Saturday, August 31, 2013

HARE TRIGGER … NO BLOOD FOR EGO!


WHAT'S ON THE GURNEY …
THE U.$. ECONOMY


For example, training and assisting $yrian opposition forces would cost $500 million annually and “limited” standoff missile and air strikes would cost in the “billions.” 
Operating a no-fly zone would cost about $1 billion per month, and the cost of using special operations forces to control chemical weapons would be “over” $1 billion monthly.
AND WHERE DOES OBAMA EXPECT TO GET THE FUNDING?
A congressional aide familiar with the congressional leaders’ briefing said Hagel and Winnefeld made clear the Pentagon would need to “work” with Congress to obtain supplemental funding for $yria attacks.
“Good luck with that,” the aide said, reflecting widespread concern among congressional Republicans with the Obama administration’s defense cuts.
The Pentagon leaders said unlike the 2011 military operations against Libya, there are not enough operating funds to conduct the attack on $yria.
THERE'S NO LIMIT ON ARROGANCE
The administration during the first term cut $487 billion from defense spending and another $55 billion under congressional sequestration legislation. An additional $55 billion is slated to be cut next year.

Last April, under questioning from Rep. Mike Conaway (R., Texas) at a House Armed Services Committee hearing April 11, Hagel said that if U.$. military action is taking in $yria “it’s pretty clear that a supplemental would be required.” Dempsey said during the same hearing that “It would take a supplemental” funding for a $yria operation.

$everal Republican leaders expressed skepticism that the briefing failed to outline key military options and objectives.

TARGET LASER-LIT BY OBAMA!
DON'T TASE MY FAMILY BRO!

THERE'S ALWAYS A LITTLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE … ITS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THAT WE HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE … WITH OUR  SKETCHY INTELLIGENCE BASED ON ASSERTIONS ONLY, NO FACTS, NO EVIDENCE!

Friday, August 30, 2013

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE … CRASH LANDING IN A FINANCIAL DESERT OR FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX

AETNA PULLS OUT OF ANOTHER OBAMACARE HEALTH EXCHANGE
OBAMACARE BECAUSE WE CARE … 


America's third largest health insurer, Aetna Inc., has announced it will not sell insurance on New York's Obamacare health insurance exchange, the fifth state the company has pulled out of in the last few weeks.
Aetna, a fortune 100 company with $34.2 billion in revenue, has pulled out of the government-run exchanges in three states, including the state of Connecticut, where it is based.
The other states Aetna has opted out of for Obamacare insurance exchange participation are Maryland, Ohio, Georgia, and Connecticut.

"We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable," said Aetna spokesperson Cynthia Michener. "On New York, as a result of our analysis, we reluctantly came to the conclusion to withdraw."

That leads to the obvious question: What will it take to be financially viable?

Obamacare's individual mandate requires all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Some health insurers are foregoing participation in the Obamacare exchanges due to costly mandates to provide a selection of services and a requirement to accept all individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Aetna never intended to participate in California, and Anthem Blue Cross and United Health Group made a similar decision to steer clear of California's Obamacare exchanges as well.

In 2009, President Barack Obama promised his government healthcare overhaul would not threaten personal insurance plans.

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period," he claimed. "No one will take it away. No matter what."


WHO PAYS?

Individuals and families making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level will qualify for a federal subsidy to help them buy their government-mandated insurance -- but only if they buy their insurance on the government-run exchange. However, with these large insurance companies NOT participating in the exchanges … WHO PAYS? AH THE STEALTH MASTER PLAN … A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM!

ANOTHER "SOFT DICTATOR" SLITHERS OUT OF THE DUNG HEAP …STUPIDITY ON STEROIDS



BIRDS & BEES … PARENTING … AND BREEDING


Chicago makes sex-ed mandatory for kindergarteners BIOLOGICAL PARENTS ARE MERELY BREEDERS FOR FUTURE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

LESSON ONE:
ONE OF THESE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS …

Has Chicago solved all of its other educational issues?  We’ll get back to that in a moment, but that must be what the Chicago Public School District believes.  Starting this year, kindergarten classes must carve out 30 minutes a month for sex-education classes, and parents aren’t exactly thrilled:

CPS emphasizes that the sex-ed effort is aimed at protecting children from abuse:
CPS insists the curriculum will use language children understand and focus on topics like bullying, correct names for external body parts and the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching.
“As you identify body parts, you talk about should you be touched here or not.,” said Stephanie Whyte, the CPS Chief Health Officer. “And if someone touches you, and it’s uncomfortable, you should tell a trusted adult.”
“I’m OK with it,” said parent Ayesha Ahmad. “I’d like to believe it’s not necessary, but I think our culture dictates you can’t start early enough.”
But that’s not quite all that will be taught in these classes.  Besides anatomically-correct nomenclature and a heads-up on identifying abuse, kindergarteners will also get taught the prevailing values of the school system about family structures:
Students will also take a look at the different family structures that exist in today’s society.
“Whether that means there’s two moms at home, everyone’s home life is different, and we introduce the fact that we all have a diverse background, “ said Whyte
That’s a lesson some conservative organizations oppose.
This brings up at least two big issue. First, children of this age aren’t going to have the sophistication to process this kind of instruction and compare it to the value systems which families use in their own homes.  That’s the kind of issue that mothers and fathers should address with their children when they reach the appropriate age, not for schools to dictate as soon as they get kids in their clutches. Furthermore, when parents conflict with the teachers on this point, that will undermine the authority and credibility of the teachers, at the most formative age possible.  There simply isn’t a need to address this at the kindergarten stage.

Second, this shows why public schools are failing to educate students, especially in Chicago.  Just this year, after CPS aligned its standardized tests to the actual outcomes of grade-level reading and arithmetic, Chicago parents learned thatonly 52.5% of students between the 3rd and 8th grades could pass that test:
The number of Chicago Public Schools students that met state standards on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test plummeted this year because officials raised the bar for what it takes to pass. 
Only 52.5 percent of 3rd through 8th graders met or exceeded reading and math standards — nearly a 22 point drop from last year. But officials said the new test scores are a more accurate portrait of the performance of the city’s public school students and noted that 65 percent of schools actually showed progress.
Since the state decided in January to raise the cutoff scores for the Illinois Standards Achievement Test to get schools ready for the more rigorous Common Core curriculum, districts have been warning parents not to be shocked by the expected drop in test scores. Chicago is the first district in Illinois to release its scores, showing the steepness of that drop. The Illinois State Board of Education is expected to release statewide test data in October. 
At CPS, the number of students meeting or exceeding state standards went down from 74.2 percent last year to 52.5 percent this year.
CPS told parents not to worry, because it didn’t mean that their children were performing any worse than they had been before, but just that they’d raised the testing bar to … expectations of grade-level performance. That’s more of an indictment of the tests CPS used in the past, and its consistent level of incompetence.  And this new effort is a good example of why only half of CPS students can perform at grade level — because school districts are more concerned with social norming than they are with actually educating children.
Schools should focus on education. Value formation is best left to the parents.
… A CHICAGO TEACHER


AFL-CIO LOOKING FOR A WAIVER TO OBAMACARE … ITS NOT FAIR, CONGRESS GOT A WAIVER WHY CAN'T WE?


Labor's Trumka: Obamacare 'mistakes' need fixing … the AFL-CIO helped to jam it down the RINO's throat … now we need a pass!

Washington Secrets

Stepping up the fight for sweeping immigration reform, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on Thursday said that if House Speaker John Boehner and his RINO's caucus don't OK a "path to citizenship" for 11 million illegal immigrants, they will be punished by voters for "decades."  Yeah, Dick just like Obamacare …!

Promising to bring a world of political hurt on immigration reform foes, Trumka warned the Republican House (REALLY!? THESE ARE RINO'S) that its decision on the issue could change the political makeup of the nation.

"Look," said Trumka, "if this doesn't have a pathway to citizenship, they are going to pay a political price that is going to pay dividends to workers for decades. The only thing standing between immigration reform and reality is John Boehner and the House Republicans. And if they continue to stand in that way, they will pay a major, major political price." [IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN WHY IS TRUMKA PUSHING SO HARD FOR THE RINO'S TO ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD … THEIR ALREADY DEAD!]

Trumka, speaking at a media breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, said "the system is broken. And they want to do everything that they can so that it isn't fixed."
Immigration reform is one of several hot-button issues facing Congress when they return to Washington in two weeks. The House leadership is eager to pick the legislation apart and pass it in pieces. The Senate approved one comprehensive bill, largely supported by President Obama.

Trumka also addressed the concerns labor has with Obamacare, revealing that unions are working with the administration to make changes.
AFL-CIO OPENS MOUTH … INSERTS FOOT
TRUMKA DIDN'T EVEN FEEL IT … 
"It still needs to be tweaked to be made more effective," he said after complaining that the so-called "public option" of government-funded health care should have been included and rapping the decision to withdraw the government's ability to push down the price of drugs.
WELL THE OLD SAYING WAS SOMETHING ABOUT SHINOLA … 

"We made some mistakes" in the legislation, he conceded.

OBAMA'S CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST … AND WHERE IS THE CONGRESS?


Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force … whether the Syrian government or a faction of the insurgents used chemical weapons is really secondary to the president following the US Constitution and Congress … he alone does not have the authority to wage a war of aggression against another nation (period)!!!!

Barack Obama

A spokeswoman for Obama's national security council said the US would consider its options in the light of the vote. 

Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorizing the UK's participation in military action.
A POLITICAL GAG … WELL SHUT MY MOUTH
The White House was forced to consider the unpalatable option of taking unilateral action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad after the British prime minister, David Cameron, said UK would not now take part in any military action in response to a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week.

Although Britain's support was not a prerequisite for US action, the Obama administration was left exposed without the backing of its most loyal ally, which has taken part in every major US military offensive in recent years.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for Obama's national security council, indicated the administration would consider acting unliaterally. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government – one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
POST OFFICE PHOTO - WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE
The US appears to have taken British support for granted. Hours before the vote, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Diane Feinstein, expressed confidence that Britain would join any strike.

Feinstein, a Democrat and staunch administration ally, told Time magazine: "I think the UK makes a difference. I think if the president were to decide to go there's a very high likelihood that the United Kingdom would be with us."  NOT!

The timing of the British vote, 272 to 285 against the government, was disastrous for Obama. Less than 30 minutes after the vote, senior intelligence officials began a conference call with key members of Congress, in an attempt to keep US lawmakers on side.

Congressional leaders and the chairs and ranking members of national security committees were briefed by the most senior US intelligence officials, amid signs that some of the support for military strikes against Syria was fading.

The officials said there was "no doubt" that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week, Reuters reported. Obama aides cited intercepted communications of Syrian officials and evidence of movements by Syria's military around Damascus before the attack that killed more than 300 people, said Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House foreign affairs committee.

The 90-minute briefing was conducted by secretary of state John Kerry, secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, national security adviser Susan Rice, among others.
After the briefing, Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, urged a cautious approach. "I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.

"Tonight, I suggested that we should do so while UN inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime's large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people."

The UN has said more time should be given to diplomacy, and France, which earlier this week declared its support for taking action against Syria, is now calling for more time so UN inspections can be completed. A session of the United Nations security council in New York, called by Russia, broke up without agreement.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule. Ban also announced that the team would report to him immediately on departure, raising the possibility that the UN could issue an interim report on the 21 August chemical attacks that left hundreds of people dead.

The inspectors had not been due to deliver their findings for a week at least. The demand for a rushed early assessment reflects the fraught atmosphere at the UN triggered by US threats to launch punitive air strikes within days.

Shortly before Britain's parliamentary vote, the New York Times quoted senior administration officials saying the US administration was prepared to launch strikes on Syria without a UN security council mandate or the support of allies such as Britain.

Earlier on Thursday, Joshua Earnest, the White House deputy spokesman, seemed to confirm that was a possibility when he was asked whether the US would "go it alone". He repeatedly said it was in US "core national security interests" to enforce international chemical weapons norms. "The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES national security interests of America," he said. Any strikes would be "discreet and limited", he said.

However, Earnest also stressed the broad international support for the US position – backing that now appears to be dissipating. The Arab League has blamed Syria for the chemical attack, but stopped short of advocating punitive strikes by the US.

In recent days, Obama has spoken personally with leaders of France, Australia, Canada and Germany. But none were as important as Britain, a traditional ally during US military actions which has been lobbying behind the scenes for months for a tougher action on Syria.

Ken Pollack, a fellow from the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, said that with continuing uncertainty over the intelligence picture, and no obvious legal mandate for military action, the US will be desperate to secure more international backing to argue that intervention is "legitimate".

"If the administration can't even count of the full-throated support of our closest ally, the country that stuck by us even during the worst days of Iraq, that legitimacy is going to be called into question," he said.

Now that the UK parliament has rejected an attack on Syria, Washington's space for planning one is likely to be constrained, particularly as the Obama administration prepares to release its intelligence tying Assad to the 21 August gas attack. An unclassified report is due to be published on Friday.

Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA Middle East analyst and Georgetown professor, said the loss of British support would lead to more "intense" scrutiny of the US case for action against Syria. "The UK is, in many important respects, the most important ally of the United States," said Pillar. "This action by parliament is unquestionably significant in that regard."

OBAMA'S LINE IN THE SAND … SOMEONE TELL HIM ABOUT WAVES AND SAND


More delays deadline for finalizing Obamacare health plans

The ObamaCare Administration has delayed a step crucial to the launch of the new healthcare law, the signing of final agreements with insurance plans to be sold on federal health insurance exchanges starting October 1.

ANOTHER LINE, ANOTHER DELAY … 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notified insurance companies it would not sign final agreements with the plans between September 5 and 9, as originally anticipated, but would delay until mid-September instead. 


Nevertheless, Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for HHS, said the department remains "on track to open" the marketplaces on time on October 1.


The reason for the hold-up was unclear. Sources attributed it to technology problems involving the display of insurance products within the federal information technology system.


LISTENING TO THE WRONG FEEDBACK …
Peters said only that the government was responding to "feedback" from the companies, "providing additional flexibility and time to handle technical requests."  Well Peters if you and the administration would "really" listen to the feedback (i.e., the close to 1,400 waivers granted) then there would be no problem and no Obamacare. However the Individual Mandate is still in effec… no waivers granted!


Coming at a time when state and federal officials are still working to overcome challenges to the information technology systems necessary to make the exchanges work, some experts say that even a small delay could jeopardize the start of the six-month open enrollment period.


But the October 1 deadline has already begun to falter at the state level, with Oregon announcing plans to scale back the launch of its own marketplace and California saying it would consider a similar move.


Tuesday's notification by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the HHS agency spearheading marketplace development, affects insurance plans that would be sold in federal exchanges that the administration is setting up in 34 of the 50 U.S. states. The remaining 16 states, including Oregon and California, are setting up their own marketplaces.


"It makes me wonder if open enrollment can start on October 1," said a former administration official who worked to implement Obama's healthcare reform.

"But having everything ready on October 1 is not a critical issue. What matters to people is January 1, which is when the coverage is supposed to start. If that were delayed, it would be a substantive setback."

Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is expected to extend federally subsidized health coverage to an estimated 7 million uninsured Americans in 2014 through the marketplaces.


But insurance plans must be qualified to meet specific standards if they are to be sold on the exchanges. And each insurer must sign a contract with the federal government.


The new timetable for qualified plan agreements is the latest in a series of delays for Obamacare.


The most significant came in early July when the White House and the Treasury Department announced a one-year delay in a major Obamacare provision that would have required employers with at least 50 full-time workers to provide health insurance or pay a penalty beginning in 2014.


Legal and political opposition from Republicans and their conservative allies have already fragmented Obamacare's original vision.


Only about half the states have opted to expand Medicaid program for the poor to uninsured families living below the poverty level, and Republicans in Congress have denied nearly $1 billion in new implementation funding this year alone.


The Government Accountability Office cautioned in June that the law known as Obamacare could miss the October 1 enrollment deadline because of missed deadlines and delays in several areas including the certification of health plans for sale on the exchanges.


Another U.S. watchdog, the HHS Office of the Inspector General, warned earlier this month that the government was months behind testing data security for the federal data hub that represents the information technology backbone of the new marketplaces.


The state of Oregon has already scaled back the October 1 debut of its own healthcare exchange by preventing state residents from signing up for coverage on their own until mid-October. California said last week that it, too, would consider a soft launch of its exchange if tests show it is not ready to accommodate wide public access.

CONSTITUTIONAL LINE HOW MANY TIMES WILL HE CROSS IT?



Dem. Congressman: 'Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria'

Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler appears to be warning President Obama in a statement released today on striking Syria. "Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria," reads the title of Nadler's statement.
OBAMA GESTURES CONGRESS WHAT HE'S THINKING

The text of the statement reads:

The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress -- not by the President. The decision to go to war -- and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war -- is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. “Consultation” with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.

The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.


Jerrold Lewis "Jerry" Nadler is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice and the U.S. Representative for New York's 10th congressional district

The district from 2002-2013 included the west side of Manhattan from the Upper West Side down to Battery Park, including the site where the World Trade Center stood. It also included the Manhattan neighborhoods of ChelseaHell's Kitchen, and Greenwich Village, as well as parts of Brooklyn such as Coney Island, Bensonhurst, Borough Park, and Bay Ridge. It included many of New York City's most popular tourist attractions, including the Empire State Building, Central Park, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge and New York Stock Exchange.[1][2]














Tuesday, August 27, 2013

ITS NOT SO MUCH THAT YOU'RE DEAD, RATHER IT HOW YOU GOT THAT WAY THAT TAKES CENTER STAGE!


Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria … 

The visit by the United Nations inspectors to the Damascus suburb, in a half-dozen vehicles escorted by Syrian security forces, came shortly after Mr. Assad denied that his forces had used poison gas.

In an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, published on Monday, Mr. Assad said accusations that his forces had used chemical weapons were an “outrage against common sense” and warned the United States that military intervention in Syria would bring “failure just like in all the previous wars they waged, starting with Vietnam and up to the present day.”

ITS NOT SO MUCH THAT YOU'RE DEAD THAT TAKES CENTER STAGE … RATHER THE FOCUS IS ON HOW YOU GOT THAT WAY!  HOW RIDICULOUS! THINK DEATH PANELS IN OBAMACARE … THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT?  

Why would Mr. Assad invite the United Nations investigators into the country to determine what?
Is the use of "chemical weapons" worst than a "nuclear weapon", both achieve the same goal.  The use of the atomic bomb in Japan achieve the mission at the expense of innocent civilians, so how is the use of "chemical weapons" any different?

Mr. Kerry noted that on Thursday he told Walid al-Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, that if the Assad government had nothing to hide it should provide immediate access to the attack site.

“Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them,” Mr. Kerry said. “Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systematically destroying evidence.” What bull-shit!

He said: “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable, so is killing by any means! More bull-shit!

On Capitol Hill, top House and Senate Republicans called on the administration to confer with lawmakers before any military strike and to make the case to a skeptical public. The White House on Monday reached out to Speaker John A. Boehner after Mr. Boehner’s office noted publicly that he had not heard from the president on Syria.

CONGRESS HAS CONCEDED ITS AUTHORITY LIKE A WHIMPERING DOG HAS ROLLED OVER AND SPREAD ITS LEGS ~ TOTAL SUBMISSION TO THE PRESIDENT!

“The speaker made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner.

SOUNDS LIKE THE PROVERBIAL CHICKEN JOKE … 

Others welcomed the signals from the administration that it was preparing to take action. Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Assad “has crossed more than a red line and the United States must act in the interest of our national and global security.”

In Israel, a senior government official made a similar argument and suggested that Iran would be monitoring how the United States and its allies responded.

Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of international affairs, strategy and intelligence, told international reporters at a briefing on Monday morning in Jerusalem that it was “crystal clear” that Mr. Assad’s forces used chemical weapons last week and called the United Nations investigation effort a “joke.”  WOW … ISREAL IS ON AL-QAEDA'S SIDE AND SO IS OBAMA … REALLY UPSIDE DOWN.  PERHAPS "WE" SHOULD JUST STAY OUT OF THIS 

Mr. Steinitz said that Iran, which provided arms to the Assad government and sent members of its paramilitary Quds force to fight with the Syrian military, should also be held responsible. “The Iranians are already trying to isolate themselves from the use of chemical weapons,” he said. “This is a kind of hypocrisy.”
Doctors Without Borders reported on Saturday that about 3,600 patients had been treated at three hospitals it supports for symptoms that appeared to stem from exposure to chemical weapons.

On Monday, the group said that 70 of the 100 volunteers who had taken care of these patients in on of the hospitals had also become ill and that one volunteer had died.

The organization was trying to replenish the depleted stocks of atropine, which is an antidote used to treat victims of chemical attacks, at the hospitals that treated the patients and was also rushing supplies to other medical facilities in Syria.


Reporting was contributed by Ben Hubbard from Beirut, Lebanon; Rick Gladstone from New York; Jodi Rudoren from Jerusalem; Alan Cowell from London; Andrew Roth and Noah Sneider from Moscow; and Sebnem Arsu from Istanbul.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

BREAKING BAD … I CAN FEEL IT IN THE AIR …

THE FAN IS OSCILLATING ON HIGH AND THE MEDIA IS BEGINNING TO FEED IT … OBAMACARE WILL BE AN OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE … TAKING YOU TO PLACES YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN …





















THE HYPOCRISY IS AS BREATHTAKING AS THE ADMINISTRATIONS TAKES TYRANNY TO NEW HEIGHTS … WHAT RIGHT, WHAT AUTHORITY, AND LAW ALLOWS FOR HUBRIS?


CONGRESS GETS A PASS (no surprise here … move on) … Did Congress intentionally crafted the health care law to "hose" the American Public?  Obama grants more than 1,200 waivers to politically connected unions and corporations.

OPM Other People's Money (Office of Personnel Management) will announce that it has decided that “the federal government will help pay the cost of premiums” on the new government-run “exchanges” for members of Congress and their staffs, who in turn will “not be eligible for the law’s tax credits and subsidies to buy insurance.”

This decision is a potential blockbuster for three reasons.

1) Its legality is extremely doubtful. In fact, it runs 180 degrees counter to what the statute seems to say, and to what its authors claim to have intended. People in exchanges are supposed to get federal exchange subsidies, not federal workplace subsidies. OPM is saying the opposite. By what legal authority?

2) If applied beyond Congress to the private sector, the decision would undermine the entire employer-provided health insurance system, a system that currently benefits half the U.S. population. If private employers can subsidize their workers’ health coverage inside the exchanges, which the statute appears to forbid, then they will have an incentive to “dump” their workers into the local exchange. (Could this be why President Obama suspended the employer mandate last month? In order to clear the way for massive employer dumping?)

3) The decision is massively unfair. Assuming point two is baseless speculation, no other Americans will get this special treatment.


ILLEGAL OBAMACARE WAIVERS


Massachusetts, one of the bluest states in the country, has requested an Obamacare waiver. And Obama has granted their request.
This waiver is illegal for two reasons. First, the waiver was not approved by the U.S. Congress. Second, the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government treat all states the same.
Previous examples of hypocrisy from the supporters of Obamacare include:
Obama gave some organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of Obamacare.  Many of these organizations were unions that had supported the passage of Obamacare, but now wanted exemptions from the very same law that they wanted to force everyone else to obey. This reveals an extreme level of hypocrisy among many of the supporters of Obamacare. In addition, these exemptions are illegal, because the Constitution requires the law to treat everyone the same. The Washington Times wrote of this:
“Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.”“The now-familiar monthly trickling down of new waivers is, at best, a tacit admission that Obamacare is a failure. So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration’s friends and allies and, of course, those who have the best lobbyists.”“More than 50 percent of the Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, which is striking because union members account for less than 12 percent of the American work force. The same unions that provided more than $120 million to Democrats in the last two elections and, in many cases, openly campaigned in favor of the government takeover of your health care, now celebrate that Obamacare is not their problem.”
In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts.
As the Obamacare law was written, the employer mandate was to begin in January 2014. This is what the law said when it was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama in 2010. However, in July 2013, Obama delayed the employer mandate part of Obamacare until January 2015. [REALLY AND WHO CROWNED HIM?] Obama did this without approval from Congress. For Obama to change a law that was passed by Congress, without first getting approval from Congress, is a violation of the Presidential oath that Obama took to uphold and defend the Constitution. What Obama did here is an action of a dictator, not an action of a President whose power is limited by a written constitution. If Obama can get away with this, then it sets a horribly dangerous precedent, and means that the President can arbitrarily make any change to any law that has been passed by Congress, without first getting approval from Congress. [IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SNOWDEN AND MANNING ARE MERELY THE LEADING EDGE OF A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR THE "RULE OF LAW" AND WHAT "THEY" THOUGHT WAS RIGHT … IF OBAMA CAN DISS THE CONGRESS AND CONSTITUTION THEN "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"]
After Obamacare was passed, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated
“… new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26… meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
Three years after Obama signed Obamacare, the New York Times reported that Obama would miss his own deadline for creating some of the insurance exchanges for small businesses.

U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), one of the authors of Obamacare, said of it, “I just see a huge train wreck coming down.”

U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), another author of the law, said it was “beyond comprehension.”
Obama hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare. But Obamacare is so awful that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it. In July 2013, the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS employees who will be running Obamacare, provided a form letter to its members to send to their Congressmen. The letter stated:
“I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”
When asked about this, IRS chief Daniel Werfel responded by saying:
“I don’t want to speak for the NTEU, but I’ll offer a perspective as a federal employee myself and a federal employee at the IRS. And that is, we have right now as employees of the government, of the IRS, affordable health care coverage. I think the ACA was designed to provide an option or an alternative for individuals that do not. And all else being equal, I think if you’re an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you’re probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process. So I think for a federal employee, I think more likely, and I would — can speak for myself, I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I’m pleased with rather than go through a change if I don’t need to go through that change.”
In January 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported:
Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed
Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.
Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.
Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue
Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans
“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here
Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law’s requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members’ compensation package

In July 2013, three unions that supported the passage of Obamacare in 2010 (Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE) sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which is very heavily critical of Obamacare. Among other things, the letter states:
“The ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”“The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.”“Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.”“These restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable.”“We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”
For some really hilarious displays of shock and outrage by supporters of Obamacare at how it’s harming low wage workers, check out these threads at Democratic Underground: onetwothreefour, and five.

Pittsburgh employers who voted for Obama are now refusing to pay for Obamacare.  I’ve lived in Pittsburgh for 42 years. Everywhere I go, I always see a huge number of pro-Obama bumper stickers. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people in this city are Democrats. They love Obama. They adore him. They voted for him in both elections.
Obamacare requires all employers with 50 or more full time employees to purchase health insurance for those employees, or pay a substantial fine. Obamacare defines full time employment as 30 or more hours per week. Community College of Allegheny County has switched 200 of its adjunct professors and 200 of its other employees from full time to part time in order to avoid paying for health insurance for those 400 employees. This decision was made by high level administrators and executives. I’m certain that the vast majority of these higher ups voted for Obama in both elections. These high level employees have chosen to use a loophole to avoid paying for the very same insurance that they expect other employers to pay for. They voted for Obama. They supported Obamacare. But now they are exempting their own organization from paying for it. The stench of hypocrisy fills the air.
The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh has done the same thing. I’m certain that most of its higher ups voted for Obama. But now these very same higher ups have reduced the hours of 48 of their own employees in order to avoid paying for Obamacare. Again, this shows a tremendous amount of hypocrisy.
NOW JUST THINK … THOSE THAT VOTED OBAMA INTO OFFICE ARE NOW BACK HOME WITH MOM & DAD … WITH NO HOPE AND VERY LITTLE CHANGE -- NOT TO MENTION LIMITED CAREER OPPORTUNITIES.