn’t support repealing it.
Crist this morning (for those of you on the left, that means “today”):
“I would have voted for it,” Crist said in the interview. “But I think it can be done better, I really do.”
Crist clarifies his position (I think)…later this afternoon:
“If I misspoke, I want to be abundantly clear: the health care bill was too big, too expensive, and expanded the role of government far too much,” Crist said in a statement. “Had I been in the United States Senate at the time, I would have voted against the bill because of unacceptable provisions like the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.”
Senator Kerry just called to say “Knock it off, will ya?”
I don’t know how to break it to Governor Citrus Skin, but being “independent” does NOT mean that the electorate is cool with mindless flip-flopping. I mean, everyone knows that Crist will say anything and vote anyway that he thinks will give him maximum political gain. That’s one thing, but it’s a totally different thing to be so openly and brazenly opportunistic to the point that it confuses everyone on all sides.
I guess that’s why he’s trailing Rubio by 10% right now. You’re a fool, Charlie.
Three million seniors losing their prescription drug coverage, thanks to ObamaCare
Didn’t President Kick#ss tell us ad nauseum last year that if you liked your coverage and your doctor, you could keep them? Yeah, that was total bovine feces (but you already knew that). Add this to the growing list of Pelosi’s “Things we’ll find out after passing the bill”:
More than 3 million seniors may have to switch their Medicare prescription plan next year, even if they’re perfectly happy with it, thanks to an attempt by the government to simplify their lives.
The policy change could turn into a hassle for seniors who hadn’t intended to switch plans during Medicare’s open enrollment season this fall.
And it risks undercutting President Barack Obama’s promise that people who like their health care plans can keep them.
A new analysis by a leading private research firm estimates that more than 3 million beneficiaries will see their current drug plan eliminated as Medicare tries to winnow down duplicative and confusing coverage, in order to offer consumers more meaningful choices. Instead of 40 or more plans in each state, beneficiaries would pick from 30 or so.
“As a result of this policy, there are going to be fewer plans offered in 2011,” said Bonnie Washington, a senior analyst with Avalere Health, which produced the study. “There is still going to be robust choice for beneficiaries, but those who have to change plans could experience some disruption and inconvenience.”
That’s a loss of 25% of choices…in the first year of ObamaCare! But hey, I’m sure there won’t be any more of those plans disappearing after that, right?
Baucus: Nah, we didn’t read the ObamaCare bill. We hired “experts” to write the bill.
When he’s not busy trying to procure a U.S. Attorney job for his mistress, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) likes to spend his time passing socialist pieces of garbage that wreck our economy and health care system…all without even reading it. Details:
Judy Matott asked Baucus if he would work to improve Libby’s image, and then asked him and Sebelius, “if either of you read the health care bill before it was passed and if not, that is the most despicable, irresponsible thing.”
Baucus replied that if Libby residents assembled an economic development plan, he would do what he could to help, and he took credit for “essentially” writing the health care bill that passed the Senate.
“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language,” Baucus said. “We hire experts.”
Exit question: Did these “experts” come from Canada, whose care is so good that their leaders come to the U.S. for their life-saving surgeries?
Parody: “Money for Nothin’, Spread the Wealth”
Dire Straits? How about Dem Strait:
Dems’ new message for midterms: OK, we lied about ObamaCare’s cost savings
But you must re-elect them so that they can…um…fix the takeover of healthcare that they forced down the public’s throat against massive public opposition and of which they seriously (intentionally?) underestimated the cost and never actually read.
Liberals: moving the goalposts when necessary. Excerpt:
Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”
The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by Families USA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation. The call was led by a staffer for the Herndon Alliance, which includes leading labor groups and other health care allies. It was based on polling from three top Democratic pollsters: John Anzalone, Celinda Lake and Stan Greenberg.
The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.
…
The presentation’s final page of “Don’ts” counsels against claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficit.”
The presentation advises, instead, sales pitches that play on personal narratives and promises to change the legislation.
Good luck with that message in November. “Yeah, we know you didn’t want it, and we shamelessly lied about its costs and negative impacts while dismissing your concerns. So how’s about putting us back in charge, huh?”
Next time you hear a leftist try to argue that ObamaCare is going to reduce costs, mention to the little pinko that not even the Democrats are making that argument anymore. They knew it was a lie when they jammed down our pieholes, and they’re now not even going to pretend anymore.
Another ObamaCare consequence: Some insurance companies no longer writing policies to cover kids
Yet another instance in a growing line of examples where Pelosi’s “We have to pass it to see what’s in it” warning was warranted. Details:
Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.
Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said several big insurers in his state will stop issuing new policies that cover children individually. Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland said a couple of local insurers in her state are doing likewise.
In Florida, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna, and Golden Rule — a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare — notified the insurance commissioner that they will stop issuing individual policies for children, said Jack McDermott, a spokesman for McCarty.
…
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida issues about 9,000 to 10,000 new policies a year that only cover children. Vice president Randy Kammer said the company’s experts calculated that guaranteeing coverage for children could raise premiums for other individual policy holders by as much as 20 percent.“We believe that the majority of people who would buy this policy were going to use it immediately, probably for high cost claims,” said Kammer. “Guaranteed issue means you could technically buy it on the way to the hospital.”
Kammer said the company did not make the decision lightly. “We were looking at all our other individual policy holders who pay a lot for coverage, and we didn’t think it was fair to given them that kind of an increase to benefit a small population that receives a greater advantage than they do,” she said.
Turns out that when you make businesses incur signifantly higher costs, businesses always look for ways to avoid getting socked with said skyrocketing costs. Huh. Go figure. Who knew, right?
Exit question: Why do Democrats hate children?
Pelosi’s strategy to retain the House: Hey, let’s run on the super awesome and mega-popular ObamaCare!
From The Hill:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doubling down on healthcare reform, betting that it will do Democrats more good than harm in November’s elections.
She and her leadership team have seized on new polls that suggest healthcare overhaul’s popularity is rising, and they are urging members of Congress to use this week’s recess to tout the new law.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the party leadership have sent lawmakers back to their districts urging them to hold town hall-type meetings to highlight the law’s benefits, in the belief it could help Democrats avoid major losses in November.
Recent polls indicate a slow but steady uptick in the popularity of healthcare reform. (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? – Ed.) Despite Republican hopes that the law’s controversial passage will win them seats this fall, the Democrats’ actions show they still consider the issue a political winner.
If, by “a slow but steady uptick in the popularity of healthcare reform”, they mean “60% of voters favor repeal of ObamaCare”, then yeah…”a slow but steady uptick.”
I mean, we’ve seen over the last several days and weeks stories that (a) businesses are going to drop health care coverage for their employees because paying the fine is cheaper for them; (b) doctors are going to stop taking new Medicare and Medicaid patients, which will swell the size of emergency rooms; (c) taxes on medical supply companies are going up, which will be passed on to consumers; (d) high risk patients not being picked up in the new high risk pool; etc., etc., etc. So yeah, why wouldn’t there be an “uptick in the popularity of health care reform”?
Good luck with that strategy in swing districts, San Fran Nan.
Government-run hospital may have infected nearly 2,000 veterans with life-threatening diseases
This is outrageous, scary, and tragic. From CNN:
A Missouri VA hospital is under fire because it may have exposed more than 1,800 veterans to life-threatening diseases such as hepatitis and HIV.
John Cochran VA Medical Center in St. Louis has recently mailed letters to 1,812 veterans telling them they could contract hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after visiting the medical center for dental work, said Rep. Russ Carnahan.
Carnahan said Tuesday he is calling for a investigation into the issue and has sent a letter to President Obama about it.
“This is absolutely unacceptable,” said Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri. “No veteran who has served and risked their life for this great nation should have to worry about their personal safety when receiving much needed healthcare services from a Veterans Administration hospital.”
Hey, I’ve got an awesome idea! How about we let the feds run our medical care?
Yet another Obama lie: He’s now saying the individual mandate IS a tax!
This guy has accomplished something I didn’t think I would ever see in my lifetime: He’s proven himself to be a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was. And in a scant 19 months in office, no less. Bubba, you’re a rank amateur compared to President Kick#ss. Details:
In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax — even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.
Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven’t presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.
Well, it’s not as if Sir Golfsalot tried doing the Clinton Shuffle on the meaning of the word “tax” or anything. Actually, it’s a lot like that:
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
So the DOJ is trying to argue that the individual mandate in the Senate law is a tax, though the Senate law says it’s not a tax but is instead interstate commerce (and thus within the feds’ jurisdiction)? Granted, it IS a tax and forcing citizens to purchase a product in order to legally exist in this country is unconstitutional, as is the fact that if this IS a tax, then the law originated in the Senate, which violates the constitutional stipulation that all tax bills originate in the House. Either way, this is an amazing predicament in which B.O. finds himself: either he lied, or his AG is an incompetent and illiterate boob. Or both.
In closing:
Put another way, the administration is now arguing in federal court that Obama signed a massive middle-class tax increase, in violation of his campaign pledge.
For those of you who were supremely stupid enough to believe Hopenchange when he said he would lower your taxes, I’ve got some swampland I’d like you to see. Sweetheart deal you’ll get. Pinkie-swear.
Stupak: Sure, we can use BP escrow to fund health care!
When he’s not busy flushing his 100% pro-life lifetime rating down the crapper in order to pass ObamaCare, Stupunk likes to pass the time validating conservative criticism that BP’s $20 billion escrow is nothing more than a left-wing slush fund. From RCP (video at link):
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): “I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability.For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but Ithink those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate.”
Poll: 63% favor repeal of ObamaCare
The news just keeps getting worse for B.O., n’est-ce pas? From Rasmussen:
Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.
Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.
Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.
The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.
While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.
Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.
This part doesn’t bode well for the Socialist-in-Chief and his Marxist minions in Congress:
Not only has support grown for repeal overall, it has also grown broadly in the electorate. Majorities of both men (65%) and women (62%) want ObamaCare repealed. Majorities in every age demographic want it repealed as well, including a shocking 70% of 18-29YO voters, which normally form the base of Barack Obama’s age-demographic support. That includes a 47% plurality that strongly supports repeal, suggesting that younger voters have finally realized that ObamaCare uses them to subsidize insurance premiums of older Americans.
In other demographics, the news is equally bad. Only the lowest income earners don’t want repeal, and that’s just by eight points, 40/48. Solid majorities support repeal in every other income bracket, and “strongly supports” doesn’t get below 48% in any of them. Seventy-two percent of independents want it repealed, and even 36% of Democrats support repeal — 17% of them strongly.
As Sarah Palin said: “I can see November from my house!” (S##k it, Tina Fey.)
Report says ObamaCare will encourage small businesses not to grow or hire
Oh, goodie! Yet another surprise that we needed to pass ObamaCare to find out what would happen! Details:
A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis shows that tax credits in the new healthcare law could negatively impact small-business hiring decisions.
The new law provides a 50 percent tax credit to companies offering health coverage that have fewer than 10 workers who, on average, earn $25,000 a year. The tax credit is reduced as more employees are added to the payroll.
The NCPA study finds the reduction in tax relief to be a cost concern for companies looking to hire additional workers, but operate on slim profit margin yet still provide employee health coverage.
“You wouldn’t think this would have an impact, but at the margins, when they [business owners] decide to hire an extra worker, they’re not only going to be paying that worker’s salary, they’re going to have to absorb the cost of losing the tax credit,” Pamela Villarreal, NCPA Senior Policy Analyst and co-author of the report, told The Hill.
…
After the 13th worker the economics surrounding the credit change, the study says.
For employers with 15 workers, taking on an additional hire will reduce the credit by $1,400. For a company looking to expand from 20 to 21 workers, the credit will shrink by $3,733. And businesses will take a $5,600 reduction on the credit when hiring the 25th worker.
The credit phases out for companies with at least 26 employees.
Bill Rys, tax counsel at the National Federation of Independent Businesses, told The Hill that while demand is the primary driver for hiring decisions, costs related to new hires is a key factor.
“To the extent that a tax credit is related to the benefits that you’re paying your employees, it is going to be a factor in determining what is the cost of the employee,” he said. “The fact that you’re losing a portion of the credit because you brought in a new employee is going to have to factor into the cost of who you’re hiring.”
You know, it’s almost as if liberals were a bunch of drooling economic illiterates with no real comprehension on how things work in the real world! Almost, that is.
Pelosi redefines “entrepreneur”
I cannot wait until this socialist moonbat wench is no longer Speaker of the House. Quoth Speaker Botox:
We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.
Uh…yeah. Just stop working and be a bum. That’s the message we need to be sending, right? Greece just called to say they think that’s a fine idea.
I thought an entrepreneur was someone who assumes a great deal of risk in order to launch a business. Apparently, the economic illiterates in the Democrap Party see losers who sit around and strum a guitar so poorly that no one will pay to hear their pablum, all while freeloading off of society’s producers, as the real entrepreneurs. Such ignorance goes a long way towards explaining their antipathy to real entrepreneurs in this country.
Exit question: Since the Dems already have the lazy good-for-nothing vote locked up, is Pelosi simply rallying the base here?
ObamaCare claims its first Democrat victim
Remember when the Moron-in-Chief and his buddy Axelturf said they welcomed the opportunity to run on ObamaCare this November? I say “Full speed ahead, Barry!” Details:
Democrat Alan Mollohan became the first member of the U.S. House to be ousted this spring primary season after his opponent mounted a campaign that questioned the 14-term congressman’s ethics and support for federal health care reform.
Mollohan conceded after unofficial returns showed that with 82 percent of precincts reporting, state Sen. Mike Oliverio was ahead 56 percent to 44 percent. It ends his 28 years in the House.
Mollohan was dogged by ethical questions, and the more conservative Oliverio ran an aggressive campaign portraying him as corrupt and out of touch. Conservative media rallied around Oliverio, along with anti-abortion groups angry over Mollohan’s support of health care reform.
…
Mollohan defended his record, arguing that most of his constituents wanted the reform he has championed for years. He said he worked hard to ensure no public funds are used for abortions and is confident the legislation achieved that, even though the National Right to Life Political Action Committee endorsed Oliverio.
Mollohan sounds like Stupuke and Ben(edict) Nelson with that canard about federal funds not being used for abortion under ObamaCare. With Stupunk’s amendment stripped out, and a toothless executive order afterwards, there is nothing to stop federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion. These vermin are disingenuous…but then again, they’re Democrats.
Mollohan was also demonstrably corrupt, and that may have also doomed his campaign. But with his opponent having been vocally against ObamaCare, and with most Americans (including 34% of Democrats) wanting ObamaCare repealed, there’s no other reasonable way to interpret Mollohan’s defeat as anything other than a rebuke of him and his support for ObamaCare.
Shocker: MA medical device companies laying off workers to pay for ObamaCare tax
You mean businesses won’t eat costs imposed on them by Big Government? Huh. Who knew? I mean, aside from me and everyone who isn’t a functional economic illiterate, who could have seen this coming?
Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs – and jobs – after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.
The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, which held its annual meeting yesterday in Boston, said about 90 percent of the 100 medical-device firms said they would reduce costs due to the new tax tucked into the recently passed health-care reform bill.
The tax – imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion – is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.
About 70 percent of the survey respondents said future innovation will be hurt by a new federal “physician sunshine bill.” The bill will require medical-device firms to report their marketing expenditures on physicians, and a recently passed gift-ban law in Massachusetts.
About 41 percent of the council’s members said the new health-care bill will help the industry by expanding the number of people getting health-care insurance.
But 42 percent said the new health-care reform bill won’t increase their business, the survey found.
Awesome. Nothing encourages innovation in medical technology quite like taxing the companies that produce said innovation.
HHS actuaries’ report showing ObamaCare’s crippling costs was sat on until AFTER the vote was held!
Boy, it sure is a good thing we’ve got a media in this country that is entrusted to shine the light of truth on this kind of thing, as opposed to being the dog washers of the Democrats and the administration!
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.” (Yeah, that kind of IS the point of such a report. – Ed.)
The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”
Link to the report here (PDF file).
Liberals are impervious to facts, of course, so they didn’t need such a report giving them grief. A handful of Lap Dog Dems supported the bill under the bovine feces guise that the bill reduced costs and the deficit (parroting Oprompter’s talking points), and had this report seen the light of day before the vote, they would have had to look for a different excuse. Sure, they would have settled on a new excuse anyway, but they would have had a devil of a time explaining to their constituents why making health care and health insurance more expensive was a good thing. Why, it’s as if they had their minds made up in advance or something!
NYT tells us more bad stuff that will result from ObamaCare
As a follow-up to my previous post, the NYT is reporting even more negative fallout from the passage of ObamaCare. Excerpt:
William Mann of Pittsburgh earns just enough to get by. He is 46, doesn’t own a car, hasn’t taken a vacation in three years and hasn’t had health insurance for most of his adult life.
He is just the kind of person who should benefit from the health care overhaul, and he is, in fact, eligible for heavily subsidized insurance that will cost him an estimated $1,845 a year, while the government contributes about $2,756.
But Mr. Mann says he still can’t afford it. He lives too close to the edge, and won’t be buying insurance, even though he will face a fine under a provision called the individual mandate, which penalizes most Americans who don’t buy coverage starting in 2014. The requirement is one of the most controversial aspects of the overhaul.
“I just can’t put that kind of money out for a ‘maybe’ — maybe I’ll get sick and use it,” said Mr. Mann, who makes just over $25,000 a year as an administrative assistant at a small wine distribution company. “That’s a lot of money.”
What? I thought this was supposed to be a panacea for lower-income Americans? You mean it’s not “free”? Dude never gets sick, and yet he’s about to get penalized for having the temerity to…um…not get sick.
Boy, it sure is a good thing we’ve got the watchdogs in the media to tell us the ramifications of passing horrendous laws after said laws are passed. You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that the MSM was more interested in giving that miserable failure of a president any kind of signature policy win, and less interested in doing their d#mned jobs!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
NYT: Now that ObamaCare is law, how about we tell you the bad side effects?
Would’ve been nice for the Old Gray Hag to inform her remaining readers of this stuff before they cheerleaded the bill to passage, no? Excerpts:
New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.
The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.
New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.
You mean charging everyone the exact same rates for different health needs, and requiring insurance companies to endure the heavy cost of covering someone with a pre-existing condition, results in staggeringly high rate increases? Go figure.
Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”
…
The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral (yeah, right! – Ed.) by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers. But analysts say that provision could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties, as insurance companies fear, or if too many people decide it is cheaper to pay the penalty and opt out.Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
We’ve been saying that since the beginning. I am rarely sick, averaging a trip to see the doctor for anything other than an annual physical exam about once every 3 – 4 years. If my premiums get jacked up, I’m going to drop my health insurance. I’ll pay any penalties, which would necessarily be lower than my premiums, until I get really sick…at which point I’ll go buy insurance and the companies can’t tell me “No”, thus raising everyone’s rates. Once everyone else’s rates increase, then many of them will begin dropping their coverage, too, leaving fewer people in the pool and thus raising the rates on the saps who are still paying for their coverage.
This “premium increases – customer losses – premium increases” cycle will ultimately result in insurance companies going belly-up, i.e. the “death spiral.” That is the goal of the left, despite their assertions to the contrary. Once insurance companies all go out of business, then the feds will step in and fill the void with a single-payer government-run health insurance program. Get ready for health care with the efficiency of the DMV and the compassion of the IRS.
The NYT could have educated folks before ObamaCare passed, but obviously, they were too busy trying to get B.O. a signature win on his otherwise worthless presidency. Nope…no liberal media bias!
Congressional rocket scientists stripped themselves of their health insurance when they passed ObamaCare
Remember when San Fran Nan said they needed to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it?
Hey, Peloco: how does Obama’s @$$ taste now? Details:
The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.
But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.
The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.
Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.
In other words, Congress loses their health coverage until the law requires them to join the health insurance exchanges…that don’t exist until 2014. Hey, whatever happened to “If you like your plan, you get to keep your plan?” 
Congress apparently applied as much due diligence vetting this bill as Dan Rather applied to that memo in 2004.
A rhetorical question asked by the author:
The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?
You know what’s the most stunning aspect of this story? Not that the functional morons in Congress didn’t read the bill and thus missed nuggets like this. No, it’s the fact that the NYT ran this story! What, was Bill Keller on vacation this week or something?
They missed the loophole that allowed kids with pre-existing conditions to be excluded. Then they forgot to include the provision to allow loser adult children to continue mooching off Mom and Dad’s insurance. It seems like each day, the feds are discovering their oversights and incompetence in the bill. But hey, what could possibly go wrong(er)?
Doctor shortage is coming…or is it already here?
From WSJ:
The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.
Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.
The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.
So what happens when ObamaCare kicks in?
A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.
In other words: Welcome to Canada! For those of you on the left, that’s not a good thing.
Exit question: How long until Waxman calls the doctors onto the floor of Congress to browbeat them for pointing this out?
Liberal Congresswoman: No, there is no “requirement” that you buy health insurance under ObamaCare
If you’re going to go all out for Chairman O’s health care “reform”, is it too much to ask that you be a little honest about what’s in the friggin’ plan? From CNS News:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.
At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.
In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.
“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting.
“Yes, this is accurate,” Beeton said in his statement to CNSNews.com. “You have a choice of insuring yourself with affordable coverage, or paying an assessment that will offset the burden you place on other insured Americans and taxpayers by not being insured.”
There’s just one little problem with that statement…it’s patently and provably false:
The actual law she voted for says otherwise. It contains a requirement that each person have health insurance, and assesses a penalty if they do not.
The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code, the nation’s tax law, adding a section entitled, “Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage,” section 5000A.
“Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: ‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE ‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.”Contrary to Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s claim, this section of the law requires that every individual certify to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that they have a government-approved level of health insurance coverage.
“REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month,” the law reads.
Individuals who fail to compy with this “requirement” are assessed a “shared responsibility payment”–a fine collected by the IRS.
“SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013…there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”
But yeah, if you just ignore Webster’s definition of the word “requirement”, and if you just ignore that the word “requirement” is actually used in multiple places in the law, then there is no requirement! Up is down, yes is no, black is white, etc.
But hey, it’s not like she read the bill she voted for, so how could she possibly know what was in it?
Quote of the day, “IL Dem says he ‘doesn’t care’ what Constitution says” edition
This is merely Example #4,125,562 on how the left doesn’t think too highly of our Constitution:
“I don’t worry about the Constitution.”
…and…
“I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Um…no, it doesn’t. As anyone who has gone beyond 5th grade in social studies can tell you, those words appear in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Then again, when you’re a member of the party that routinely uses the Constitution as Charmin, it’s easy to see how you wouldn’t know what is in it. After all, how can you read a document when you’re wiping your backside with it?
-
Archives
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (20)
- March 2012 (11)
- February 2012 (17)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
