HARK! A MANDATE.

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Nov 1, 2016 By my count that was the 1,781st time  Donald Trump promised to erase Obamacare if he was elected.  He was elected. Which means it was a winning issue.  Now, finally, it's kilt ... at least in the House.  What of the Senate?  It seems the GOP are scared to death by leftist rhetoric predicting utter doom if  they repeal.  And it's not just leftists.  Here's Ann Coulter: Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Watters’ World,” author Ann Coulter reacted to the Obamacare repeal passing House vote, saying she hopes it does not pass in the Senate because it will be a win for the Democrats in 2018. “So, the Democrats think this is going to cost House Republicans in 2018. How do you see it?” host Jesse Watters asked Coulter. “I think it probably will,” she replied. “Let’s hope it doesn’t pass the Senate. Healthcare has been socialist for a long time in this country, even before Obamacare came along. We have Veterans Affairs, Social Security Disability, Medicare; Medicaid … Socialism doesn’t work. I don’t know why we have to keep explaining this to our representatives. It doesn’t work. What you want is a free market. They won’t separate the welfare cases from the free market cases. America is not going to allow people to die on the street.” Oh my.  Has Ann forgotten that the only way the Obama Care Act was passed (polls showed a public overwhelmingly against it),  was with an ill gotten super majority.  And, even there Obama had to bribe key Senators to vote for it (all of whom are no longer Senators).  There was no mandate.  But there was a mandate to get rid of it, Ann.  I love you to death, but—and I'm just saying—Obama still has never produced a valid birth certificate, for whatever that portends.  There is no argument about that. Ahem.  What?  Oh, my.  I beg your pardon.  Good girl.  We all make mistakes. In conclusion, then, stab Obamacare in the heart; allow us to shop across state lines for the best medical insurance deal; and let's move forward with sending Hillary to jail, culling the herd of illegal immigrants, and packing the courts with constitutionalists.  Say Amen

Please Mr. Postman

Cali push to cover illegals under Obamacare may fail Democrats say giving them a chance to buy into system is moral The 2010 health law specifically banned illegal immigrants from signing up for Obamacare Unplugged

Barry's Chickns

ObamaCare’s Chickens Come Home to Roost Lies passed ObamaCare legislation, lies supported its implementation. As its death spiral begins, angry and panicked lies by Democratic apologists attempt to deflect accountability for its economic devastation. ObamaCare’s economic wreckage will insure President Barack Obama’s now classic promises regarding ObamaCare will eventually scar his legacy. History is written usually by the victors. In the case of ObamaCare, the economic losers are so numerous their bitter complaints will write the titles, fill the chapters and pack the footnotes. Here are two examples of his great falsehoods: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” President Obama, June 15, 2009 He repeated  the “keep your doctor lie” the next day, in a speech to the American Medical Association. “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.” President Barack Obama, June 16, 2009 The last link leads to the White House website. Obama has managed to escape accountability for a deception that has damaged many middle class families. When he skated through the 2012 presidential campaign America had yet to feel the full extent of ObamaCare’s policy disaster.  Presidential debate moderators didn’t press him on the point. Obama could sell himself as hope. It’s November 2016.  The empirical evidence is in. His “Keep you doctor” and “keep your policy” statements were blatant falsehoods. * * * Nancy Pelosi has evaded accountability for her infamous ObamaCare comment: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” (CONTINUED)

Tough, when nobody wanted it in the first place

Hey There!

Obama Bummer

A Simple Plan

+One simple death sentence 4 simple sentences    Great summary by a Notre Dame University engineer......... Here are the 10,535 pages of Obama Care condensed to 4 simple sentences.. As humorous as it sounds.....every last word is absolutely TRUE! 1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured. 2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured. 3. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured. 4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, so it will be ‘free-of-charge’ to them.   This, ladies and gentlemen, is called "redistribution of wealth" or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM, or “PROGRESSIVE”, the politically correct names for COMMUNISM Nice summary sent by Diane L

Push 'em back --Way back

Federal judge rules Obamacare is unconstitutional 'illegal funding' PREVIOUSLY

Insurer Cuts Doctor Pay ... More to come

Insurer Cuts Doctor Pay After ACA Losses: Will Others Follow?

The move by insurer Highmark to reduce physician rates in health plans offered under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to make up for massive losses has sparked anger, as well as worries that other insurers will follow suit. Highmark, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliate that operates in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Delaware, said it lost $221 million on its health plans in ACA marketplaces, or exchanges, in 2014, and that it expects to lose another $500 million in 2015 because enrollees have required more care than anticipated. That has caused the insurer to pay more in claims than it collected in premiums. {FULL} Another Obama fraud Trump will have to deal with.

... UP

BLOW ME I've determined that there is nothing in the news anymore that's even remotely ... news.   Nothing.  Obama and the Democrat Party are mirror images of any other historical nascent tyranny. The GOP are little more than   compliant players. The heirs to our nation are without ability to think critically.  Me? I'm (somewhat nihilistically) supporting Donald Trump because he is the only candidate the establishment hates and fears; and the only player who has never been a part of government. +++  So there's that. Instead, I have put a protective shield about me, and use the vast resources of NetFlixinity (which discoveries I will increasingly share with you).  Still, from time to time there are news items so bizarre that I'm tempted to pull out my nuclear trigger* and blow everything up. Like these, below. 1) The new Polish government (which portrays itself as the true savior from a corrupt ruling class)  says Lech Walesa,  "the country’s most famous politician and freedom fighter, is a traitor and the 1989 uprising that ushered in democracy and a market economy was little more than a conspiracy." 2) What you have is a man killed by an errant shot, and if he was not the President of the United States everyone would say O.K. shit happens. The New York Times , on why Scalia was not autopsied: “What you have is an elderly man found dead in bed, and if he was not on the Supreme Court everyone would say, O.K., and nothing more would happen,” Dr. Di Maio said. “It is only who he was that makes it a big deal. You can make an argument that they should have done an autopsy, but the only reason you would do it is he is a Supreme Court judge.” 3) "The government has a compelling interest to kill embryos and mutilate reproductive systems" *DISCLOSURE:  Okay, I did try to nuke everything, but the damned thing didn't work.  Maybe one of you braniacs out there can figure out which wire is causing the problem.

4 simple sentences

Here are the 10,535 pages of Obama Care condensed to 4 simple sentences.. 1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured. 2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured. 3. To  re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured. 4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, so it will be 'free-of-charge' to them. This, ladies and gentlemen, is called "redistribution of wealth" or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM, or "PROGRESSIVE", the politically correct names for COMMUNISM. Wow! What a brilliant way to raise money to fund a free service. Aren't we lucky to have such a brilliant man leading us. A Guy named Ellis

Stupid is as .....

This is a Test. For the Next 30 Days We’ll See How Stupid the Republicans Are. This is Only a Test.

The United States Supreme Court will soon hand down its opinion in King v. Burwell and we will get to see just how stupid the GOP is. To recap, the case centers on whether states that do not set up state based exchanges can get subsidies from the federal government to subsidize healthcare costs. The law, as drafted, had a section on state based exchanges. That section gave federal subsidies. The law had a separate section on states that did not create state based exchanges. The law allowed federal exchanges, but did not have language giving a federal subsidy in the federal exchanges. That language was there, but was removed before final passage. The healthcare expert Democrats relied on to help draft Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, was recorded saying this was done to incentivize the establishment of state based exchanges. The Democrats now pretend none of this happened and it was a “drafting error” the Supreme Court should fix for them. I have no idea how King v. Burwell will be decided, but given how much pressure the Democrats are trying to put on the Court, the odds are they think it will be decided against them. Who knows. If it is decided against them though, they will scramble quickly to make Republicans own it. Republicans, of course, lack any and all testicular fortitude — it having been drained by the yellow stripe down their backs. Here’s the great test for the GOP. If King v. Burwell is decided against the Democrats, Republicans need advertisements ready to go across the fifty states with a very simple message. “They never read it, they rushed it through, and now you’re paying the price. Tell Barack Obama we need to repeal Obamacare and start over.” Use Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 18%‘s clip that they had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Democrats passed this law over Republican objections. They drafted it. They screwed it up. Make them own it. If Republicans do not do this we can be assured that (1) they are interested in fixing Obamacare, not repealing it and (2) are political and moral cowards. - : Erick Erickson  I had to post the whole thing ... sorry.  Bets, anyone?

Penis News

Today's WTF?

This is insane.  I'm sure they could have found a donor penis that was at least big enough to see without a microscope if they cared.  Pricks.

Shove the genie back into the bottle)

Obama's Waffen Schutzstaffel

AND THE IRS SAY ... This year is the first time ordinary Americans will experience the complicated interactions between the health care law and taxes. Based on congressional analysis, tax preparation giant H&R Block says roughly 4 million uninsured people will pay penalties. The IRS has warned that health-care related issues will make its job harder this filing season and taxpayers should be prepared for long call-center hold times, particularly since the GOP-led Congress has been loath to approve more money for the agency. [...] And the cost of being uninsured in America is going up significantly. For 2014, the fine was the greater of $95 per person or 1 percent of household income above the threshold for filing taxes. That fine will be collected when taxpayers file their 2014 returns. But this year the fine will jump to the greater of 2 percent of income or $325. By 2016, the average fine will be about $1,100, based on government figures. Polls show that many taxpayers are unaware of the potential financial exposure. Democrats (trying to shove the genie back into the bottle) seek relief from health law penalties "Polls show that many taxpayers are unaware of the potential financial exposure." Quick thoughts: Polls will also show that many taxpayers are unaware of their potential exposure to living in a police state, which powers our currently corrupt IRS have. That said, while a majority evidently voted Obama into office, a solid majority were, and still are, against Obamacare.  It was shoved down our throats by Democrats holding a solid majority, which in itself ought be warning enough about the fragility of a free nation. Say Amen.

Are We Hungary Yet?

The Nanny State - one regulation away from total bliss

“ DOCTORS TOLD TO REPORT PEOPLE WHO GAIN WEIGHT GPs will be asked to identify patients who are putting on weight under a new national programme to help fight obesity. Mr Stevens said targeted schemes to prevent obesity, by losing weight, had been proven to work, and now needed to be introduced nationally. "Since certain fat mother-fuckers are unable to take care of themselves, it's up to we, the enlightened few, to make them," Mr Stevens left unsaid. Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, said it was time for Britain to "get back in shape" in order to protect millions of people from a host of obesity-related diseases. Under the scheme, family doctors will be asked to identify anyone who has gained weight and is at risk of diabetes – particularly those aged below 40. They will then be offered tests for pre-diabetes, followed by healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more. It comes as new figures show Britain is now the second fattest nation in Europe, with almost 25 per cent of Britons classified as obese - compared with a European average of 16.7 per cent. Yes, this is Britain, but could one of our own onion-eyed Progressive minded dewberries saddle us the same way?  Yes, with just a stroke of the pen. Say Baaaaaa. ”

Fightin' Tom Harkin's Buh-Bye

Outgoing Progressive Sen. and fake war hero Tom Harkin is another Democrat with buyer's remorse for Obamacare.  No, not because it was an idea that America hates, didn't want, and a major reason why Democrats got their asses kicked last month, and whose seat will be filled by conservative Joni Ernst.  Harkin regrets not doing more to demolish the health-insurance industry, says Ed Morrissey. Harkin says in retrospect the Democratic-controlled Senate and House should have enacted a single-payer healthcare system or a public option to give the uninsured access to government-run health plans that compete with private insurance companies. “We had the votes in ’09. We had a huge majority in the House, we had 60 votes in the Senate,” he said. He believes Congress should have enacted “single-payer right from the get go or at least put a public option would have simplified a lot.” Progressive Theater of the Absurd Present Production

Politico Circle of Jerks

Glenn Thrush of the Politico, a member of the Circle of Jerks™ Leon already wrote about this polling earlier.More Americans dislike Obamacare. Along comes this epic tweet from Glenn Thrush of the Politico, a member of the Circle of Jerks™, formerly known as the Gang of 500, which members of the Circle of Jerks themselves came up with (that’d be the DC-NYC political press): Got that. If only Obama was a better communicator people would realize how great the benefits are that they’re enrolling into. Or, how about people are being forced into a system they don’t want? It is amazing that reporters, and Thrush is not alone, can look at enrollment numbers coupled with growing unpopularity and think Barack Obama just needs to give a better speech. Their God-King fails them.

Who will stop him?

The Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time The court have made their decision, now let them enforce it?

“ November 7, 2014 The Supreme Court is taking up another Obamacare case—one that could devastate the health care law's coverage expansion. The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states. If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with that logic, more than 4 million people—over half of all Obamacare enrollees—would lose their financial assistance and likely their insurance ... the biggest incentive for other people to get coverage would vanish. If the challenge succeeds, the consequences for Obamacare would be dramatic: Costs would skyrocket for millions of consumers, likely causing many of them to drop their coverage. The law's central goal—expanding health insurance to low-income Americans—would be severely set back, and at least some of the law's new insurance markets could become unsustainable. "This lawsuit reflects just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to strip millions of American families of tax credits that Congress intended for them to have," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Friday. Just the fact that the high court decided to take the case—and the timing of that decision—is a bad sign for the administration. The Justice Department had asked the Court to hold off on King while a similar case works its way through the appeals process. If the Court had gone along with that request, the administration's hand almost certainly would have been stronger once the issue finally reached the Supreme Court. "The Court's decision to grant King substantially increases the odds that the government will lose this case," wrote Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. [National Journal Continued] SCOTUS Blog [Symposium: Seven myths about King v. Burwell]  appears to be the basis for National Journal's story, for those interested in nuance.  I am not. The consensus appears to be that Obama will lose this case which will effectively plunge a knife into Obamacare's liver.  But that's not what this is about, this is: In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" If the court rules against the IRS and Obamacare, what's to stop Obama from issuing an Executive Order reinstating it?  I'm dead serious here.  If he will, for instance, as he threatens, and in defiance of congress, overturn immigration law with a "stroke of the pen," and grant amnesty to a few billion illegal immigrants, why stop there?  And who will stop him? ”

IRS Obamacare Rule

“

Judge: IRS Obamacare Rule 'Is Arbitrary, Capricious, and Abuse of Discretion' In his decision, U.S. District Judge Ronald White ( George W. Bush, 2003 ) concluded Tuesday that the IRS rule altering the Obamacare law and providing billions in subsidies is "arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion": "The court holds that the IRS rule is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.706(2)(A), in excess of summary jurisdiction, authority or limitation, or short of statutory right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalidation of the ACA [Affordable Care Act], and is hereby vacated. The court's order of vacatur is stayed, however, pending resolution of any appeal from this order." In September 2012, Oklahoma was the first of several states to challenge the legality of an IRS rule that caused billions in subsidies to be paid out, despite Congress having never authorized those payments. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt hailed the state's victory in its lawsuit challenging the implementation of the Affordable Care Act: "Today's ruling is a consequential victory for the rule of law. The administration and its bureaucrats in the IRS handed out billions in illegal tax credits and subsidies and vastly expanded the reach of the health care law because they didn't like the way Congress wrote the Affordable Care Act. That's not how our system of government works."

”

GOP-" So What"

“

Anderson: 60 percent of voters want bamacare to be repealed "A new poll finds that three-fifths of likely voters support the repeal of Obamacare."

”

Rats, Ships, etc.

The more likely scenario, however, is that Obamacare does fail. It either fails politically, renounced by a wide consensus that includes a growing number of Democrats. Or it succumbs to the financial complications (the insurance “death spiral”) of the very amendments desperately tacked on to save it.

If it does fail, the effect will be historic. Obamacare will take down with it more than Mary Landrieu and Co. It will discredit Obama’s new liberalism for years to come. - Charles Krauthammer; Why Libs are panicked