noworldsystem.com


Scott Brown Supports National Health Care

Scott Brown Supports National Health Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8Y2sAdDw98

 

Scott Brown’s One Night Stand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOuNDDOcAq0

 



Obama’s C-SPAN Lies

The C-SPAN Lie? See Eight Clips of Obama Promising Televised Healthcare Negotiations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9NF9zH5ikM

 



Senate to Pass Obama Care by Christmas Eve

Senate to Pass Obama Care by Christmas Eve

NoWorldSystem
December 21, 2009

Guess what’s under Big Government and Insurance Companies’ Christmas tree this year. . . that’s right, mandatory health insurance for Americans!

Senate Democrats secured their 60th vote after Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) declared his support for the draconian health insurance plan; “Change is never easy, but change is what’s necessary in America”.

The Senate voted to ‘kill the debate’ this morning at 1:15 a.m. while you were sleeping. 58 Democrats and 2 Independents favored the cloture while 40 Republicans voted against it. Unfortunately this is a Democrat-dominated Congress so obama-care is likely to pass the Senate by Christmas eve when the final vote will take place.

Obama and Senate Democrats are confident that this menacing legislation will pass, forcing millions of Americans to buy health insurance plans and will significantly cut medicare bringing pain to the elderly; “Let’s bring this long and vigorous debate to an end. Let’s deliver on the promise of health insurance reforms that will make our people healthier, our economy stronger and our future more secure” said Obama. “After a nearly century-long struggle, we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality”.

The lame-stream media constantly tries to propose that the Republicans are the only ones dissenting against health care ‘reform’, many on the left including Ralph Nader, Howard Dean and Michael Moore see through the this disastrous piece of legislation for what it truly is; nothing more than government takeover, shutting down the freedom of choice to have health care or not, increasing insurance prices and cutting medicaid and medicare coverage for the elderly.

Ralph Nader “This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations.”

Howard Dean “You know what this is, is a giant bailout. This is a bailout that makes AIG look cheap. 60 billion dollars a year goes to the insurance companies under this bill now if we can get a public option I think that’s ok but if you don’t have a public option why would you want to stick the taxpayers with yet another bailout. They bailed out the banks they bailed out AIG, this is a trillion dollar bailout.”

Michael Moore “The health insurance companies are going to make an extra $70 billion dollars as a result of Americans being forced to buy their health insurance,” “What company wouldn’t love this bill?”

 

Government Health Care: The Next Step On the Road to Tyranny and Slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOdiTtupkA

Obama Fear Mongering to Pass Health Care Reform

Coburn: The Elderly Need to Fear Health Care Reform

ObamaCare: Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail

ObamaCare: Just Another Tax On The Middle-Class

Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

Health Insurance Mandate Includes ‘Tax’ Despite Obama Denial

Government Places Gag-Order On Medicare Companies Concerning Cuts

45% Of Doctors Might Quit If ObamaCare Passes Senate

ObamaCare Gives Dictatorial Powers to ‘Health Choices Commissioner’

Americans Will Be Forced To Buy Health Insurance

 



Ralph Nader: I told you Obama was an Uncle Tom for corporate interests

Ralph Nader: I told you Obama was an Uncle Tom for corporate interests

Daily Beast

The left’s anger over the public option and the anti-Obama revolt is long overdue, says Ralph Nader. Benjamin Sarlin talks to the self-professed “pioneer” of the current progressive rage.

Democrats are steaming over the White House’s capitulation to liberal nemesis Joe Lieberman’s demands to remove a public option and Medicare buy-in from the Senate’s heath-care bill. Progressive figures including Howard Dean and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas have gone so far as to suggest scrapping the bill entirely and starting over, sparking rebukes from White House officials like David Axelrod, who called such a move “insane” in a Morning Joe interview on MSNBC on Thursday. With polls already showing many Democrats planning on sitting out 2010 midterms, the conflict has drawn comparisons to Ralph Nader’s third-party run in 2000, which many Democrats blame for tipping the election to George W. Bush—and for leaving Lieberman to wreak havoc in the Senate.

This is all good news to Nader, a vocal critic of the bill who considers the health-care debate a turning point in the left’s relationship to Obama.

“This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations.”

The four-time presidential candidate said he was particularly encouraged Thursday morning, when he read Dean’s op-ed in The Washington Post.

“Good for Howard Dean,” Nader said, adding that his only criticism was the former Democratic National Committee chairman didn’t go after the bill hard enough.

• Dana Goldstein: Howard Dean Splits the Left Nader favors a single-payer health-care system, but said he objected in particular to the Senate bill for many of the same reasons expressed by Dean. He reserved his harshest criticism for the individual mandate, which commentators like Ezra Klein say is necessary in some form to keep premiums at acceptable rates but which Nader says forces Americans to buy substandard insurance.

“It doesn’t have a drug-reimportation provision, it doesn’t have a public option, it doesn’t have a Medicare buy-in, and in the House they lost a number of provisions,” he said. “Basically it’s a massive new subsidy to the health-insurance industry to deliver millions of customers, including those who will be forced to buy junk insurance policies.”

Read Full Article Here

 

Dean: Obama Care is a Bailout That Makes AIG Look Cheap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zyyLiUsF8

 



Obama Fear Mongering to Pass Health Care Reform

Obama: Federal Government ‘Will Go Bankrupt’ if Health Care Reform is Not Passed

ABC NEWS
December 16, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggDdV9uSI4

President Obama told ABC News’ Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.”

The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.

“If we don’t pass it, here’s the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they’re going to drop your coverage, because they just

can’t afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. “

The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”

“This actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid,” Obama said.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQTwhL–W20

 



The Elderly Need to Fear Health Care Reform

The Elderly Need to Fear ObamaCare – Coburn’s Message: ‘You’re Going To Die Soon’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuRDFeqmZNk

Obama’s Adviser Robert Reich: OLD PEOPLE MUST DIE

ObamaCare: Just Another Tax On The Middle-Class

Wall Street to Make a Killing On Early Deaths

Obamacare: ZERO compassion for the Disabled

Obama Adviser: No Health Care For The Disabled

 



Dean: Obama Care is a Bailout That Makes AIG Look Cheap

Dean: Obama Care is a Bailout That Makes AIG Look Cheap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zyyLiUsF8

 



Obama care’s final cloture vote passes Senate

Obama care’s final cloture vote passes Senate

The Heritage Foundation
November 21, 2009


What Reid thinks about Americans. . .

The Senate voted this evening by a 60-39 majority to commence debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bill that would radically expand government control over private health care decisions. The bill is over 2000 pages long, costs an estimated $2.5 trillion over the first ten years of implementation and carries a half trillion dollars in new taxes. Many Americans have to be thinking right now — they have heard from their dissenting constituents at Town Hall meetings and have seen the poll numbers for Obama’s health care bill dropping like a rock so why would they keep moving this bill forward?

This debate will center around many issues including huge taxes increases, economy-killing employer mandates and:

1. Abortion: Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) offered an amendment to the House bill to ban all federal funds flowing into the health care system from funding abortion. Senator Reid put language in the bill that allows some funds to go to abortion services by using an accounting gimmick. This issue could take the bill down, because the House approach is far different from the Senate approach. If this bill becomes a referendum on abortion policy, it may fail.

2. Cost: Senator Reid has promoted his bill as costing the federal government $849 billion and as a budget cutting bill. Conservatives in the Senate have pointed out that the costs are more accurately $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years of implementation because the benefits are not even scheduled to be paid out until 2014. There is a huge disparity between the two sides as to the cost of the bill and if it gets bigger and bigger on the Senate floor, then it may suffer a legislative implosion.

3. The Public Plan: Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has pledged to support a filibuster of any bill containing the public option. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will only accept a public option with a trigger. Other Senators have expressed reservations about different permutations of the public option. A bill with a too strong public option may not have the support to pass the Senate.

4. Wild Card: As with all these debates, there may be an issue that comes out of the blue and becomes central to the bill. There were debates over “death panels” during initial stages of the debates and controversies over coverage for illegal immigrants. Some other issue may be offered as an amendment or may be buried in the 2000 pages of the bill that may become the next controversy to prevent passage.

The week after Thanksgiving, the Senate will start the process of considering and voting on amendments to the bill. This process may go in one of two directions. It is possible that Reid uses the amendment process to buy just enough votes to pass the bill through targeted special interest amendments. Expect Connecticut, Nebraska, Arkansas, and, yet again, Louisiana to receive special treatment in the amendment process. If Senator Reid is able to buy support during this process, the bill will pass and the President will sign Obamacare before his State of the Union.

Scenario two kicks in if opponents of the bill play hardball. If opposing Senators offer non-germane amendments, like the legislation to restore the 2nd Amendment in the District of Columbia or a resolution of disapproval for Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try Kahlid Sheik Mohammed in federal courts, then the Senate would be mixing some volatile issues into the health care mix. Regardless the course of action, this bill will either pass or fail as a direct result of the actions of a handful of Senators.

 

CBO: By 2019, Taxpayers Will Pay $196 Billion A Year for Obamacare, But 24 Million People Will Remain Uninsured

CNS News
November 19, 2009

Under the health care bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday, by 2019 taxpayers will be paying $196 billion per year to subsidize other people’s health insurance coverage, but there still will be 24 million uninsured people in America, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Reid’s proposal mandates that all individuals legally resident in the United States purchase health insurance and offers subsidies to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) to purchase insurance as long as they buy a federally regulated and approved plan sold in a federally regulated insurance exchange.

According to an analysis published Wednesday by the CBO and JCT, this subsidy will cost taxpayers $196 billion per year by 2019 but will still leave 24 million people uninsured in America, about 8 million of whom will be illegal aliens. The estimate assumes that there would otherwise be about 55 million uninsured people in the United States.

“The gross cost of the coverage expansions, consisting of exchange subsidies, the net costs of expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and tax credits for employers: Those provisions have an estimated cost of $196 billion in 2019, and that cost is growing at about 8 percent per year toward the end of the 10-year budget window. As a rough approximation, CBO assumes continued growth at about that rate during the following decade,” says the joint CBO and JCT analysis.

“By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 24 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants),” says the CBO and JCT analysis.

Table 3 in the report indicates that when the health-insurance mandate and subsidy program becomes fully operational in 2014 there will be 35 million uninsured in the United States and this number will drop to 23 million by 2018 before rising back to 24 million in 2019. The report does not indicate how many uninsured people will remain after 2019, or whether the upward trend between 2018 and 2019 will continue.

Table 3 also shows that the cost to taxpayers of paying the insurance subsidies in the bill as well as the cost for increased eligibility for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) instituted under the bill will dramatically escalate over the next decade.

In 2010, the year of the next congressional election, the gross cost of the subsidies is expected to be $0. In 2012, the year of the next presidential election, the gross cost of the subsidies in the bill is expected to be only $4 billion. But in 2014, the costs are expected to dramatically escalate to $48 billion for the year. From that point on, the costs increase every year, jumping to $147 billion by 2016 and then to $196 billion by 2019.

Michael Moore Slams Health Care Bill

 



Michael Moore Slams Health Care Bill

Michael Moore says Democrats’ healthcare bill is giveaway to insurance industry

Raw Story
November 18, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52QtplJGgzQ

In a speech broadcast on Canadian television Tuesday, Michael Moore savaged the Democrats’ healthcare bill, calling it a gift to the health insurance industry, which he argues will make $70 billion more as a result of mandated health insurance.

“The health insurance companies are going to make an extra $70 billion dollars as a result of Americans being forced to buy their health insurance,” Moore quipped. “What company wouldn’t love this bill?”

Moore argues that the health insurance industry isn’t really upset about healthcare reform. His assertions — which mirror those of some on the left — highlight the challenge that Democrats in Congress face on healthcare reform. On the left, critics say that the bill doesn’t go far enough in ensuring universal care; on the right, critics say the proposal will lead to a government takeover of healthcare.

“So all of the wailing that they’re doing about this bill — believe me, the health insurance companies are not that upset about it,” Moore said. “In fact, they helped write this bill.”

“It’s not universal health care,” he continued. “Thirteen million people will still not have health insurance in the United States.

“And the drug companies signed a deal with Obama to keep them out of it, because they agreed to reduce their prices by $8 billion in the first year of the healthcare bill,” he asserted.

17 Tax Increases in Senate Health Care Bill = $370.2 Billion

Senate bill weighs in at 2,074 pages

Health bill could get 34-hour reading in Senate

Senate bill includes the Botox tax

China questions costs of U.S. healthcare reform

 



ObamaCare: Just Another Tax On The Middle-Class

Baucus Bill Will Impose 23% Tax Rate Increase on Middle Class

TaxProf
October 14, 2009

Following up on last week’s post (80% Marginal Tax Rates After Health Care Reform), there is an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal by former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, The Baucus Bill Is a Tax Bill; Middle-Class Families Would Get Hit With a Double-Digit Increase in Their Marginal Tax Rate:

Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.

It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of “Cadillac” policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.

But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible. This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect. According to my analysis, premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years—and 90% will again fall on the middle class.

Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent. A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies. If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800. In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800—a marginal tax rate of 23%. Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.

 

Obamacare Means $1,700 More in Insurance Premiums for a Typical Family

Dick Morris
Townhall
October 14, 2009

Will a young, healthy, childless individual or couple buy health insurance costing 7.5 percent of their income as required by Obama’s health legislation? Not until they get sick. Then, they can always buy the insurance — and the Obama bill requires the insurance companies to give it to them. And, if the premiums come to more than 7.5 percent of their income because they are now sick, no problem. Obama will subsidize it.

Instead, young, healthy, childless people will likely opt to pay the $1,000 fine (a.k.a., slap on the wrist) mandated in the bill. After all, even if they make as little as $50,000 a year, the fine is a lot cheaper than 7.5 percent of their income (or $3,500 a year)!

So … these young households will not contribute to the coffers of any health insurance company until they are sick and need the coverage. By then, their costs will come to vastly more than their premiums.

Who will subsidize the difference? We will.

The insurance industry estimates that the bill will drive up premiums for the average family by $1,700 a year. By the time the bill takes effect in 2013, it estimates that the average annual family health insurance premiums (now $12,300) will rise to $17,200 if the Obama bill is passed, but only to $15,500 if it is defeated.

And who do you think the voters will blame for the hike in their premium? The Democrats who passed the bill.

Supporters of the bill are quick to counter that greater efficiency, etc. will hold down premiums. But they have little to answer the argument that, without higher fines, the young and healthy will not consent to pay an arm and a leg for insurance they don’t need.

Any lingering motivation to pay the premiums will disappear once the Obama bill requires insurance companies to cover them when they do, finally, limp in the door, desperately in need of insurance. Why pay now when you can always pay later? And, with a government subsidy, you gain nothing by paying for all those years when you don’t need insurance.

So Obama’s program turns out not to be one to spread insurance and thus spread the risk of costly illness, but one to make people pay 7.5 percent of their incomes once they get sick, with the government picking up their remaining premium and the health insurance customers paying for the medical expenses. Some deal!

So tote up the cost of this bill on the middle class:

— $1,700 more in insurance premiums for the average family.

— Medical devices like wheelchairs and hearing aids get taxed.

— Those who are sick must pay an average of about $600 more a year in income taxes because the bill raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent.

— A $404 billion cut in Medicare.

— Ending the subsidized Medicare Advantage insurance for costs over and above Medicare. Without Medicare Advantage, the elderly can only augment Medicare by buying Medigap coverage for which no subsidy is available and whose premiums are higher (offered, conveniently enough, by Obama’s buddies at the AARP).

— No importation of Canadian medicines and no competitive bidding to hold down prescription drug costs (Obama’s deal to get Pharma’s support and advertising dollars).

— A shortage of medical personnel and equipment as 30 million new patients are added without any expansion of the population of doctors and nurses. This shortage will make rationing inevitable, even if it shortens life expectancies among the elderly.

And, all of this assumes that the House bill, which imposes a 4.5 percent payroll tax (which will discourage new employment), does not pass — and that the cost estimates of this program prove realistic. Despite the Congressional Budget Office’s concurrence, one can’t help noticing that Massachusetts’ program was estimated to cost $200 million in 2005 and now costs $700 million!

This health care bill is, indeed, Obama’s first tax on the middle class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw

 



ObamaCare Moves Forward

ObamaCare Moves Forward
Senate Finance Committee passes a $829 billion Baucus’ health care bill by a 14-9 vote, with the support of one Republican (Olympia Snowe R-Maine). There are many more bills health care reform has to pass before Obama signs the final bill into law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84KkFwSHAqs

 

The Truth About the Baucus Healthcare Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6GyFEA3FI

Max Baucus Placed Gag Order On Medicare Companies Concerning Cuts

 



Obama Adviser: Old People Have to Die

Robert Reich On Health Care: Old People Have to Die

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 10, 2009

Robert Reich, Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and avid Obama supporter, wants to deny health care to old folks. They’re too expensive. He also told an audience in 2007 that most people will not live longer than their parents. Again, too expensive. He wants to force medical technology corporations to stop developing new life-saving technology.

Reich, of course, supports the so-called “public option,” the government’s take-over of the health care industry. In order to push the Obamacare scam, Reich proposed a march on Washington by the liberals to demand the public option. He wanted to do this on Grandparents Day, September 13.

Reich wanted people to march in favor of a plan that would mandate old people die on a day set aside for old people. You can’t make this stuff up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

Mr. Reich’s pronouncement is yet another confirmation that the government wants to kill old people who are after all — according to our eugenicist rulers — nothing if not useless eaters.

Democrats and liberals went ballistic when Sarah Palin mentioned the fact that the government wants to use the “level of productivity in society” as the basis for determining access to medical care. This Darwinian and Malthusian concept is supported by Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House health care policy adviser.

Emanuel does not use the term “death panels” and the term does not appear in the Obamacare bill. That would be political suicide. Instead he argues in favor of “The Complete Lives System,” a system that “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

In 1996, Emanuel said health care should be rationed for those who are not “participating citizens,” that is to say the old, the infirm, and those suffering from irreversible medical conditions.

As a good liberal, Emanuel would like to avoid the perception that he proposes killing old people simply because they are old — that would be “ageist” — and instead argues that they have used up their “life-years” and basically need to get out of the way and stop using up precious medical resources.

Robert Reich reduces the academic gobbledygook of Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” down to language the average person can understand. In the above video, he spells it out — the government will intervene in medical decisions made by you and your family. Grand daddy is a burden on society and has nothing left to contribute because he no longer works and pays half or more of his income to the government in the form of confiscatory taxes.

The sad and frightening thing is, when Reich told the audience they will have to die, they applauded.

Obama Adviser Supports Limiting Population Growth

Obama Advisor: No Health Care For The Disabled

Obama Science Advisor Advocates Forced Abortions

 



ObamaCare: Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail

Americans threatened with jail time, huge fines for refusing to buy health insurance

Mike Adams
Natural News
September 29, 2009

There’s a popular video circulating on the ‘net right now about how to escape handcuffs without using a key. Americans are watching the video to bone up on essential skills that will soon be needed for health care reform, it seems, since the new laws that are about to be put in place call for Americans to be arrested and thrown in jail if they refuse to buy health insurance.

This has now been confirmed by Tom Barthold, the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. And it’s not merely about jail time; it’s also about the $25,000 fine that could be levied by the IRS against individuals who refuse to buy health insurance.

That this is even being considered just boggles the mind. If a person is too broke to afford health insurance right now, how are they supposed to be able to buy it after paying a $25,000 fine and spending a year in prison?

As Paul Craig Roberts brilliantly pointed out in a recent essay, this is like trying to solve the homeless problem by forcing homeless people to buy a home, then throwing them in prison when they can’t afford to.

Read Full Article Here

Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

 



Lawmakers Refuse To Allow Time to Read Health Care Bill

Lawmakers Refuse To Allow Time to Read Health Care Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3_Ay9laPW8

 



Health Insurance Mandate Includes ‘Tax’ Despite Obama Denial

Health Insurance Mandate Includes ‘Tax’ Despite Obama Denial

FOX News
September 21, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs1wvhxLgb0

A proposed requirement that all Americans buy health insurance does in fact include a “tax” increase, according to the Senate — even though President Obama insisted Sunday that it “absolutely” does not.

Obama gave ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos a stern talking-to Sunday for suggesting that the mandate to buy health insurance would amount to a tax. He even taunted the host for citing the dictionary definition of “tax” to make his point.

“The fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” Obama said.

But the language of the health care reform plan proposed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., explicitly labels the penalty attached to the mandate as an “excise tax.”

Penalties for failing to obtain coverage would range from $750 to $3,800 under the plan. This is addressed in a section labeled: “Excise Tax.”

“The excise tax would apply for any period for which the individual is not covered by a health insurance plan with the minimum required benefit,” the Baucus plan says.

Republican strategist Brad Blakeman said Obama just got busted.

“The president cannot orate himself out of this one. If it feels like a tax, it says it’s a tax — Mr. President, it’s a tax,” Blakeman said.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Monday at a forum in Richmond that the House treats the penalty the same way.

“The president was on TV last night or yesterday morning saying ‘no no no, it’s not new taxes,’ whereas in this bill and in the Senate bill both, it calls what they are charging employers and individuals a tax. It’s an IRS section of our bill,” he said.

The Baucus plan does not describe the requirement itself as a tax — just the penalty.

But Julian Epstein, former Democratic counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, said the requirement is no different from requirements to obtain auto insurance.

“It’s called personally responsibility,” he said.

Obama and Stephanopoulos got in a testy exchange over the matter Sunday on “This Week.”

“Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?” the host asked.

Obama argued that the government would be providing tax credits for those who have trouble affording coverage, and that Americans who have insurance are already paying hundreds extra in premiums to cover uncompensated care.

“That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” Stephanopoulos said.

“No. That’s not true,” Obama said. “I absolutely reject that notion.”

 

FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

AP
September 21, 2009

Memo to President Barack Obama: It’s a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don’t — isn’t the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation’s health care system doesn’t quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

“If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that’s a tax,” said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. “If you don’t pay, the person who’s going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS.”

Democrats aren’t the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s’ health care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage — carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it’s becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

“This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn’t raise taxes, and it cost him the next election,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Obama is doing the same thing, but he’s insulting people by telling them that if you don’t call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn’t be a tax.”

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That’s a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

“I think it’s a metaphysical question as to whether it’s a tax or not,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable.”

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said. “What it’s saying is…that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

“Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance,” Obama added. “Nobody considers that a tax increase.

“You just can’t make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase,” he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus’ bill calls the proposed fines an “excise tax.” Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don’t get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.”

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of prior medical history.

“If we’re going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions, it makes sense,” said economist Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. “Otherwise people will come in the door the day they get sick.” He sees no distinction between the requirement to get coverage and the fines themselves.

“The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in paying it, and the fact that it’s administered through the tax system all make it look like a tax,” Williams said. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn’t be the first asterisk added to Obama’s campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children’s health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

He repeatedly promised “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

 



Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

Cryptogon
September 26, 2009

Via: Politico:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

The note was a follow-up to Ensign’s questioning at the markup.

 



Govt. Places Gag Order On Medicare Companies Concerning Cuts

Govt. Placed Gag Order On Healthcare Companies Concerning Cuts in Medicare

Examiner
September 23, 2009


Max Baucus, the Senator who unveiled the Obama-care proposal has placed a gag order on healthcare companies to prevent them from informing customers that the legislation would reduce their Medicare benefits.

Outraged that the federal government placed a gag order on healthcare companies concerning cuts in Medicare, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to condemn this muzzling of free speech and to demand that the gag order be lifted.

The entire YouTube video of McConnell’s words on the Senate floor can be viewed by clicking here.

Apparently the Humana Corporation, which offers supplemental Medicare insurance, sent out a memo in the mail to its customers warning them that certain legislation being pushed in Congress would more than likely result in a reduction of Medicare benefits.

That statement is true. Obama and the Democrats have proposed a 500 billion dollar cut in Medicare benefits over the next few years in order to help pay for ‘healthcare reform’ that will shift healthcare spending from senior adults to illegal aliens and those who do not presently have coverage.

Humana was merely informing its customers of a matter that is of extreme importance to them, as well as to the companies that offer the supplemental insurance.

However, a powerful Democrat in the Senate, incensed that a company would have to gall to state the truth and exercise its First Amendment rights to free speech, used his influence to get the federal government to issue a gag order for healthcare companies, forbidding them from disclosing any information to their customers concerning pending cuts in Medicare benefits.

We did some research into this inexcusable tactic on the part of the government and discovered that the powerful Senator who directed the Medicare agency to impose the gag order is none other than Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Montana.

Read Full Article Here

 



Fines Up to $3800 for Failing to Get Health Insurance

Fines Up to $3800 for Failing to Get Health Insurance

FOX News
September 8, 2009

Families who fail to get health insurance could be fined up to $3,800 under a health care reform plan proposed by a top Senate negotiator.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is leading talks among the “Gang of Six” senators to hammer out a bipartisan compromise, offered what he described on Tuesday as a “framework” and not a “final product.”

But the detailed proposal comes just days ahead of a self-imposed Sept. 15 deadline for such a deal. Baucus is pushing his committee members hard to hammer out a bill, and those details come as strong suggestions.

Baucus has set a deadline of 10 a.m. Wednesday morning for fellow members of the bipartisan group to offer “specific proposals” for a compromise bill. He made clear “time is running out” to get a deal.

“The rubber is starting to meet the road….We’re not going to dawdle,” Baucus told FOX News Tuesday evening.

“Time is running out very quickly. I suspect I’ll be making some decisions very quickly,” said Baucus, who added that he would like to have something to give to Obama before the tomorrow night’s speech to the joint session of Congress.

Baucus says he does not think the lack of a public option at all endangers the bill or its support with members of his party.

“Over the next week or so, the Finance Committee will move forward with health care reform.”

“We very much want a bipartisan agreement,” Baucus said. “To get a proposal out of the Finance Committee, it cannot have a public option.”

The framework of Baucus’ proposal, a copy of which was obtained by FOX News, includes what amounts to a no-choice option. It would make health insurance mandatory, like auto insurance.

The plan would provide tax credits to help small employers and help cover the cost for households making up to three times the federal poverty level. That’s about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.

Those who still don’t sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families — for those making up to three times the poverty level.

For those who make more than that, the penalty on individuals would jump to $950 and the penalty on families would jump to $3,800.

There would be a few exemptions, including for Native Americans and for those making incomes below the federal poverty level.

The plan does not include a government-run health insurance plan to soften the blow of the coverage mandate.

Instead, Baucus opts for a system of non-profit cooperatives, as part of a broader health insurance exchange.

As a way to pay for the package, estimated to cost under $900 billion over 10 years, Baucus is proposing a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for high-cost plans — defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

The Senate Finance Committee is meeting Tuesday, as President Obama prepares to deliver a high-stakes speech to both chambers of Congress Wednesday night in a bid to invigorate the push for reform.

Four committees have already passed their bills; Baucus’ panel is the only one yet to act. His committee’s bill is also the only one that could be considered bipartisan.

Baucus hits major elements in his plan that other top Democrats say are important. His plan would require health insurance plans to guarantee coverage and would prohibit them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Premiums would be allowed to vary based only on tobacco use, age and size of family.

But the fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, saying it’s too expensive to mandate. White House officials have since backed away somewhat from that stance, but there’s no indication that Obama would support fines.

Americans Will Be Forced To Buy Health Insurance

Obama Betting His Charm Will Be Enough Counter Health Care Reform Opposition

Already, 23 Dems have said they will vote ‘no’ on healthcare reform

 



Obama Needs A Crisis Revive Health Care Reform

Obama Needs A Crisis Revive Health Care Reform

Bloomberg News
September 6, 2009

President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.

Facing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.

“At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus.”

Obama speaks to labor leaders on Sept. 7 and to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9 as he attempts to rebuild support for his top domestic priority, one that affects 17 percent of the economy. Lawmakers, trying to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and rein in costs, are considering mandates on employers to provide coverage, new rules for insurers, and creating a government program to compete with private insurers such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the administration made unprecedented health-care progress in eight months.

‘Not There Yet’

“We gave Congress a charge, we gave them broad outlines, which is the reason we are farther along than any of the five presidents that have tried,” Emanuel said in an interview yesterday. “We’re not there yet, and this speech is intended to finish the job.”

Presidential speeches historically do little to move public opinion significantly, said George Edwards, author of “The Strategic President: Persuasion and Opportunity in Presidential Leadership.”

“This is almost like a Hail Mary, because they know that they’re substantially behind and the trajectory is negative for them,” Edwards said.

Unlike the financial crisis he inherited, the health-care debate is of Obama’s making and places a different burden on him, Edwards said.

“The best thing in presidential leadership is to recognize and exploit opportunities,” said Edwards. “The White House overestimated the nature of the opportunity.”

Stimulus Debate

Obama’s economic stimulus was debated as the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 18 percent from Nov. 4, 2008, to Feb. 13, when Congress approved the legislation. Unemployment had risen to more than 7 percent.

On the stimulus, Obama was able to say “that unless we do X right now, and X is pretty painful and pretty expensive, there is a serious danger in the next few weeks that the entire financial system will come crashing down,” said Bill Galston, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, now a Brookings Institution scholar in Washington.

Emanuel remarked at the time that a crisis was a terrible thing to waste, and Obama pushed for health-care overhaul and energy legislation along with financial and auto bailouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk


Read Full Article Here

 

Government Will Hype Fall Swine Flu Outbreak To Save Obamacare

Infowars
August 17, 2009

Former Congressman and House Majority Leader Dick Armey warns that the government is planning to exploit a hyped swine flu outbreak this fall in order to reinvigorate support behind its failing Obamacare agenda.

Armey is confident that the grass roots backlash against Obamacare will cause the plan to fail, but warns that the government has one last trick up its sleeve which it is preparing to pull in the next few months.

The former House leader told the Financial Times that wavering lawmakers in both parties might be won over by an engineered crisis that the Obama administration is planning to exploit.

“In September or October there will be a hyped up outbreak of the swine flu which they’ll say is as bad as the bubonic plague to scare the bed-wetters to vote for healthcare reform,” said Mr Armey. “That is the only way they can push something on to the American people that the American people don’t want.”

As we reported last week, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun gave a similar warning when he told attendees of a town hall event Tuesday that the Obama administration was planning to use a pandemic or a natural disaster to implement martial law in the United States.

Speaking at the North Georgia Technical College auditorium, Broun said that the “socialistic elite,” as well as Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were planning to exploit a crisis to create a favorable climate for their stalling political agenda.

“They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he said. “We’ve seen that historically.”

Health authorities as well as Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano have been hyping the inevitability of swine flu’s deadlier return this fall ever since it first appeared in April.

Despite the fact that the virus has proven far less potent than the common flu, governments across the world have been preparing to roll out mass vaccination campaigns which are set to begin next month, despite the fact that the shots will contain mercury and squalene and have also been linked with the killer nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

Homeland Security Spreads More Fear On Swine Flu

Obama says Americans should get swine flu vaccine

 



ObamaCare Supporter Bites Finger Off Protester!

ObamaCare Supporter Bites Finger Off Protester!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4272tcAjn1Q

 

ObamaCare Supporter Spits On Protester

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sCqC6cdxgU

 

ObamaCare Supporter Elbows Town Haller in the Face!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE48gm5uqGM

Kicked, beaten and called a “nigger” by SEIU ObamaCare Supporter

 



Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

 



ObamaCare Gives Dictatorial Powers to ‘Health Choices Commissioner’

Health Care Bill Gives Obama Power to Appoint Government ‘Commissioner’ With Sweeping Power to Dictate Health Coverage

Fred Lucas
CNS News
September 3, 2009

The health care bill under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have sweeping power to govern the health insurance plans offered in a so-called ”exchange” where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.

These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which companies can participate, which states can run their own exchange, and enrolling individuals into the public exchange.

Though the bill, House Resolution 3200, faces many political hurdles, it has passed three House committees and could be ready for a floor vote after Congress returns from recess. The overhaul package calls for establishing a health insurance exchange where people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level will be able to purchase health insurance with the help of federal subsidies. This exchange would include a “public option” government-run health care plan as well as private plans that provide a minimum benefits package dictated by the government.

The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange.

The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange, and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.

Further, the commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange.

“The Commissioner shall provide a process under which individuals who are Exchange-eligible individuals described in subparagraph (B) are automatically enrolled under an appropriate Exchange participating health benefits plan,” the legislation says, beginning on page 97. “Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify.”

The exchange eligible individuals [determined by subparagraph (B)] include someone who “has not opted out from receiving such affordability credit,” someone who “does not otherwise enroll in another exchange participating health benefits plan,” and someone “enrolled in an Exchange-participating plan that is terminated (during or at the end of the plan year) and who does not otherwise enroll in another Exchange participating health benefits plan.”

Read Full Article Here

 

Health Care Bill Will Disclose IRS Tax Data

Declan McCullagh
CBS News
August 27, 2009

One of the problems with any proposed law that’s over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats’ proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as “Obamacare.” (Here’s our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”

Read Full Article Here

 

John McCain gets Owned at Town Hall in Phoenix (8-26-09)

 



McCain Booed For Saying Obama Respects The Constitution

McCain Booed For Saying Obama Respects The Constitution


VA Guide Urges Sick Vets To End Their Own Lives

VA Guide Urges Sick Vets To End Their Own Lives

 



Americans Will Be Forced To Buy Health Insurance

Americans Will Be Forced To Buy Health Insurance – Big Pharma and Insurance Companies Will Benefit Greatly If Health Care Reform Passes

John Stossel
Real Clear Politics
August 12, 2009

“What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand,” Frank Rich wrote in Sunday’s New York Times.

That manipulation should disturb us. But contrary to Rich, it is not the work of “corporatists” who have sprung up to attack progressive reforms proposed by Obama and the Democratic majority. Manipulation is what we got many years ago when we traded a more or less free market for the “progressive” interventionist state. When government is big, the well-connected always have an advantage over the rest of us in influencing public policy.

Observe: Although President Obama and big-government activists demonize health-insurance companies, the companies “are still mostly on board with the president’s effort to overhaul the U.S. health-care system,” the Wall Street Journal reports; and …

Although the activists criticize Big Pharma, “The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name,” the Times reports.

Big Pharma and Big Insurance want Obama-style health-care reform?

It’s not so hard to understand. “The drug makers stand to gain millions of new customers,” the Times said.

And from the Journal: “If health legislation succeeds, the [insurance] industry would likely get a fresh batch of new customers. In particular, many young and healthy people who currently forgo coverage would be forced to sign up.” No wonder insurers are willing to stop “discriminating” against sick people. (Forget that the essence of insurance is discrimination according to risk.)

Not that Big Pharma and Big Insurance like every detail of the Democratic plan. Drug companies don’t want Medicare negotiating drug prices — for good reason. If it forces drug prices down, research and development will be discouraged. (Depending whom you believe, Obama may or may not have agreed with the drug companies on this point.)

As for the insurance companies, they worry — legitimately — that a government insurance company — the so-called public option” — would drive them out of business. This isn’t alarmism. It’s economics. The public option would have no bottom line to worry about and therefore could engage in “predatory pricing” against the private insurers.

But despite these differences, the biggest companies in these two industries are on board with “reform.”

Read Full Article Here


Obama Made Secret Deal With Big Pharma Lobbyist

Obama Caught Lying and Made a Secret Deal With Big Pharma Lobbyist

 



Reporter Accuses White House Of Breaking The Law

Fox News Reporter Accuses White House Of Breaking The Law