Do You Believe Obama This Time? How About Now? …Now?

[clearvision]

Do You Like Your Doctor? Obamacare Drives UnitedHealth To Downsize Its Medicare Physician Networks

 

Who would have thought...

[SrWoodchuck]

 

Good for Steven Hayward for being able to watch all 6 minutes of Nancy Pelosi's "incoherent duplicity." I could not.

That's because you're a woman hating misogynist! All of us who have become truly Enlightened sit at her feet and drink in her wisdom.

Some sarcasm may be present

 

 

That's not wisdom you're drinking, @Valin. That's Botox. Pelousy is just a large pile of medicinal E.coli.......

[SrWoodchuck]

Do You Like Your Doctor? Obamacare Drives UnitedHealth To Downsize Its Medicare Physician Networks

 

Who would have thought...

 

@clearvision!

 

I heard yesterday that....even IF they get to 7,000,000 subscribers.....many will be Medicaid....and few will be young healthy suckers, that they need to fund Obamacare-less. Consequently.....premiums for those that have already purchased those policies will have another steep increase....right before the 2014 elections. Mark Udall (Sen.-D-Co) wants to push the whole thing back for 2 years.

[Valin]

 

Do You Like Your Doctor? Obamacare Drives UnitedHealth To Downsize Its Medicare Physician Networks

 

Who would have thought...

@clearvision!

 

I heard yesterday that....even IF they get to 7,000,000 subscribers.....many will be Medicaid....and few will be young healthy suckers, that they need to fund Obamacare-less. Consequently.....premiums for those that have already purchased those policies will have another steep increase....right before the 2014 elections. Mark Udall (Sen.-D-Co) wants to push the whole thing back for 2 years.

 

 

Oh if only someone had said something!

 

oh wait.....

 

[SrWoodchuck]

 

Via TheoSpark

[KWARX]

The O Uncare plan . . . the

 

ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRETEND LAW OF THE LAND

 

with the oligarchy's gestapo at all levels ready to enforce it with the mostly full backing of the stacked corrupt courts.

[Valin]

Marco Rubio: No Bailouts for ObamaCare

The health-care law's 'risk corridors' could result in a huge taxpayer burden.

Marco Rubio

Nov. 18, 2013

 

(Snip)

Buried deep in the Department of Health and Human Services' press release that accompanied the president's Nov. 14 speech was this sentence: "Though this transitional policy was not anticipated by health insurance issuers when setting rates for 2014, the risk corridor program should help ameliorate unanticipated changes in premium revenue. We intend to explore ways to modify the risk corridor program final rules to provide additional assistance."

 

Risk corridors are generally used to mitigate an insurer's pricing risk. Under ObamaCare, risk corridors were established for the law's first three years as a safety-net for insurers who experience financial losses. While risk corridors can protect taxpayers when they are budget-neutral, ObamaCare's risk corridors are designed in such an open-ended manner that the president's action now exposes taxpayers to a bailout of the health-insurance industry if and when the law fails.

 

Subsequent regulatory rulings have made clear that the administration views this risk-corridor authority as a blank check, requiring no further consultation or approval by Congress. A final rule handed down in March by HHS and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services states: "Regardless of the balance of payments and receipts, HHS will remit payments as required under section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act."

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

The O Uncare plan . . . the

 

ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRETEND LAW OF THE LAND

 

with the oligarchy's gestapo at all levels ready to enforce it with the mostly full backing of the stacked corrupt courts.

Sorry.....

Actually it is Legal..Constitutional...and the Law of the Land. (all 3 branches of the federal government say so)

Just because it is a really bad idea, and has very little chance of really working and doing what it is supposed to do does not make it Illegal Unconstitutional and a Pretend Law.

[Valin]

IBD: Suddenly, It's OK to Talk ObamaCare Repeal

11/18/2013

 

Repeal: Not too long ago, Republicans pushing to kill ObamaCare were called extremists, obsessives and traitors. Now even liberals are discussing the possibility of repeal. We've reached an important turning point.

 

Back in May, nobody batted an eye when Bill Maher blasted the GOP's efforts to repeal ObamaCare. "At some point," he said, "obstruction becomes, I don't know, treason?"

 

What a difference a few million canceled health plans and a crash-prone website make.

 

On Sunday, the New York Times the bellwether of acceptable discussion topics for liberals openly acknowledged the possibility of overturning ObamaCare.

 

(Snip)

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

[clearvision]

Obamacare success story can’t afford Obamacare

 

 

Jessica Sanford received a major shout-out last month when President Barack Obama mentioned her fan letter lauding her cheap, new Obamacare coverage. But the Washington state business owner has now been informed that she can’t even afford the cheapest Obamacare exchange plan in her state.

 

“I’m really terribly embarrassed,” Sanford told the Washington State Wire. “It has completely turned around on me. I mean, completely.”

 

The Washington state exchange website, Washington Healthplanfinder, originally gave Sanford a quote for coverage that would insure both her and her son for just $169 per month.

But after a series of corrections, Sanford’s son is now on a state Medicaid plan and Sanford will pay the individual-mandate penalty instead of purchasing health insurance for herself.

[Casino67]

[SrWoodchuck]

 

The O Uncare plan . . . the

 

ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRETEND LAW OF THE LAND

 

with the oligarchy's gestapo at all levels ready to enforce it with the mostly full backing of the stacked corrupt courts.

Sorry.....

Actually it is Legal..Constitutional...and the Law of the Land. (all 3 branches of the federal government say so)

Just because it is a really bad idea, and has very little chance of really working and doing what it is supposed to do does not make it Illegal Unconstitutional and a Pretend Law.

 

 

Just like.........Slavery..........Prohibition.........the Border Fence........the Defense of Marriage Act........er.......

[Valin]

[Valin]

 

 

The O Uncare plan . . . the

 

ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRETEND LAW OF THE LAND

 

with the oligarchy's gestapo at all levels ready to enforce it with the mostly full backing of the stacked corrupt courts.

Sorry.....

Actually it is Legal..Constitutional...and the Law of the Land. (all 3 branches of the federal government say so)

Just because it is a really bad idea, and has very little chance of really working and doing what it is supposed to do does not make it Illegal Unconstitutional and a Pretend Law.

 

Just like.........Slavery..........Prohibition.........the Border Fence........the Defense of Marriage Act........er.......

 

Point?

[Casino67]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/11/19/Woman-Cited-By-President-As-Obamacare-Success-Story-Now-Cant-Afford-It?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

WOMAN CITED BY PRESIDENT AS OBAMACARE SUCCESS STORY NOW CAN'T AFFORD IT

 

//CNN report of woman who unfortunately believed the Dear Leader until the letters started arriving//

[SrWoodchuck]

 

 

 

The O Uncare plan . . . the

 

ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRETEND LAW OF THE LAND

 

with the oligarchy's gestapo at all levels ready to enforce it with the mostly full backing of the stacked corrupt courts.

Sorry.....

Actually it is Legal..Constitutional...and the Law of the Land. (all 3 branches of the federal government say so)

Just because it is a really bad idea, and has very little chance of really working and doing what it is supposed to do does not make it Illegal Unconstitutional and a Pretend Law.

 

Just like.........Slavery..........Prohibition.........the Border Fence........the Defense of Marriage Act........er.......

 

Point?

 

 

Point?

 

The Supremes did not find the ACA entirely unconstitutional, they found only a part of it....relating to the forcing of states to comply with fed mandates, unconstitutional.

 

Roberts caved at the last minute & found the whole of the ACA existed.....as a tax.....even though it didn't originate in the House of Representatives, as required by the Constitution.

 

Law may be passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President & deemed Constitutional, in whole or in part.....but that does not mean that the law conforms to the Constitution. A person with standing, presenting the right argument......say, the right of Freedom of Religion....regarding the abortion & contraception mandates of the ACA.....can present a case to the Supremes & have it ruled....Un-Constitutional....in whole or in part.....regardless of how it was passed & whether the Legislative or Executive branches gave their assent or not.

 

The law then.....was never legal.....only declared so by certain organs of government....at one point in time.

 

Another aspect: A lot of the ACA is regulation determined by executive fiat.....or by the HHS. None of the regulations....which were not a part of the original bill....or which are misrepresented by their interpretation....are legal or Constitutional.

 

Slavery was the law of the land at one time....but it was never Constitutional. Prohibition was different. It was legal, but unpopular & after repeal.....no longer legal or Constitutional. The Border Fence is law....but like the Defense of Marriage act....not popular with Progressives....for their partisan political reasons. Both are Constitutional.....or rather, have not been declared unconstitutional.

 

Passage of law by a single party state oligarchy [a clear example is the ACA] is clearly shown as arbitrary power....and without equality before the law. It is an opaque income redistribution scheme, that allows the Fed to put it's hand into the pockets of every American....at the point of a gun....and give their robbings to their cronies & supporters.

 

Now....as Will Smith said to Rip Torn in the first Men in Black......"I'ma need you to get up offa my back."

[Valin]

Law may be passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President & deemed Constitutional, in whole or in part.....but that does not mean that the law conforms to the Constitution.

Actually it does, until (as you rightly point out) someone convinces the USSC that it is not.

My original point simply was, just because we think a law is bad, that does not make it unconstitutional...illegal...etc.

[SrWoodchuck]

 

Law may be passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President & deemed Constitutional, in whole or in part.....but that does not mean that the law conforms to the Constitution.

Actually it does, until (as you rightly point out) someone convinces the USSC that it is not.

My original point simply was, just because we think a law is bad, that does not make it unconstitutional...illegal...etc.

 

 

Here's a semantic nickel......bad law IS unconstitutional....if it doesn't conform to the Constitution.

 

The fact that it exists as law.....at some point in it's existence & before a Supreme Court ruling declares it unconstitutional....does not mean that it was ever a constitutional law......just a law.

[Valin]

 

 

Law may be passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President & deemed Constitutional, in whole or in part.....but that does not mean that the law conforms to the Constitution.

Actually it does, until (as you rightly point out) someone convinces the USSC that it is not.

My original point simply was, just because we think a law is bad, that does not make it unconstitutional...illegal...etc.

 

Here's a semantic nickel......bad law IS unconstitutional....if it doesn't conform to the Constitution.

 

The fact that it exists as law.....at some point in it's existence & before a Supreme Court ruling declares it unconstitutional....does not mean that it was ever a constitutional law......just a law.

 

 

Yes it does. A law is a law....until its not.

Example: in 1867 you could not arrest someone who was in violation of the 13th amendment in 1863.

[SrWoodchuck]

 

 

 

Law may be passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President & deemed Constitutional, in whole or in part.....but that does not mean that the law conforms to the Constitution.

Actually it does, until (as you rightly point out) someone convinces the USSC that it is not.

My original point simply was, just because we think a law is bad, that does not make it unconstitutional...illegal...etc.

 

Here's a semantic nickel......bad law IS unconstitutional....if it doesn't conform to the Constitution.

 

The fact that it exists as law.....at some point in it's existence & before a Supreme Court ruling declares it unconstitutional....does not mean that it was ever a constitutional law......just a law.

 

 

Yes it does. A law is a law....until its not.

Example: in 1867 you could not arrest someone who was in violation of the 13th amendment in 1863.

 

 

 

You are correct that a law is a law....but "a law" is not necessarily a Constitutional law.

 

Your example is an ex-post facto law:

 

In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments before the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

 

BTW: The ACA extra-judicial, regulatory & executive actions taken by Obama, such as the abortion/contraceptive clause, the delays and the waivers, the personal information required in the midst of a non-secure internet website....[iMO] are not constitutional under these:

 

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

 

5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[The 10th was probably used by the Roberts court, to prevent the Fed from usurping States rights.]

 

13th Amendment: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

 

14th Amendment: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Casino67]

Young Conservatives
‏@YoungCons

 

[SrWoodchuck]

Re-imburse the Insurance Companies Freaking 80%?????

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAkXih99fvc&feature=player_embedded

 

Via TheoSpark

[SrWoodchuck]

 

Via TheoSpark

[pollyannaish]

 

Via TheoSpark

Holy crap! What are people going to do? Seriously? That is devastating!

[SrWoodchuck]

Sweet @pollyannaish!

 

See the youtube before the last post. The insurance companies are getting their payola from us, whether they cover or not......and that's just one area of expense. This truly is a redistribution of wealth.