Thursday, February 27, 2014

Jon Stewart Attempts to Humiliate Judge Napolitano On Basic Civil War Facts, Like Compensated Emancipation and What Caused the War Itself

Turns out, it is Stewart that humiliates himself by admitting on live TV that Lincoln tried to end the war by emancipating slaves in border states. Note to Jon Stewart: Border states were not part of the seceding South, hence not in rebellion with the Union

by Larry Simons
February 27, 2012

On Tuesday night's telecast of The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart began a segment in which he examined things that Americans accept as gospel truth. One of them is the deification of Abraham Lincoln. He then played a segment from Fox Business Channel's program The Independents [from Feb. 15] where Judge Andrew Napolitano was a guest.

The clip shows Napolitano telling hosts Kennedy and Kmele Foster that he bemoans the fact that Lincoln has been mythologized over the past 150+ years. Stewart then wonders why Napolitano would bemoan a president that everyone likes. Stewart goes back to the clip where Napolitano says this:

"At the time that he [Lincoln] was the President, slavery was dying a natural death all over the western world. Instead of allowing it to die, or helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set about on the most murderous war in American history."

Stewart then attempts to humiliate Napolitano by sarcastically trying to refute his facts. Stewart says:

"Ohh right. Compensated emancipation. Why didn't Lincoln think of that?"

Then Stewart, as he frequently does, pretends to be receiving information via an ear piece, says:

"What's that? Oh he did think of that. He spent most of 1862 trying to convince the border states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia to free their slaves in exchange for money and everybody said 'fuck off', OK."

In that one sentence Stewart humiliates himself by admitting the states Lincoln attempted to emancipate by buying slaves off were border states [states that permitted slavery but did not declare secession from the Union]. This begs the question: If Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia were not in rebellion against the Union, how would freeing slaves in these states end the war? Answer: It wouldn't.

As if this was not embarrassing enough for Stewart, he includes West Virginia in the five states that Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to. Nevermind that West Virginia wasn't a state until the following year [1863]. Stewart should fire every single one of his "fact-checkers" and then publicly apologize on the air for taking them at their word.

One might argue that Stewart is not attempting to argue the point of what Lincoln could have done to end the war itself, but what he was doing to end the institution of slavery. This would be erroneous, since this is the point Judge Napolitano was arguing in the segment.

Another interesting point to consider is why then, if these four border states were still loyal to the Union and Lincoln offered to emancipate their slaves by paying off slave owners, why didn't Lincoln invade these states as he did the eleven seceded states?

After all, we have been told repeatedly by Lincoln apologists that slavery was the cause of the war and that the North was fighting the South to end slavery. If this is the case, what stopped Lincoln from sending his Union armies to these border states to free these slaves [even after these four states did the worst thing imaginable: telling their own president "no" after he offered to purchase them]?

The act of these four slave states refusing Lincoln's offer of compensated emancipation begs several questions [assuming, of course, that Lincoln cheerleaders are correct about slavery being the cause of the war]:

1.  After being turned down, why did Lincoln simply allow it and not invade them [as he was doing to the South]?

2.  Why did Lincoln do nothing about slavery in these four border states even after offering to buy the slaves [and being told "no"], but invaded the eleven seceding Southern states when he made no such similar offer to purchase their slaves as he did with the border states?

3.  Why did Lincoln never make an offer to the eleven seceding states to purchase their slaves?

4.  If the war was fought over slavery, why then did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation not apply to these four border states [and additionally did not apply to Tennessee or the counties in Virginia that would soon become the state of West Virginia]?

Stewart then plays another clip from the same telecast of The Independents. It shows Napolitano telling the hosts that it has never been clear that slavery was the cause of the war, but the impetus for secession was tariffs. Stewart then says, "Unless he's talking about a slave named "tariff", he's talking out his ass because in their own declarations of secession, South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi all clearly put slavery as the number one issue for wanting to secede."

Stewart then proceeds to read an excerpt from Mississippi's declaration stating, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." The word "slavery" is mentioned 38 times in all three of these secession declarations combined, but Stewart fails to understand what most people misunderstand about the Civil War: slavery being the cause of secession is not synonymous with slavery being the cause of the war.

The South only wanted to separate from the Union, not go to war with it. Many will argue that the South fired the first shot. True, but many people have been lied to about the Battle of Fort Sumter. No history book tells how Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard allowed Union Major Robert Anderson and his troops to purchase food in Charleston up until April 5. The Union troops at Fort Sumter were by no means starving. Lincoln wanted to "reprovision" the fort, despite objections from his entire cabinet, the attorney general, the secretaries of war, navy, state and the interior. Even Yankee General Winfield Scott advised Lincoln to abandon the fort. Lincoln refused and sent a provisions supply ship to Fort Sumter accompanied by armed warships. Seeing the heavily armed warships coming into Charleston Harbor, the Confederates bombed the island for 36 hours, killing no one. Lincoln got what he wanted, his aggressors and an excuse to invade.

The three declarations of secessions might mention the word "slavery" 38 times, but nowhere is any mention of slavery linked to having a war over it. In fact, the word "war" is found in these three declarations 11 times, and interestingly, the only time the word is used in the context of any of the two factions [North and South] fighting each other, it is mentioned in reference to the Republican party [reference to the North only, since Lincoln's name was not on the ballot in ten Southern states] wanting to wage war against slavery [it is unknown whether that means literal war].

Napolitano was only partially correct about slavery dying out. The number of slaves were decreasing in a few border states, and would have decreased more if Lincoln had not been a supporter of the Fugitive Slave Law [an act of Congress in 1850 that declared all runaway slaves be returned to their masters upon capture] and had done something to get it repealed. The South did not want the federal government interfering with the institution of slavery. They wanted to emancipate slavery on their own free will and on their timing since a large part of the Southern economy depended on slave labor [unlike in the North].

If anything, the declarations of secession were trying to secure for the South the timing in which they would end slavery, rather than for protecting the institution itself. Less than 5% of all Southerners owned slaves. No Southerner cared that much about slavery to die for it.

Lincoln even stated in his first inaugural address he had no intention of interfering with slavery in the South. Lincoln stated:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Lincoln also supported the Corwin Amendment, which stated:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State".

"Domestic institutions" and "persons held to labor or service" were terms that referred to slavery. Lincoln supported this amendment. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable".

In fact, Lincoln stated many times during the course of the war the reason for going to war: saving the Union. Of course, this was the reason he would state publicly in order to justify his invasion of the South. Covertly, his real agenda was eliminating states rights and turning a decentralized federal government with sovereign states into a centralized government where states would now be mere subsidiaries of the federal government.

Also in Lincoln's first inaugural, he admitted that an invasion of the South could take place if the collection of duties and imposts [tariffs, as Napolitano correctly stated] from Southerners were not implemented. Lincoln said this in his first inaugural:

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Later in the excerpt, one of Stewart's correspondents, Larry Wilmore says it would not have been practical if Lincoln bought the slaves because human beings should never be bought [as if they are property], when just a minute earlier Stewart was defending Lincoln for attempting to buy slaves from the border states.

So, in other words, is Wilmore suggesting that since slaves should not be purchased because they are not property, they should have been left alone, to remain slaves?

Another clip is played of Napolitano from his show Freedom Watch where he explains that federal taxation is theft because our money is our property. Wilmore makes a good point that libertarians like Judge Napolitano cry foul when our money/property is taken away from us by the federal government, but say nothing about slaves being treated as property.

But Wilmore's criticism of Napolitano is misplaced. Napolitano, nor any other libertarian [like myself], have ever suggested that slavery was not inhumane. We have only made the point that it was legal. That has always been the government's fault. Had slavery never been a part of our way of life from day one, slavery would not have been an issue in 1860 either.

Wilmore, being a black man should know better. He should know the real facts about Lincoln: that he was always a racist and never did one thing for the equality of the white and black races his entire life. Lincoln also believed in colonizing blacks and sending them to Liberia. He was a member of the American Colonization Society in which his hero, Henry Clay, became president of before he died. Instead, Wilmore would rather point the finger at civil libertarians who actually tell the truth about a man [Lincoln] who said these words in 1857, when he commented on the Dred Scott decision:

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races".

Thursday, February 20, 2014

An Unconscionable Silence

By Andrew P. Napolitano
February 20, 2014

The political philosopher Edmund Burke once remarked that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good folks to do nothing. A glaring example of the impending triumph of a constitutional evil that could be stopped by folks who have been largely silent is the tyranny coming from the White House. And the folks who can stop this and are doing nothing about it are our elected representatives in Congress.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It established the three branches of government, and it delegated “all legislative powers” to Congress. American law rarely uses the word “all.” Yet the Framers chose that word precisely to confine law writing to Congress and to prevent a president from altering federal law by the selective manner of his enforcement of it and thereby effectively rewriting it.

The same Framers sought to guard against the same evils by compelling the president to swear at the commencement of his terms in office that he will “faithfully” enforce the laws. The use of the word “faithfully,” like the use of the word “all,” is intended to assure voters that they can count on a president who will do the job they hired him to do by enforcing federal laws, not evading them, and by enforcing them as Congress has written them, not as the president might wish them to be.

To be fair, many presidents, from the sainted Thomas Jefferson to the tyrannical FDR, put their own spin on federal law. Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts because he hated a statute that punished free speech and he boasted that he would not enforce that part of the acts (they expired under his watch). And FDR when barely two weeks in office issued an executive order criminalizing the possession of gold because he foolishly thought it would stabilize the banks, until an adviser reminded him that only Congress can write criminal laws (which he then persuaded Congress to do). Yet in President Obama we have a president whose personal interferences in the enforcement of federal laws reveal his view that he can rewrite them and even nullify them.

Presidential law writing violates the presidential oath of office, steals power from Congress, disrespects an equal branch of the government and, when unchecked, accumulates such power in the executive branch that it effectively transforms the president into a menacing tyrant who rejects his constitutional obligations and limitations.

Obama bombed Libya without a declaration of war from Congress. This arguably brought down the Gadhafi government, which led to the current state of lawlessness there, which produced the environment in which our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi in 2012 and established a dangerous precedent because Congress remained officially silent.

He has told the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here and subject to deportation that if they comply with a new set of rules they will not be deported. The constitutional problem is that the president wrote those rules. Only Congress can craft such rules, and by the president’s doing so, he has schooled immigrants in how to avoid compliance with federal law.

The president has used drones to kill Americans, but claims he has done so lawfully because he complied with secret rules that he crafted. Under the Constitution, if the president wants someone dead, he must afford the person due process or ask Congress to declare war on the country housing the person. No worries, he says — he has followed the secret rules that he wrote to govern himself when deciding whom to kill.
The president’s agents now acknowledge that they spy on all of us all the time, including members of the judiciary and Congress. This, too, was done pursuant to a secret presidential directive, secretly approved by judges acting as clerks and not under the Constitution, and by a dozen members of Congress sworn to secrecy. No law authorized this, and the president won’t discuss it meaningfully, except to condemn its revelation.

And in a series of salvos that hit home, the president has modified the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) 29 times, by changing its various dates of effectiveness for some but not for others, by changing the meanings of terms for some but not for others, and even by diluting the signature obligation we all have to obtain the platinum insurance policies it commands for some and not for others. He has done all of this on his own, with no input from Congress. He has even threatened to veto any congressional effort to enact into law the very changes he alone has made.

His latest assault on the Constitution consists of a plan by the Department of Homeland Security, revealed earlier this week, effectively to follow us as we drive on public roads by photographing the license plate of all motor vehicles. This, too, was formulated without congressional approval or constitutional authority.

And while all of this is going on, Congress largely sits as a potted plant. In the Senate, Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have complained long and loud, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not permit legislation to address presidential lawlessness to reach the Senate floor. A few dozen Republicans in the House have complained, but Speaker John Boehner will not permit the House to address corrective legislation. Institutionally and officially, Congress is sleeping.

Can you imagine how a Democratic Congress would have reacted if Ronald Reagan had instructed the IRS to cease collecting capital gains taxes so as to spur economic activity; or how a Republican Congress would have reacted if Bill Clinton had instructed the IRS to add a 1-percent rate increase to the tax bills of billionaires so as to close a budget gap?

These are dangerous times because this is a lawless presidency and a pliant Congress. The president’s willingness to violate the Constitution publicly calls into question his fitness for office. And that deafening silence from Capitol Hill manifests a spineless refusal to preserve constitutional government.

The whole purpose of dividing and separating governmental powers is the preservation of personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in one branch or, heaven forbid, in one person. Whoever permits this to take place lacks fidelity to the Constitution, is unworthy of holding governmental power in a free society and should be removed from office.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

If Obama Supporters Are In Such Favor of the Affordable Care Act, Why Do They Support Obama Continually Changing the Law?

The ACA has now been changed 18 times by Executive Order, and Obama supporters still defend the health care law. Why?

by Larry Simons
February 18, 2014

Eight days ago, on February 10, the Affordable Care Act law was changed for the 18th time by executive order [35th change overall], meaning that just by Obama's spoken word, the law was changed. Not only is the entire ACA law unconstitutional [regulating healthcare is not one of Congress' 18 enumerated powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."], but it is undeniably unconstitutional for the President to change/delay a written law.

In fact, the Constitution states in the "take care clause" found in Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Obama supporters on a few blogs I have posted comments on have insisted that the Constitution clearly allows the President "broad powers" to execute laws. In fact, they claim it states this within Article 2, the same section I just quoted from that states the President must execute laws faithfully. Here, see for yourself that nowhere in Article 2 of the Constitution does it state the President has any kind of "broad powers" when it comes to executing laws.

One comment, from the site Mediaite, states that the President "has broad powers to determine how, and when, he executes the law". Of course, nowhere in the Constitution does it say this, and when I asked the person who posted the aforementioned comment where in the Constitution does it grant the President free reign to "determine how and when he executes the law", he gave no answer.

The one question that has me completely puzzled is this: Why do Obama supporters keep defending Obama's changes to the ACA when they have supported the ACA since it became law? Stands to reason if you defend a law as written and someone keeps changing it, you will either begin to have hostility toward the individual who is changing a law you support, or you can never claim you ever supported that law.

Of course, we all know the bottom line is this: Obama supporters have no clue what was in the Affordable Care Act in 2010, or what it says now. Their allegiance is to Obama and Obama alone, and anything he does or says will not be put under scrutiny. Obama is their Messiah, their Savior and anything he says or does is admired, respected, believed and trusted on the same level Christians worship Jesus Christ.

Let the record stand on this issue once and for all: The President has absolutely no power to unilaterally change or delay written law. PERIOD. It is his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute laws, not change them when he sees fit. To do so is grounds for impeachment. The fact that Congress is sitting on their asses and not pursuing impeachment charges does not remove illegality from the President's actions. It means Congress are a bunch of lazy, spineless, complicit pussies who should all be voted out of office.

Here is a list of the 18 changes/delays to the ACA law that have been made unilaterally by King Obama's spoken word.

April 19, 2011
1. Medicare Advantage patch: The administration ordered an advance draw on funds from a Medicare bonus program in order to provide extra payments to Medicare Advantage plans, in an effort to temporarily forestall cuts in benefits and therefore delay early exodus of MA plans from the program.

January 1, 2012
2. Employee reporting: The administration, contrary to the Obamacare legislation, instituted a one-year delay of the requirement that employers must report to their employees on their W-2 forms the full cost of their employer-provided health insurance.

May 23, 2012
3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.”

February 15, 2013
4. Closing the high-risk pool: The administration decided to halt enrollment in transitional federal high-risk pools created by the law, blocking coverage for an estimated 40,000 new applicants, citing a lack of funds. The administration had money from a fund under Secretary Sebelius’s control to extend the pools, but instead used the money to pay for advertising for Obamacare enrollment and other purposes.

February 20, 2013
5. Doubling allowed deductibles: Because some group health plans use more than one benefits administrator, plans are allowed to apply separate patient cost-sharing limits to different services, such as doctor/hospital and prescription drugs, allowing maximum out-of-pocket costs to be twice as high as the law intended.

March 11, 2013
6. Small businesses on hold: The administration has said that the federal exchanges for small businesses will not be ready by the 2014 statutory deadline, and instead delayed until 2015 the provision of SHOP (Small-Employer Health Option Program) that requires the exchanges to offer a choice of qualified health plans.

March 22, 2013
7. Delaying a low-income plan: The administration delayed implementation of the Basic Health Program until 2015. It would have provided more-affordable health coverage for certain low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid.

July 2, 2013
8. Employer-mandate delay: By an administrative action that’s contrary to statutory language in the ACA, the reporting requirements for employers were delayed by one year.

July 15, 2013
9. Self-attestation: Because of the difficulty of verifying income after the employer-reporting requirement was delayed, the administration decided it would allow “self-attestation” of income by applicants for health insurance in the exchanges. This was later partially retracted after congressional and public outcry over the likelihood of fraud.

September 26, 2013/November 27, 2013
10. Delaying the online SHOP exchange: The administration first delayed for a month and later for a year until November 2014 the launch of the online insurance marketplace for small businesses. The exchange was originally scheduled to launch on October 1, 2013.

September 30, 2013
11. Congressional opt-out: The administration decided to offer employer contributions to members of Congress and their staffs when they purchase insurance on the exchanges created by the ACA, a subsidy the law doesn’t provide.

October 23, 2013
12. Delaying the individual mandate: The administration changed the deadline for the individual mandate, by declaring that customers who have purchased insurance by March 31, 2014 will avoid the tax penalty. Previously, they would have had to purchase a plan by mid-February.

November 14, 2013
13. Insurance companies may offer canceled plans: The administration announced that insurance companies may re-offer plans that previous regulations forced them to cancel.

December 2, 2013
14. Exempting unions from reinsurance fee: The administration gave unions an exemption from the reinsurance fee (one of ObamaCare’s many new taxes). To make up for this exemption, non-exempt plans will have to pay a higher fee, which will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher premiums and deductibles.

December 12, 2013/January 14, 2014
15. Extending Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan: The administration extended the federal high risk pool until January 31, 2014 and again until March 15, 2014 to prevent a coverage gap for the most vulnerable. The plans were scheduled to expire on December 31, but were extended because it has been impossible for some to sign up for new coverage on

December 19, 2013
16. Expanding catastrophic hardship waiver to those with canceled plans: The administration expanded the hardship waiver, which allows some people to purchase catastrophic health insurance, to people who have had their plans canceled because of ObamaCare regulations. This is only a temporary fix so these plans will again be illegal in 2015, conveniently after the November 2014 elections.

January 18, 2014
17. Equal employer coverage delayed: Tax officials will not be enforcing in 2014 the mandate requiring employers to offer equal coverage to all their employees. This provision of the law was supposed to go into effect in 2010, but IRS officials have “yet to issue regulations for employers to follow.”

February 10, 2014
18. Employer-mandate delayed again: The administration delayed for an additional year provisions of the employer mandate, postponing enforcement of the requirement for medium-size employers until 2016 and relaxing some requirements for larger employers. Businesses with 100 or more employees must offer coverage to 70% of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and beyond.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball: Another Nut Bites the Dust

Another pastor dies from a snake bite. Adds to the long list of religious loons that have no clue that poisonous snakes are just that....poisonous

by Larry Simons
February 17, 2014

Snake-handler, Kentucky Pastor and all-around nut Jamie Coots has become the latest victim of a snake bite inflicted upon him during a church service at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name Church of Middlesboro, Kentucky. He was featured along with fellow snake-handler Andrew Hamblin on the NatGeo reality show Snake Salvation.

Coots believed in several Bible passages that taught that poisonous snake bites would not harm those who are anointed by God. One of those versus, found in Mark 16:17-18 states:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Another, found in Luke 10:19, states:

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

Not only did this jackass play with poisonous snakes that he believed would not hurt him, but after he was bitten, he refused to be treated. I cannot begin to imagine the level of incredible stupidity it must require to be a willing participant to the sequence of events in Coots' life, up until being bit and refusing to be treated.

The reality sinks in. These people really believe the complete bullshit found within the pages of this archaic book written before there was any major advancement in medicine and science. It has been proven false again and again and again, and yet people still partake in these insane and deadly rituals.

Do these people really believe that even though snakes have bitten others and killed others, that the snakes they handle won't kill them? It is absolutely astonishing that human beings, living in the 21st century, in the days of modern science and medicine actually believe that poisonous snakes will not and cannot kill them, just because a book written twenty centuries ago said they won't. Pure insanity.

In this video clip [below], Coots' wife says this:

"When you handle serpents, it's one of the best feelings I've ever felt in my life. It's like a peace and a calm and a happiness. It's such a happiness and a joy. You can just feel the joy in your soul that you just don't feel all the time everyday."

Yep, she's right. It's a peace. The same peace that her husband now rests in. Yep, it's a joy that you "just don't feel all the time everyday". She didn't have a dead husband she will. Enjoy that "peace" and "joy". Warning: Watching her talk is difficult. You may feel your own I.Q. drop as she's talking. You were warned.

Let me tell you how stupid these people really are. In the clip above it states that Coots was actually bitten once before, 14 years ago. The picture below shows that Coots' right middle finger was bitten by a snake and had rotted and broke off. He didn't seek medical attention for this either.

Question: If he was bitten previously and lost a finger, why would he still believe in the Mark passage that states people anointed by God cannot be harmed by snakes? He has to know that religious people in the past have died from snake bites while in the very act of snake-handling. Why continue to believe the Mark passage is true?

This is why religion is very, very dangerous. These idiots are so completely brainwashed into believing something is true, even when they have evidence it's not. If the passages from Mark and Luke were true, no one would have ever died from snake bites in the act of snake-handling and Coots himself would have never been bitten and lost his finger. But they continue to believe. This is how destructive religion is. They know Bible passages are false, and they still believe.

Why am I being so "insensitive" and harsh when a human being has died, you may ask? Because these people are degenerates whose combined I.Q.'s wouldn't surpass any one of the snakes they play with. Why should I feel any sympathy for these mindless buffoons when their own families do not even care enough to keep them away from deadly, poisonous snakes?

Watch the video below [if you have the stomach for it]. It shows Coots, Hamblin [doing the preaching] and other church members dancing around holding snakes like the absent-minded douchebags they are.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Obamacare Advocate Claims The Uninsured Rate In January Dropped 1.2%. But How Can This Be When There Are More Uninsured People Overall?

Writer claims 3 million people have signed up for Obamacare. But what about the 4-6 million who lost their health insurance plans at the end of December 2013? If 4-6 million lost their plans and only 3 million have signed up for Obamacare, that means 1-3 million people overall do not have insurance now because of the Affordable Care Act. So how did the uninsured rate drop?

by Larry Simons
February 6, 2014

Sean Williams, writer for the financial services company The Motley Fool, has written an article about Obamacare titled, "10 Obamacare Facts You Need to Know After 4 Months" that includes several flat-out distortions and lies. One of which, in his list of 10 facts, is fact number 3 titled, "The U.S. uninsured rate dropped 1.2% ... in a month!".

Williams states, "Based on a Gallup poll that has been conducted with some regularity since 2008, the percentage of U.S. uninsured dropped 1.2% in January to 16.1% from 17.3% in December."

How can this be when just about everyone is well aware that millions of Americans [4-6 million to be exact] received cancellations of their health care plans that ended December 31? Williams states in his number one fact about Obamacare that "Obamacare enrollments have reached 3 million". If 4-6 million lost their health care plans last December [2013], and only 3 million have signed up, that still leaves a 1-3 million deficit of uninsured Americans. How can the uninsured rate drop 1.2% within a month if the overall uninsured number has risen?

The answer lies in one of Williams' many distortions riddled throughout his article. Williams states, "[the 1.2% figure] includes both the 3 million paying enrollees, and the 6.3 million government-sponsored enrollees, meaning an uninsured rate drop was expected." Williams is including the 6.3 million who have been deemed eligible for Medicaid and the CHIP program into this 1.2% "drop", despite the fact that he even admits these people are only "eligible", regardless if they are signed up officially for the programs or not, and that people can enroll into Medicaid and the CHIP programs with or without the existence of Obamacare.

Another glaring omission from Williams' article is the fact that of the 3 million Americans that has "supposedly" signed up for Obamacare, only 11% of these 3 million were people previously uninsured.

So, to re-cap: 11% of 3 million is 330,000 and since you cannot count Medicaid and CHIP enrollees [since they can be entitled to receive these programs even without the existence of Obamacare], we are left with only 330,000 people who now have health insurance for the very first time. Far, far from 9.3 million Sean Williams, Health and Human Services or Obama himself want you to naively believe.

Another glaring fact Williams conveniently omitted: Just because there have been 3 million enrollees into Obamacare [of which, keep in mind, only 11% are newly insured people] and 6.3 are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP [eligible, not officially enrolled], this does not mean they have actually paid money yet. Some have, some have not. When most Americans find out how much higher their premiums will be, the 330,000 number will sink even lower because they will withdraw and opt out.

Williams is just another Obamacare water carrier who gets paid to distort, omit and flat out lie to defend the undefendable. The company name is appropriate. Williams sure is a Motley Fool.