Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Obama Admits to Heckler That He Doesn't Have the Power to Change Laws All By Himself, But He Has Unilaterally Changed the Obamacare Law
During a speech today on immigration, Obama tells Heckler, "If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so"
by Larry Simons
November 25, 2013
President Obama was in San Francisco today to give a speech on immigration and called on lawmakers in Washington to pass comprehensive reform measures. As Obama was speaking, a young man shouted out, "Our families are separated. I need your help. Please, use your executive order to halt deportations for all 11.5 [million] undocumented immigrants in this country. You have a power to stop deportations for all undocumented families".
Obama turned around and addressed the heckler and said, "Actually, I don’t. And that’s why we’re here".
As the secret service attempted to possibly remove the heckler, Obama said "Don't worry about it guys", and let the people stay.
Obama then said:
"If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And, so, the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. What I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic process to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. But it won’t be as easy as just shouting. It requires us lobbying and getting it done".
Interesting. So, Obama knows the law after all. He knows that he cannot unilaterally change laws just by his spoken word. He knows it takes Congress to make and amend laws and that he [the President] has no power on his own. Wouldn't it have been nice if Obama had applied this same reasoning to the Affordable Care Act?
Imagine if, when a particular group pressured Obama to change or delay a provision in the Obamacare law, he had responded, "But I can't. That would be a violation of our laws and I have no power to do so". Wouldn't that have been wonderful? But that is not what happened. Obama unilaterally delayed portions of the ACA without any Congressional amendment to the law.
Why is Obama suddenly interested in abiding by the law now? Because immigration doesn't pile money into government coffers and it does not increase the power and size of the government. Government is supposed to make sure illegal immigrants are deported. But health care, that is an issue in which government is not supposed to control and it will bring in millions and millions of tax dollars.
Obama then turns around to the young man again and says, "I'm ready to work with you. But, it is going to require work. It is not simply a matter of us just saying 'we're gonna violate the law. That's not our tradition'".
No, Obama only violates laws by decree when it's over issues he is pressured on by his own political party or will inflate the size of government on a massive scale. Immigration? Who cares about that? Just the ones affected...no big deal. That's why Obama is interested in democracy all of a sudden. He has nothing to gain by it.
I actually agree with Obama's deportation policy. This is one area where my libertarian views may fall to the wayside. But that is beside the point. If Obama cares about obeying laws so as to follow the rule of law, that should apply to every law, not just controversial ones.
watch the clip
Monday, November 25, 2013
More Video Evidence from the Liar-in-Chief: All Through Obama's Presidential Campaign in 2007-08, He Was Against Government-Mandated Heath Care
Obama even likened forcing Americans to purchase health insurance to forcing homeless people to buy homes
by Larry Simons
November 25, 2013
Just when you thought there couldn't be anything worse than President Obama telling the American people on camera, no less than 36 times, that they could keep their health insurance only to discover it was all a big lie, let me assure you, it can get worse. And it has.
It turns out that Obama is not just in the business of promising things to the American people he has no intention of delivering, but is also in the hypocrisy business. During his 2007-2008 presidential run, Obama is seen on camera numerous times telling crowds of people and even other presidential candidates he was running against that he is vehemently against a government mandate for purchasing health care.
In one clip, during a Democratic debate, [then] Senator Obama addresses a question posed by Anderson Cooper about a comment made by [then] Senator John Edwards' about Obama's health care proposal. Here is the dialogue:
Cooper: Senator Obama, 45 million uninsured Americans, Senator Edwards said your health plan doesn't really provide universal health coverage, does it?
Obama: Absolutely it does. John and I have a disagreement. John thinks that the only way we get universal coverage is to mandate coverage. I think that the problem is not that people are trying to avoid getting health care coverage, it's folks like that who are desperately are in desire of it but they can't afford it.."
In another clip from CNN, in a debate with [then] Senator Hilary Clinton, Obama says this:
"Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise there will be a lot of people who don't get it. I don't see those folks, and I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you're going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses and they may charge people who already don't have health care fines or have to take it out of their paychecks, and that I don't think is helping those without health insurance".
In another clip from the same debate with Senator Clinton, Obama says this:
"Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20% of the uninsured. Because they've concluded that that 20% can't afford it. In some cases there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine". [Audience applauds after this]
In another clip, Obama tells and elderly man:
"If we set up the system in the first term and we still have a significant number of people who don't have health insurance, that I'm open to saying, for example, that there's a trigger. A certain number of people continue not to have health insurance, that trigger's automatically within the law the institution of some sort of mandate. The simple point that I don't want to create is a situation where you've got...we say there's a mandate, people have to purchase it, but frankly they don't have the money to purchase it, and then we've created a bunch of outlaws out of people who would love to have health care coverage but don't have it".
In another clip from CNN from 2008, Obama compares a government mandate of the purchase of health care to a mandate to force homeless people to buy homes. Obama says:
"If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is they don't have the money".
watch the montage of clips
Obviously, this is hypocrisy at its very finest. Obama was against a mandate during his entire presidential campaign and now we have government-mandated health insurance. Yes, Obama is a colossal liar and hypocrite.
The scary part is that Obama specifically stated how absurd it would be to force homeless people to buy homes when they can't afford it as an analogy to illustrate the absurdity of forcing people to purchase health care. And now government health care is mandated, through a law written by his administration and signed by him, when he specifically condemned others for wanting this very thing.
Are we to take from this that the next piece of legislation on Obama's list to be voted on is a bill mandating Americans to buy homes [including the homeless]?
Friday, November 22, 2013
Paul Craig Roberts
November 22, 2013
November 22, 2013, is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The true story of JFK’s murder has never been officially admitted, although the conclusion that JFK was murdered by a plot involving the Secret Service, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been well established by years of research, such as that provided by James W. Douglass in his book, JFK And The Unspeakable, published by Simon & Schuster in 2008. Ignore Douglass’ interest in the Trappist monk Thomas Merton and Merton’s prediction and focus on the heavily documented research that Douglass provides.
Or just turn to the contemporary films, taken by tourists watching JFK’s motorcade that are available on YouTube, which show clearly the Secret Service pulled from President Kennedy’s limo just prior to his assassination, and the Zapruder film that shows the killing shot to have come from President Kennedy’s right front, blowing off the back of his head, not from the rear as postulated in the Warren Commission Report, which would have pushed his head forward, not rearward.
I am not going to write about the assassination to the extent that the massive information permits. Those who want to know already know. Those who cannot face the music will never be able to confront the facts regardless of what I or anyone else writes or reveals.
To briefly review, the facts are conclusive that JFK was on terrible terms with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. He had refused to support the CIA organized Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs’ “Operation Northwoods,” a plan to commit real and faked acts of violence against Americans, blame Castro and use the false flag events to bring regime change to Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs case that the Soviet Union should be attacked while the US held the advantage and before the Soviets could develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons. He had indicated that after his reelection he was going to pull US troops out of Vietnam and that he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. He had aroused suspicion by working behind the scenes with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, leading to claims that he was “soft on communism.” The CIA and Joint Chiefs’ belief that JFK was an unreliable ally in the war against communism spread into the Secret Service.
It has been established that the original autopsy of JFK’s fatal head wound was discarded and a faked one substituted in order to support the official story that Oswald shot JFK from behind. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and President Johnson knew that Oswald was the CIA’s patsy, but they also understood, as did members of the Warren Commission, that to let the true story out would cause Americans to lose confidence in their own government at the height of the Cold War.
Robert Kennedy knew what had happened. He was on his way to being elected president and to holding the plotters accountable for the murder of his brother when the CIA assassinated him. A distinguished journalist, who was standing behind Robert Kennedy at the time of his assassination, told me that the killing shots came from behind past his ear. He submitted his report to the FBI and was never contacted.
Acoustic experts have conclusively demonstrated that more shots were fired than can be accounted for by Sirhan Sirhan’s pistol and that the sounds indicate two different calibers of firearms.
I never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing about either event, but who confidently dismiss the factual evidence provided by experts and historians on the basis of their naive belief that “the government wouldn’t lie about such important events” or “someone would have talked.” What good would it do if someone talked when the gullible won’t believe hard evidence?
by Larry Simons
November 22, 2013
As with any other important anniversary of a historical event that possesses the magnitude of the JFK assassination, the media and the corporate-controlled networks have a field day with inundating us all with documentaries and specials that claim to have never before seen footage or computer analysis showing so-called "experts" who claim that with new computer technology, they can put to rest all the "theories" surrounding the event. In the case of the JFK assassination, these "experts" claim they can prove once and for all Oswald acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy On November 22, 1963.
In most, if not in all cases, the sole purpose of these computer analysis reenactments is to spread disinformation.
One example of this is the 2003 BBC documentary Beyond Conspiracy. This particular film cannot be embedded into my story because the embed feature was disabled by the publisher of the video on YouTube. The publisher also disabled the comment section [so no one can post comments under the video]. Hmmmm, I wonder why. Here is the link to the video.
The film begins examining the single/magic bullet theory at 1:16:14 into the film. A clip is played from Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK in which Jim Garrison [played by Kevin Costner] is demonstrating to the court how the magic bullet theory would have to work [if it was true]. Costner is seen in the clip saying that the bullet at one point hangs in mid-air and at another point zig-zags left and right. The documentary stops the JFK clip and then shows a computer simulation of the assassination where the narrator is heard saying, "The single bullet that struck Kennedy and Connally did not hang in mid-air. It did not zig-zag right and left. It went straight through the president and into the governor."
It becomes clear that the makers of the documentary either did not watch the entire courtroom scene in JFK or they did and they are purposely espousing disinformation. When Costner's character demonstrates the magic bullet theory in the film, he is not supporting the theory. In fact, just the opposite. He is demonstrating how absurd it is, not only for the Warren Commission to take it seriously, but for people to even believe it.
Garrison [Costner] is showing the people in the courtroom how insane it is to believe that a bullet would hang in mid-air and then zig-zag left and right and make multiple wounds on not one but two different people. The BBC film, in my opinion, purposely shows Costner's magic bullet theory demonstration entirely out of context, only showing the portion of the film in which Costner is reenacting the supposed path of the bullet, while completely omitting the 17 seconds of the film prior to this scene that shows Costner telling the people in the courtroom the magic bullet theory is a gigantic lie. The dialogue the BBC omitted by Costner was this line:
"But rather to admit to a conspiracy, or investigate further, the Warren Commission chose to endorse the theory put forth by an ambitious junior counselor Arlen Spector, one of the grossest lies ever forced on the American people. We've come to know it as the magic bullet theory."
Here is the full clip from JFK. Had the BBC documentary included this full clip, their entire segment on the magic bullet theory [in which they chopped up the magic bullet theory scene from JFK to give the false impression that Costner's character was supporting the magic bullet theory] would have been plain for all to see that the BBC was blatantly lying.
The reality is, when the BBC documentary makes the statement, "The single bullet that struck Kennedy and Connally did not hang in mid-air. It did not zig-zag right and left. It went straight through the president and into the governor", they are actually agreeing with Oliver Stone. Either the makers of the BBC documentary are knowingly spreading disinformation in their film, or they were simply too lazy to watch the entire scene and were unaware that just 17 seconds prior to the scene they did include from JFK in their documentary, the main character [Costner] called the single bullet theory a lie. My guess is both, with more emphasis on the former.
Stunts like this come as no shock to real investigative reporters [such as Jim Marrs], because when the facts are not on your side and your goal is to push a particular agenda in order to divert attention away from events that actually happened, you would have no choice but to purposely and knowingly deceive.
At 1:17:24 in the BBC documentary, the narrator says this, "There was nothing magic about this bullet at all", then begins talking about the condition of the bullet. The narrator says, "In Stone's film it's referred to as the pristine bullet. There's no way, the Stone film says, the bullet could have caused so many wounds and emerged virtually unmarked."
Once again, the BBC film is agreeing with Stone. In the film JFK, Costner is ridiculing the magic bullet theory and clearly demonstrating that it is impossible for one bullet to make so many twists and turns and make seven wounds on two different people and then exit their bodies in pristine condition. When Costner tells the court in the film that the bullet ended up in pristine condition, he is pointing out how absurd this is. A bullet would not end up in pristine condition. This is why Costner tells the court:
"The Army wound ballistic experts at Edward arsenal, fired some comparison bullets. Not one of them looked anything like this [holding up the pristine bullet]. Take a look at CE-856. An identical bullet...fired through the wrist of a human cadaver. Just one of the bones smashed by the magic bullet. Seven wounds gentlemen. Tough skin, dense bones. This single bullet explanation is the foundation of the Warren Commission's claim of a lone assassin. And once you conclude the magic bullet could not create all seven wounds, you have to conclude that there was a fourth shot and a second rifleman. And if there was a second rifleman, then by definition, there had to be a conspiracy."
The BBC documentary wants you to believe Stone's film was supporting the magic bullet theory when it was actually ridiculing its immense absurdity by pointing out that similar pristine bullets that were fired through human cadavers exited the bodies badly damaged when it only created one wound, through the wrist. The Warren Commission wants us all to believe that a bullet can inflict seven wounds through two bodies and exit those bodies in immaculate condition.
Beyond Conspiracy was basically telling its viewers this: Don't believe that bullshit in Oliver Stone's movie. It's a pack of lies, despite the fact that the exact same thing our film is calling absurd, Stone is also calling absurd. We just purposely omitted the scenes from JFK in our film that clearly show that Stone's view is also our view so that we could call Stone a nut.
I could not even believe what I was hearing and watching during this segment. I did not watch the entire film, but it would stand to reason that if the makers of the BBC film went through this much trouble to blatantly lie just in this single segment, there are no doubt many more nuggets of disinformation throughout this film.
Why Is Obama Allowed to Continually Break the Law By Allowing Exemptions from Parts of the Affordable Care Act?
And why is Congress doing nothing about it?
by Larry Simons
November 22, 2013
Several times in the past four months, Obama has issued, by declaration, exemptions from his own law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), for certain groups of people while the actual law itself has not been amended in order to lawfully grant these groups exemptions from the law.
In other words, Obama is violating the Constitution by not enforcing particular provisions within a law that he swore he would execute when he swore to uphold the Constitution.
Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution states:
"..he (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States"
This past July 2, Obama unilaterally exempted all employers [with 50 or more employees] from the employer mandate provision of the ACA for an additional year. The employer mandate states that employers with over 50 employees will incur a financial penalty for each full-time employee who does not have health insurance.
The administration said it was delaying the employer mandate for two reasons. "First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees".
Constitutionally, it matters not what the reasoning is. Obama is violating federal law [his own law at that] by amending a law by decree. The authority to delay a law's implementation only lies with Congress, no one else. Amendments to laws must be voted on by both houses of Congress, in the same manner bills are passed to begin with. If Obama needed Congress to vote on the law itself, he needs them equally to vote on the amendment of a law. By issuing changes to laws by decree, Obama is simply declaring himself King and telling Congress they are not needed.
In August of 2013, Obama exempted some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits [or no limit at all] on out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and co-payments until 2015 [a full year delay], although the ACA clearly states that there will be caps on out-of-pocket costs [not exceeding $6,350 a year for individuals and $12,700 a year for families] starting January 1, 2014.
This exemption was given to insurers and employers who claimed they needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs.
Once again, Obama issued this change by decree, completely bypassing the need for a vote from Congress to amend the law. Keep in mind, in 2009 Obama cited the caps on out-of-pocket costs as one of the law's staple features when he said, "We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick." He forgot to add, "...unless employers and insurance companies begin to bitch about it and complain they need more time, then it's OK for people to go broke because they're sick."
The most recent exemption granted to a group of people by King Obama was his decree to the millions of Americans who have received cancellations to their health care policies, that they can now stay on their plans for another full year.
This was supposed to be the big "fix" that Obama made to the millions who had their policies cancelled despite the President telling them no less than 36 times in the past four years, "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
Not only is this yet another violation of the Constitution by Obama for not enforcing a federal law, and not only is Obama violating that law by allowing exemptions to the law without a Congressional amendment, but it is not even a "fix". In the video below, Obama clearly states that insurance companies are not required to continue anyone's old policies.
Obama cannot force insurance companies to go back and sell their customers the old policies they already canceled. That leaves one burning question: What insurance company will be stupid enough to go back and sell their customer the cheaper plan when they do not have to, and not proceed with moving them into the Obamacare exchanges which are more expensive and under ACA guidelines are required to do?
Answer: Not many [and none if they do not want to break federal law]. Obama has to know this. And he has to know this is not a fix at all. As we speak, Arkansas and the state of Washington have already announced they will not let their insurance companies extend any old health insurance plans. There is no doubt other states will soon follow suit.
And just why will these insurance companies not extend the old plans? Simple. Because the old plans are cheaper than the Obamacare exchanges, and there is no way any insurance company will lose money over this. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, because insurance companies have to simultaneously offer the new Obamacare policies which cost more, with the old cheaper policies that were cancelled [the ones Obama is allowing the insurers to take back], they will not get enough money from the Obamacare exchanges alone and will lose the money that is not received from offering back the old policies, and they will sue the federal government for forcing them to make the inexpensive plans available.
This will get much worse before it gets better.
The bottom line is this: Obama cannot unilaterally change a law by simply making a public decree. He has no authority under the Constitution to do so. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces them. This is exactly why we have three branches of government, so that one person cannot change a law all by themselves whether it is because they do not like the law, or whether it is done to quell criticism over its unpopularity.
Should Obama allow the ones he promised to keep their plans? Yes, but by a Congressional vote to amend the law. And even then, the proposed amendment should allow the people to keep their plans permanently as he promised, not for only an additional year.
By giving certain groups exemptions from the law, Obama is breaking the law. Likewise, if these groups obey Obama and ignore the law as written, they are breaking the law as well.
Obama is not the only one to blame. Congress is allowing this to happen. By standing by and allowing Obama to eviscerate the Constitution, every Congressman and Senator are accessories after the fact.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
by Michael Snyder
November 17th, 2013
If there were any shreds of hope left that the stunning decline of the middle class could be turned around, Obamacare has absolutely destroyed them. Over the past decade or so, the middle class in the United States has been absolutely eviscerated. The number of working age Americans without a job has increased by 27 million since the year 2000, median household income in the U.S. has fallen for five years in a row, and the poverty numbers in this country are spiraling out of control.
And now here comes Obamacare. As you will see below, Obamacare is causing millions of Americans to lose their current health insurance policies, it is causing health insurance premiums to explode to absolutely ridiculous levels, and it is systematically killing jobs even though the employer mandate has been delayed for a while. All of this is creating a tremendous amount of stress for millions of middle class families that are already stretched extremely thin financially.
According to CNN, a survey that was conducted earlier this year found that 76 percent of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Most of those families simply cannot afford to pay much higher health insurance premiums for new policies that also come with much larger deductibles and significantly increased out-of-pocket costs. Millions of those families will ultimately end up choosing to do without health insurance altogether, and that will create a whole host of new problems. This is a disaster that is so enormous that it is really hard to put into words. If the U.S. health care system was a separate country, it would be the 6th largest economy on the entire globe all by itself. And now Obamacare is going to bring the entire U.S. health care system to its knees.
Obamacare: Since October 1st, The Number Of Americans With Health Insurance Has Fallen By Nearly 4 Million
Last week, Barack Obama decided to allow Americans to keep their current health insurance plans for one more year.
Isn't that generous of him? Especially considering the fact that he promised us over and over that if we liked our current health insurance policies that we would be able to keep them permanently.
The funny thing is that Obama is not actually changing the law. So if your health insurance company allows you to stay on your current health insurance plan that does not meet the requirements of Obamacare, it is technically breaking the law.
And if you continue to stay on that current health insurance plan that does not meet the requirements of Obamacare, you are technically breaking the law.
It is just that Obama has promised not to enforce what the law says for one year.
For a president to just blatantly disregard the rule of law is a very dangerous precedent. Do we really want the president to have the power to decide what laws are going to be enforced and what laws are not going to be enforced?
That sounds dangerously close to a dictatorship to me.
And in any event, there are many Americans that are not going to be able to keep their current policies no matter what Obama says. For example, just two hours after Obama announced his plan last week, the state of Washington announced that they would not be allowing insurance companies to extend their old health insurance plans if they don't comply with Obamacare under any circumstances...
State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”How do you think the people of the state of Washington will respond to that?
Things are getting crazy out there, and the number of people that are losing their health insurance policies is absolutely stunning.
According to the Wall Street Journal, so far 106,185 Americans have enrolled in Obamacare since October 1st. Most of those that have successfully enrolled have done so through the state insurance exchanges. So far, only 26,794 Americans have signed up for health insurance using the federally run exchanges on HealthCare.gov.
Meanwhile, during that same time frame, 4.02 million Americans have had their health insurance policies cancelled.
So that means that the number of Americans with health insurance has actually decreased by 3,918,205 since October 1st.
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to result in more Americans being covered?
And according to U.S. Senator Rand Paul, Obama not only knew that this would happen, he actually wrote the regulation that caused this to happen...
"I’m still learning about it. It’s 20,000 pages of regulations. The Bill was 2,000 pages and I didn’t realize this until this week, the whole idea of you losing or getting your insurance cancelled wasn’t in the original Obamacare. It was a regulation written by President Obama, three months later. So we had a vote, this is before I got up there. The Republicans had a vote to try to cancel that regulation so you couldn't be canceled, to grandfather everybody in. You know what the vote was? Straight party line. every Democrat voted to keep the rule that cancels your insurance."So now millions of Americans, including women battling cancer, are losing health insurance plans that they were depending upon.
Obamacare: Skyrocketing Health Insurance Premiums
How much more are you willing to pay for health insurance than you are paying right now?
Well, according to one study health insurance premiums for men are going to go up by an average of 99 percent under Obamacare and health insurance premiums for women are going to go up by an average of 62 percent under Obamacare.
And of course some groups are going to see increases that are much larger than that. For example, it is being projected that health insurance premiums for healthy 30-year-old men will rise by an average of 260 percent.
And there are some families out there that have already been hit with health insurance premium increases that are absolutely jaw-dropping. In a previous article, I included the example of one family down in Texas that has been hit with a 539% rate increase...
Obamacare is named the "Affordable Care Act," after all, and the President promised the rates would be "as low as a phone bill." But I just received a confirmed letter from a friend in Texas showing a 539% rate increase on an existing policy that's been in good standing for years.
As the letter reveals (see below), the cost for this couple's policy under Humana is increasing from $212.10 per month to $1,356.60 per month. This is for a couple in good health whose combined income is less than $70K -- a middle-class family, in other words.Obamacare: Enormous Deductibles And Huge Out-Of-Pocket Expenses For All
It isn't just health insurance premiums that are going up either. Deductibles are going up too. In fact, just check out what one survey of Americans living in seven different states recently discovered...
Expenses for some policies can reach $6,350 for a single person and $12,700 per family, the most allowed by the health-care law, according to a survey by HealthPocket Inc. of seven states, including California and Ohio. That’s 26 percent higher than the average deductible in the seven states, and a scenario likely repeated across the country, said Kev Coleman, head of research and data at Sunnyvale, California-based HealthPocket.That same article has a great quote from an elderly New Jersey resident. 82-year-old Larry Saphire thinks that if you have to pay a $5,000 deductible up front, "you might as well not have any insurance at all"...
“If you have to pay $5,000 upfront” when illness hits, “you might as well not have any insurance at all,” said Larry Saphire, 82, of West Orange, New Jersey, who shopped for coverage for his wife and two children, ages 16 and 21. “That’s not insurance.”
On California’s state-run exchange site, the standard low-premium “bronze” plan carries a $5,000 deductible per person, a $60 co-pay to see a doctor and a 30 percent fee, known as coinsurance, on hospital care. In Rhode Island, Blue Cross Blue Shield’s bronze plan has a $5,800 deductible while Missouri’s U.S.-run exchange offers plans by Anthem Blue Cross with the maximum-allowable $6,350 in out-of-pocket costs.Obamacare: The Quality Of Care Is Going To Go Into The Toilet
A lot of Americans that are signing up for Obamacare are going to be in for a huge shock. Many of the best hospitals and many of the best doctors are not covered by their plans...
Meanwhile, sometime between March and June, the other shoe drops: People who bought exchange policies realize that the restricted networks insurers created to keep the premium costs low cut out the best hospitals and doctors. A newly insured child with cancer cannot get into a top pediatric hospital because her insurance has zero coverage for out-of-network emergency care. Tearful Mom goes on the evening news and says that she thought when they went on Obamacare, that meant they were safe, and why can’t I take my baby to Philadelphia Children’s Hospital, Mr. President?Can you imagine being a parent in that situation?
In response, some hospitals are already filing suit over this. For instance, check out what is happening over in Seattle...
Seattle Children’s Hospital filed suit against Washington State’s Office of the Insurance Commissioner this week, after Obamacare implementation caused the hospital to be cut from four of the six insurance plans offered by the new Washington Health Benefit Exchange.And even if you are on Medicare that does not mean that the quality of your care is going to stay the same either. As Reuters just reported, UnitedHealth is dumping "thousands of doctors" from their Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly because of Obamacare...
UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
The insurer said in October that underfunding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.In the United States, we already pay much more for health care than everyone else in the world, and we typically have to wait longer to see a doctor than most of the rest of the industrialized world does.
Now Obamacare is going to make all of this even worse, and the quality of the care that we receive is going to go downhill fast.
Obamacare: The Jobs Killer
A while back, Obama unilaterally made the decision to delay the implementation of the employer mandate until 2015.
That was probably a good political decision, because it would have been a huge political issue in the 2014 elections.
But the truth is that we won't have to wait until 2015 for Obamacare to start killing jobs. In fact, according to CNBC it is already happening...
Approximately one-third of business decision-makers at companies with between 40 and 500 employees, say the health-care law has already increased their costs due to hikes in both the cost of insurance and compliance, according to a recent report from political-research firm Public Opinion Strategies. As a result, many business leaders say they are already making personnel decisions based on the Affordable Care Act.
Among franchised businesses, 27 percent report their company has replaced full-time workers with part-time workers and 31 percent have reduced worker hours. Among non-franchised businesses, 12 percent are replacing full-time workers with part-time workers or reducing hours. This is happening now, with more than a year before the mandate goes into effect; and undoubtedly, these numbers will rise as we approach next July's "look back" period for tabulating workers' hours.It is kind of startling that we are already seeing employers make such big changes even though the employer mandate does not come into effect until 2015. You can find a very long list of some of the employers that have already either eliminated jobs or cut hours because of Obamacare right here.
Remember, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Once we get closer to the deadline things are going to get much, much worse.
At a time when the middle class desperately needs jobs, Obamacare is going to slaughter them.
And even if you are able to keep your current job, that does not mean that your health plan will remain the same. In fact, Forbes is projecting that a staggering 51 percent of all employment-based health insurance plans will be canceled and replaced with new ones.
Overall, Forbes is projecting that an astounding 93 million Americans will eventually lose their current health insurance policies due to Obamacare.
Obamacare: Providing Huge Incentives For Many Americans To Work Less And Make Less Money
Did you know that Obamacare is going to cause millions of Americans to want to keep their incomes under certain levels?
If you make too much money under Obamacare, you will miss out on some absolutely massive health care subsidies. The following is an excerpt from one of my previous articles...
"The figures that you are about to see were calculated using the Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator. These numbers apply to a husband and a wife that are both 62 years old.
A non-smoking, married couple living in San Francisco, California earning $63,000 a year will have to pay $20,318 a year for a silver plan under Obamacare and $12,647 a year for a bronze plan.
At $63,000, that couple would be making too much money to be eligible for a subsidy, so that couple will have to pay the total cost of whatever plan they choose by themselves.
But if that couple only made $62,000 a year, things would dramatically change.
The plans would still cost the same, but the couple would now be eligible for an Obamacare subsidy of $14,428.
So a silver plan would end up costing them only $5,890, and they would ultimately pay nothing for a bronze plan.
In other words, by reducing their income by $1,000, that couple would save $14,428 if they got a silver plan or they would save $12,647 if they got a bronze plan.In the end, millions upon millions of middle class families will decide to go without health insurance entirely for one reason or another.
Isn’t that bizarre?"
This will work great until they get into an accident or become seriously ill.
As I have discussed previously, approximately 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies in the United States are related to medical bills. And most of those bankruptcies actually happen to people that are supposedly "covered" by health insurance.
Obamacare is going to make all of this so much worse. Millions of middle class families will end up with no health insurance at all, and because so many of them are living paycheck to paycheck a single health emergency will be enough to send them hurtling down the path to financial oblivion.
If you get into an accident, a visit to the emergency room and a single night in the hospital can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars in many areas of the country.
If you get a serious illness such as cancer, the medical bills can be absolutely astronomical. For instance, there are many cancer patients that rack up medical bills well in excess of a million dollars by the time that they die.
Something desperately needs to be done about our horrible health care system. Unfortunately, Obamacare is going to make just about everything that is bad about our current system much, much worse.
And the American people are becoming increasingly disgusted and frustrated with Obamacare. According to Real Clear Politics, an average of recent opinion polls shows that the American people are opposed to Obamacare by an average margin of 14.2 percentage points.
Saturday, November 9, 2013
The Smoking Gun: Obama Knew Well Before Obamacare Was Passed that Americans Were Not Going to Be Able to Keep Their Health Insurance
A speech in January of 2010 reveals that Obama knew some provisions of the Affordable Care Act violated his "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" promise, but kept lying about it anyway
by Larry Simons
November 9, 2013
On January 29, 2010, President Barack Obama was in Baltimore, MD to speak at the GOP House Issues Conference. Many topics were discussed including health care and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In the very first clip I could find on the internet, President Obama mentions that some provisions within the ACA might invalidate his promise to all insured Americans that if they liked their health care plan, they could keep it.
Obama said this:
"The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making.
And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge."
[watch the clip --- at 53:45 into the clip]
On the surface, this may appear as a good thing to Obama supporters since he is admitting before the law passed that there are provisions within the law that are threatening his promise that Americans will keep their health care plans.
There are two big problems with his 2010 admission:
1. Look at his words closely. He says "some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating". The word "were" is past tense. He is saying here that they have not been eliminated yet, hence his statement "we were in the process". He did not say "they have been eliminated." Then he says that these provisions that snuck into the ACA law "might have" violated his pledge [that Americans can keep their health care plans]. Since the law was not passed yet, it was then safe to assume that there was still time to fix these provisions before the law's passage so that the president's promise could stay intact.
Here's the big problem: These provisions were not fixed. Of course we now know this because of the millions of Americans who have received cancellation notices in the mail that their policies will end on December 31, 2013 because of Obamacare. But even in the absence of this footage from 2010, we still know the administration knew the policies would be canceled because of IRS documents [from July 2010] and the Federal register [from June 2010] stating this.
Now, in light of this three-year-old footage, we see that Obama himself knew two months before the ACA became law that provisions within the ACA would cause Americans to lose their health care plans, and he is heavily implying they would be "fixed", but were not.
2. Even though Obama plainly admits in this January 2010 speech that provisions within the ACA package [which was not law yet] could cause Americans to lose their health care plans, he kept repeating after January 2010 and after the law's passage in March 2010 the promise to Americans that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" without any disclosure whatsoever whether the provisions he mentioned in January 2010 that threatened the implementation of his pledge were actually eliminated from the law or whether they remained.
One could easily assume that from his own words in January 2010 that Obama would not sign the bill into law unless these provisions that threatened his promise were removed from the law. I sure would have assumed that, had I seen his January 2010 speech. If Obama is making a promise to the American people that if they liked their plans, they could keep them, and then he stands before a GOP crowd and admits there are provisions in the law that threaten that promise, it only stands to reason that he will not sign the bill if those provisions are not eliminated.This makes things worse for Obama, not better. I am quite sure Obama supporters will cling to the fact that there is footage of him acknowledging before the law's passage that Americans might not be able to keep their coverage. But, he continued to lie about it, on camera at least 13 times after this January 2010 speech.
Even after the media began reporting he lied, Obama attempted damage control and has given speeches within this past week saying that they [him and his administration] had been saying all along that people could lose their plans. Turns out, he only said it once [but it was clearly within the context that it would be fixed before it became law] and he kept repeating the lie after the bill's passage.
This is exactly why, in my opinion, Obama has not referred to his January 2010 speech to defend himself in his recent speeches. If he made reference to it, the media would expose him again for not fixing the provisions and continuing to lie about it.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
A complete cavalcade of Obama's lie that "if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it"
by Larry Simons
November 6, 2013
I was hoping someone would do the research and compile a video montage of how many times President Obama publicly told the American people that if they liked their health care plan, they could keep it. The Washington Free Beacon has compiled this archive of an astonishing 36 times Obama lied to Americans about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), telling the insured "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
36 times from 2008 to 2013, Obama is seen telling the American people plainly that they will not lose their health care plans. As we have discovered in the past few weeks, millions of Americans are losing their health care coverage because their current plans do not meet new ACA guidelines.
At the end of the video montage, there is a clip of Obama from November 4, 2013 at the Organizing for America summit in Washington, D.C. stating:
"If you had or have one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was, you could keep it… if it hasn’t changed since the law’s passed.” [The millions of health care plans had not changed, but were canceled anyway]
The obvious question comes to mind: If Obama can blatantly lie this many times about this, how many other things is he lying about? Fast and Furious? Benghazi? The IRS scandal? The NSA? His birth certificate? His religion?
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Don't Believe In Conspiracies? Better Start Now, Because Obamacare Is A Big One, Happening Right In Front of Your Eyes
Obama still continues to lie about what he said and when he said it concerning health care law
by Larry Simons
November 5, 2013
It's official. Obama's Affordable Health Care Act is now officially a conspiracy against the American people to force them off of their private health care plans and to accept government-run health care.
It all makes sense now. Between 2009-2012, Obama goes in front of the American people on numerous occasions and promises that already-insured Americans will keep their health care plans if they like them. This keeps the insured at bay, along with the promise to the uninsured that insurance will now be "affordable". The ACA is signed into law on March 23, 2010 to much fanfare from Democrats, Obama supporters and uninsured Americans.
On numerous occasions after the law is passed, Obama still stands before audiences and assures Americans that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". October 1, 2013 arrives and Americans begin enrolling in Obamacare on the healthcare.gov website, only to find the website is not working and hardly anyone is able to actually enroll.
The furor begins over the website and the law itself as millions of people across the country begin getting cancellation notices in the mail that their insurance is "substandard" and does not meet ACA guidelines. It is then discovered by several news sources that IRS documents and the Federal Register from 2010 indicated that the federal government knew that a high percentage of Americans were going to lose their health care plans.
In the midst of the chaos, Obama begins making public speeches about the horrendous start of Obamacare. He lies again and tells crowds that he and his administration had said all along that people could keep their plans and doctors "until Obamacare became law" and that people would probably have to upgrade to more comprehensive insurance plans once the law passed.
Of course, the well-informed know damned well that Obama or the administration said no such thing pertaining to people having to upgrade their plans. Obama said repeatedly that if people liked their plans, they could keep them, period.
Here is a brief rundown of nearly all the occasions Obama stated this:
Obama lies again yesterday at the Organizing for America summit in Washington, D.C. stating:
"If you had or have one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was, you could keep it… if it hasn’t changed since the law’s passed.”
I challenge anyone...anyone to find me video footage of Obama saying, "if it hasn't changed since the law's passed." It doesn't even make sense for Obama to suggest that the law being passed would have anything to do with a change in plan, because him telling people "you can keep it if you like it" ONLY makes sense AFTER the bill became law. Of course no plan would change BEFORE the law was passed! Why would it?
And what does he mean by "if it hasn't changed since the law's passed" anyway? One, this is what the uproar is all about. People who have had coverage before the ACA became law are getting cancellations in the mail! Two, why would anyone change their plan that was supposed to be grandfathered in, knowing that if they changed it, it would not be grandfathered in? Plus, Obama is playing word games here. He is attempting to deceive us all by interchanging the word "changed" with the words "met the new ACA guidelines". So, Obama, in essence, is saying now, "You can keep your plan if it meets the new ACA guidelines", but millions of plans do not, hence the health care cancellations, hence the anger.
"So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you're grandfathered in on that plan, but if the insurance company changes it, then what we’re saying is they’ve got to change it to a higher standard. They’ve got to make it better. They’ve got to improve the quality of the plan that they’re selling.”
Once again, I challenge anyone to find me video footage of Obama saying, "but if the insurance company changes it, then what we’re saying is they’ve got to change it to a higher standard. They’ve got to make it better. They’ve got to improve the quality of the plan that they’re selling.”
It would be futile. No footage exists of Obama saying such a thing. But I do have video footage of Obama saying the complete opposite.
Obama, during the Health Care Summit on February 25, 2010 said this:
"Actually, any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep it. So you could decide not to get in the exchange the better plan. I could keep my Acme Insurance, just a high deductible catastrophic plan. I would not be required to get the better one."
Here is the clip of him saying it [at 55 seconds into the clip]
Somehow they knew that most of the uninsured would either end up paying the fine [for not enrolling] or enroll into the cheapest Obamacare plan. Either way, the program could not possibly raise enough revenue to make it work. This is where insured Americans come into the picture. It would be the already-insured who would fund this program. This is why Obama lied about it, plain and simple.
If I have made the wrong conclusion, tell me why the following has not occurred:
1. Why hasn't Obama, White House officials or any liberal/left-wing news outlet provided video footage of Obama stating what he is telling people now, that he has "said all along" that the already insured would have to upgrade their plans once the ACA became law?
2. Why hasn't Obama fired anyone over this? Obama cannot even claim that he "didn't know" about his own law or IRS documents stating that most people would lose their plans, because if the very people whose job it was to inform the president on these matters failed to do so, how can they still be employed over the failure to disclose information that made their boss look like a babbling idiot and colossal liar? By refusing to fire anyone, he is protecting them. Why? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is still employed. Case closed. It's clear that Obama knew that many would lose their plans.
3. If this is not a conspiracy, why does any part of this law require a mandate? Think about it. If Obamacare is this wonderful law we were all told it is, why does it have to be forced? Can you think of any great product in America that everyone loves that is forced on them to purchase? "No" is the obvious answer. Yet, the health care law is forced and it was sold to the American people under false pretenses. This alone should make the law invalid.
Obama also lied about the number of people this would affect. He told everyone 5% would be affected. 5% of 250 million is nearly 13 million people. The IRS document from 2010 states, as well as within the Federal register, that up to 67% would lose their plans in three years. I have never been a math whiz, but I know 67% is a tad more than 5%.
Here is the portion of the Federal register that indicates the federal government knew policies would be dropped. [click to enlarge]
Christopher Conover, a research scholar in the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University stated in a recent interview that 68% of Americans with private health insurance will not be able to keep their plan if Obamacare is fully implemented.
"....I estimate that if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014....But of these, ‘only’ 18 to 50 million will literally lose coverage, i.e., have their plans entirely taken away. This includes 9.2-15.4 million in the non-group market and 9-35 million in the employer-based market. The rest will retain their old plans but have to pay higher rates for Obamacare-mandated bells and whistles.”
This is a full-blown, certified conspiracy against the American people. The complete destruction of the health care system, one-fifth of the country's economy was the agenda all along. As with any other conspiracy that involves all-out assaults on the individual freedoms of American citizens, it usually includes colossal lies and more lies to cover up the others, government officials who have committed fireable offenses, only to keep their jobs [and sometimes get promotions], the government growing even more enormous and quite often includes the passage of an unconstitutional law that strips away Americans' civil liberties.
Obamacare qualifies on all counts.