OH SHIT!!! Even Chicago Tribune says Obamacare is a Shit Law and Obama is acting like a Communist!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

Democrat Congresswoman: “Not my Responsibility” to Read Obamacare Regulations




Responsibility is an ugly word to Congressional Democrats. They like to vote for bills that shift wealth from those who earned it to those who envy them. And, they want to take care of millions of “underprivileged” Americans and thereby create lifelong dependents (and thus supporters). There’s no greater example of this than Obamacare, which narrowly passed in the House with 219 votes coming entirely from the Democratic Party.

But, when it comes time to do a little thing like read the regulations of the most significant healthcare overhaul in U.S. history, that’s a different story.

According to CNS News, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) hasn’t read the entire 10,500+ pages of Obamacare regulations. After all, as she stated, “I haven’t had the time to do it.”

It’s hard to blame her, since, as noted in the story, the regulations are eight times as long as the Gutenberg Bible. But, her rationale is troubling.

As mentioned in the report, Johnson claimed that she doesn’t plan to read the entire set of regulations. She stated, “I don’t think that that’s my responsibility to do it.”

Well, if she voted for and continues to support a massive change to something as important as healthcare, she should at least have her staffers read and summarize the regulations for her. And, she should question why there are so many regulations that she doesn’t have the time to read them in the first place. But then again, that would be the responsible thing to do.

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

ObamaCare rates trigger more sticker shock






Andy Mangione, who lives in Louisville, Ky. with his wife Amy and their two boys, is doing the same thing millions of people are doing --trying to figure out how much his insurance will cost under ObamaCare.

Before the exchanges opened, his insurance company said his rates would soar. But now that there are subsidies, he's been trying for days to find out how much he would get.

"To logically compare plans, I've been calling them every day since October 1st," says Mangione, "several times a day on some occasions. Sometimes enduring 45, 50 minute holds, half an hour holds."

Although Kentucky officials were unable to give him a firm number on his subsidy because of repeated ITproblems, they did refer him to a Kaiser Family Foundation site, which suggests his subsidy will be $414 a month -- on a premium of $868.

"What I'm concerned about is our doctor visits, our emergency room visits, and what I'm paying in my premium," says Mangione.

The problem is the plan closest to what he has now will mean a 24 percent increase over his current payment-- after subsidies.

And his co-pay for emergency room visits almost tripled -- from $125 to $350 -- an important factor for a family with two young boys.

"They're climbing trees, they're falling out of trees. They're running around falling off their bike, they're very active. They're not unlike any other 8 and 10 year old boys," their dad says.

The Mangiones found one plan with smaller premiums, but their doctor was out of network, ultimately making it more expensive for them.

They're not the only ones with sticker shock.

Members of Congress say constituents have been complaining, as they recently described some of their mail.

Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., read from one constituent who said "I remember our president saying the new health care bill will reduce costs. I have my health care renewal forms, and the premium has increased about 15 percent, a $700 deductible is added, and my co-payment has increased."

Rep.Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., also read letters from some of his constituents.

"Mike from Hickory saw his premiums rise from $388 to $650. Phil from Forest City saw an increase, even though his policy didn't change, saw an increase of 42 percent."

Some Fox viewers in Alabama also wrote in. Although they asked their names not be used, one couple about 60 years old sent detailed information about their rate increases, which will add 82 percent to their annual health care costs. At the same time, their deductibles increased by a third.

For people on the individual market who have some catastrophic condition or illness, ObamaCare will bring benefits, but critics say their needs could be addressed at much lower costs to everyone else.

As far as the rollout is concerned, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Friday that "the problems with the exchanges are systematic, profound and indisputable," and he called on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to resign for what he called "gross incompetence."

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

Last night, the organization formerly known as President Obama's reelection campaign, Organizing for Action, held an Obamacare event in Greenville, South Carolina. The event was called "Obamacare and You!"


"Let's discuss what this Affordable Care Act means for you and your community. This session will help you understand the benefits and will equip you to spread the word about the benefits of Obamacare in your community. Come out and get the facts!!," the event advertisement said.


But it wasn't widely attended. Only two people, in addition to the two organizers, showed up.


Here's a picture of the two participants:

It looks like, however, organizers had planned for many more:

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Dr. Ben Carson slammed President Barack Obama’s signature health care during his speech at the Value Voter’s Summit Friday.

“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,” Carson declared. “It is slavery in a way because it is making all of us subservient to the government.”

Carson said the implementation of the Affordable Care Act was never about health care, only control.

“That’s why when this administration took office it didn’t matter that the country was going off the cliff economically. All forces were directed toward getting this legislation passed,” Carson said.

Carson also made a comparison between Obama’s health care law to former Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.

“Vladimir Lenin, one of the fathers of socialism and communism, said that socialized medicine is the keystone to the establishment of a socialist state,” Carson stated.

Sens. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio also spoke Friday at the summit.

No surprise considering Democrats is the party of SLAVERY!!!!

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

Major insurers, state health-care officials and Democratic allies repeatedly warned the Obama administration in recent months that the new federal health-insurance exchange had significant problems, according to people familiar with the conversations. Despite those warnings and intense criticism from Republicans, the White House proceeded with an Oct. 1 launch.

A week after the federal website opened, technical problems continued to plague the system, and on Tuesday people were locked out until 10 a.m., although some applicants were able to sign up as the day went on. Officials said that they were working 24 hours a day to improve the system and that they were confident it would soon be able to meet the demand. They added that there was ample time to correct the site to allow consumers to get insured by Jan. 1.

"This is a question of volume and demand exceeding anything that people anticipated," said White House strategist David Simas, who is helping to oversee the law's implementation. "I am confident people are working through these issues. . . . It is steady improvement."

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., who played a key role in passing the health-care law and has worked on its implementation, said he told White House officials early this summer he had been hearing from insurers that the online system had flaws.

"Nothing I told them ever surprised them," Andrews said in an interview. "The White House has acknowledged all along something this massive was going to have implementation problems."

Two allies of the administration, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the controversy surrounding the rollout, said they approached White House officials this year to raise concerns that the federal exchange was not ready to launch. In both cases, Obama officials assured them there was no cause for alarm.

Robert Laszewski, a health-care consultant with clients in the insurance industry, said insurers were complaining loudly that the site, at www.healthcare.gov, was not working smoothly during frequent teleconferences with officials at the Department of Health and Human Services before the exchange's launch and afterward. "People were pulling out their hair," he said.

One senior administration official, who requested anonymity to describe the internal White House discussions, said the administration was prepared to encounter some challenges with the launch, "but we had a lot more traffic than we thought, and so discovered problems managing that load."

Administration officials continued Tuesday to decline to say how many people have gone through all the steps to pick a health plan through the website. They said they would give a monthly tally, probably starting in mid-November.

Last week, HHS and White House officials gave updates on the number of people who had logged onto the site, noting that 8.6 million unique visitors had logged on in the first three days and as many as 250,000 were on at one time. On Tuesday, an HHS official said that "an extraordinary number of people are coming to check out" the website, without offering specifics.

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Tuesday demanding that she disclose exactly how many consumers have purchased health plans through the new exchanges.

Meanwhile, states continued to tout new data about the number of shoppers who had applied for health-insurance coverage on their websites.

California, which has the largest uninsured population in the country, said that more than 28,000 people completed applications for coverage during the first week. New York reported that more than 40,000 people have signed up for coverage. In the District of Columbia, 1,112 applications have been submitted. Washington's state's marketplace, WAHealthPlanFinder, counted 9,452 enrollments through its site.

Andrews said concern over the law "has morphed from a political issue to a consumer issue in the past month." He said he spoke Tuesday with a constituent who was upset that he had not been able to get on the site. "But his reaction was not, 'Impeach the president,' " said Andrews, whose state relies on the federal exchange. "It was, 'Let's fix the site, and let me see what it means for me and my family.' "

Outside the White House, people familiar with the setup efforts had been warning of chaos in the days and months leading up to Oct. 1.

On Sept. 18, Louisiana's health and hospitals secretary, Kathy Kliebert, testified before a House subcommittee that the administration was giving confusing information and making last-minute changes that left the state scrambling. For example, she said, the website had long said that a woman could change insurance policies outside the open enrollment period if she were to become pregnant or have a baby. But shortly before the hearing that changed, to just having a baby.

"After seeking clarification, we've received multiple and conflicting answers from HHS officials," said Kliebert, an opponent of the law.

David Brailer, who worked as HHS' first national coordinator for health information technology during the launch of the Medicare drug benefit in 2006, said the administration could have anticipated that the opening of the federal exchange would trigger a rush of Americans onto the website, either as onlookers or outright buyers.

He pointed out that the exchange was built to accommodate 50,000 to 60,000 visitors at a time — fewer than half as many as the enrollment site for the Medicare drug benefit could handle. The number of older Americans eligible for the drug benefit was far greater than the group of uninsured people who will be allowed to buy insurance through the health exchange, Brailer said, but many elderly patients didn't have home computers at the time, compared with the near-universal access to the Web that exists across the United States today. For a new program that's had as much advertising as the Affordable Care Act, building a website for just 60,000 people at a time "is weird. The math just doesn't add up," he said.

John Engates, chief technology officer at service provider RackSpace, said the government should have been able to prepare for the type of traffic that the site has experienced.

"I think that any modern Web company would be well prepared for a launch of this scale," said Engates. "We're not talking about hundreds of millions of people and we're not talking about complex transactions. This isn't downloading full movies off of Netflix. The question I have is: Did they have enough time to prepare and did the people doing the work know what they were doing?"

Officials at HHS' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversaw the construction and operation of the website, and much of the work was conducted by contractors.

Aneesh Chopra, who served as White House chief technology officer from 2009 to 2012, defended the site's response to its initial problems, comparing it to the ones United and Continental airlines experienced when they combined their online reservation systems.

Health-insurance companies also have been having trouble accessing the parts of the site they need to find out who has enrolled in their health plans and to get payment information.

And some insurance brokers have been stymied in getting online authorization from the federal government to sell the health plans available through the exchange. "Agents are having just as much trouble accessing the online sites as consumers," said Kathryn Gaglione, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Health Underwriters.

Simas, the White House strategist, said the administration is proceeding with its plan to sign up Americans for insurance over a period of six months and will continue to monitor how it is proceeding.

"There is a plan; we will execute on the plan," he said. "One of the things we will do periodically is look at what we're doing and make adjustments based on what we are learning and seeing."

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

Stewart to Sebelius on health care law “Am I a stupid man?”Posted by
CNN's Leslie Bentz (CNN) - "The Daily Show" took a more serious turn Monday night when host Jon Stewart introduced his guest for the evening, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.


Sebelius, who has been on a media blitz in recent weeks as the health care exchanges for the Affordable Care Act opened for business on October 1st, has appeared on multiple networks to promote the new law and to attempt to temper criticism of its rollout.


As the secretary sat down to begin the segment, Stewart opened a laptop on his desk. “I’m going to attempt to download every movie ever made, and you’re going to try to sign up for Obamacare, and we’ll see which happens first.”

Sebelius admitted the website rollout “started a little rockier than we’d like,” but said the administration had been working to make improvements. “It’s better today than it was yesterday, and it will keep getting better.”


The sign-up websites were offline for part of the weekend as efforts were made to fix multiple glitches that caused delays for many who attempted to use the program in the first few days.


When asked how many individuals had signed up for insurance so far, Sebelius admitted, “I can’t tell you, because I don’t know ... we will be giving monthly reports.” She added that hundreds of thousands of accounts had been created, which indicated to the administration that those consumers “are going to go shopping” for insurance as the next step.


The segment became more contentious as the Comedy Central host turned to the subject of the individual mandate, specifically the fact that while many businesses were given a one-year delay to comply with the law, individuals were not.


“If I’m an individual that doesn’t want this, it would be hard for me to look at a big business getting a waiver," Stewart said. "I would feel like you are favoring big business because they lobbied you ... but you’re not allowing individuals that same courtesy.”
Sebelius denied that was the case, but danced around answering the question directly, sticking instead to talking points.


After pressing her further on the issue to no avail, a somewhat exasperated Stewart finally smiled and asked, “Am I a stupid man?”


Later, as he threw to commercial, Stewart said he still was “not sure why individuals can’t delay” and asked the secretary if he could keep asking her that same question when they returned.


Later, while addressing the issue of businesses cutting back hours for employees to avoid having to provide health care under the new regulations, Sebelius held firm. “Economists, not anecdotal folks, but economists, say there is absolutely no evidence that part-time work is going up. In fact, it’s going down,” she said. The secretary also said that for the first time ever, part-time employees in the United Sates would now have the option to purchase health insurance under the new law.


Toward the end, Stewart argued that a market-based strategy toward health care is a flawed concept in itself and that a single payer system would have been a more simple approach. But Sebelius jumped in, saying, “if we could have perhaps figured out a pathway, that may have been a reasonable solution.”


“So this is jerry-rigged to deal with the crazy people?” Stewart asked.
“I think the president did not want to dismantle the health care that 85% of the country had," Sebelius responded.

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

Obama’s hometown paper slams ObamaCare implementation

The Chicago Tribune, President Barack Obama’s hometown paper, slammed the administration’s efforts to implement ObamaCare in an editorial on Sunday and called for a delay and rewrite of the law.

Noting the recent delays of various provisions of the law — including the employer mandate, subsidy verification requirements, and consumer-cost caps — the Chicago Tribune explains that the Obama Administration had tacitly admitted that ObamaCare can’t work as currently written and that it has left both businesses and the American people reeling.

“The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a hugely complex law that sets up online health insurance marketplaces, requires people to have coverage or pay penalties, and doles out subsidies and incentives to nearly everyone in health care,” wrote the paper’s editorial board. “Doctors, hospitals and insurers have spent large sums to gear up for its requirements. Employers are mulling: Hire? Fire? Cut workers’ hours?”

“Millions of Americans, that is, stand to gain or lose from how this law is enforced — with the Obama administration bending that enforcement in ways that test, and arguably exceed, the boundaries of lawful conduct,” the paper explained, adding that each delay of a provision has a “massive ripple effect” on other parts of the law.

[therock18]

Doing the BUMP!!! OH YEAH!!!!

Originally Posted by therock18

LOOK WHAT I FOUND. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!!!! Damn From Liberal Newspaper Chicago Tribune.
Suck on it LIBTARDS - YOU ARE AFTER ALL PROFESSIONAL SUCKERS!!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Democrats strong-armed Obamacare into law three years ago. Now they're busy flouting it.

The mandate that employers provide insurance next year or pay a penalty, as the law requires? Delayed for at least a year.

The law's dictate that people applying for federal subsidies to buy insurance provide proof that they're eligible for the government aid? Scaled back.

Sharp limits on Americans' out-of-pocket costs for health care? Suspended for a year.

Providing members of Congress and more than 10,000 staff members with federal health care subsidies that the law does not allow? Done, via a deal brokered by President Barack Obama.

And on and on.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a hugely complex law that sets up online health insurance marketplaces, requires people to have coverage or pay penalties, and doles out subsidies and incentives to nearly everyone in health care. Doctors, hospitals and insurers have spent large sums to gear up for its requirements. Employers are mulling: Hire? Fire? Cut workers' hours?

Millions of Americans, that is, stand to gain or lose from how this law is enforced — with the Obama administration bending that enforcement in ways that test, and arguably exceed, the boundaries of lawful conduct.

Every time the White House undercuts one provision of Obamacare, there is a massive ripple effect on other provisions. It's generally a zero-sum game: When someone gains, someone else loses. Example: When employers are relieved of their mandate to provide insurance, taxpayers risk having to subsidize more of those companies' employees.

The administration asserts that it can make these changes under the president's broad executive authority. Yet critics make a compelling argument that the president is stretching the limits. Former federal appellate Judge Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, writes in The Wall Street Journal about a different sort of mandate: the mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the president "'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' This is a duty, not a discretionary power. ... As the Supreme Court wrote long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes 'would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of Congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'"

Like most issues of presidential authority, this isn't cut and dried. Presidents do have broad discretion on how laws are enforced. But they're on shaky ground when they decide whether to enforce a law. It's not hard to understand why: Imagine the outcry if President Mitt Romney refused to enforce, say, Obamacare.

Granted, any president may decline to enforce statutes he believes are unconstitutional. But Obama is making no such claim here. Basically, he is admitting that parts of law are impossible to enforce on the deadlines imposed by Congress — deadlines he signed into law. He's also admitting he doesn't want to have Congress make these changes, for fear that if lawmakers get their mitts on this unpopular program, they would at least debate far more extensive changes than he'd like.

Congressional Democrats, and some Republicans, may agree with the numerous delays, changes and special favors. But the president invites chaos when he picks which parts of Obamacare to enforce, and which, in retrospect, he has decided are unworkable or unwise.

In a recent news conference, Obama acknowledged that congressional modification of the law is preferable to these White House fiats: "In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up (House Speaker John Boehner) and say, 'You know what? This is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law. ... Let's make a technical change of the law.' That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do, but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to, quote-unquote, 'Obamacare.'''

Tweaks? Obama isn't making tweaks. He's trying to circumvent major flaws that began flaring when the law was enacted. Hence the many carve-outs, delays and special deals that have been piling up since he added his signature to Obamacare on March 23, 2010.

The president crusaded for this law and has embraced its nickname. But he did not write the law. Congress did. Major changes are necessary — he has stipulated by his actions that this law as constituted cannot work — and Congress should legislate them for his review.

Bottom line: Let's delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law.