-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
The Right Prescription
The Criminal Intent of ObamaCare
PPACA undermines a core principle of the American justice system.
A couple of weeks ago the President and his allies in the press made much of ObamaCare’s six-month anniversary, using the occasion to tout a selective list of minor provisions that went into effect on September 23. We heard a lot about dastardly insurance industry practices, such as the fiendish refusal to insure people against maladies they have already contracted, from which we are now shielded by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). There was no mention, however, of a more important provision that has also gone into effect. This obscure provision of PPACA, buried deep in Section 6402, has received little attention from health policy wonks and even less from the “news” media. Nonetheless, it has very serious implications for the legal rights of health care providers, the American justice system and ability of many patients to access medical care.
A fundamental principle of our justice system holds that a person cannot be convicted of a felony unless it has been proven that he acted with “criminal intent.” It must be shown, in other words, that he intentionally engaged in conduct he knew to be illegal. This is a venerable legal principle whose pedigree reaches back to the beginnings of Western Civilization, and it was an important element of the English common law upon which the American justice system is based. The requirement to prove criminal intent has, however, been something of a nuisance to Beltway bureaucrats seeking to bend private industry to their will. And it has been particularly inconvenient for federal prosecutors trying to throw doctors and hospital executives in jail for violating hopelessly obscure and Byzantine regulatory statutes. But that pebble has been removed from the federal shoe by ObamaCare.
Specifically, Section 6402(f)(2) revises existing law so that the government can ignore the criminal intent principle in violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKB). AKB prohibits the payment or receipt of remuneration in exchange for referrals or the purchase of goods and services paid for by a federal health care program. It is a criminal statute, the violation of which is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. Prior to last March, the government could not obtain a conviction under AKB unless it proved that a defendant knew about the law and intentionally ignored it. The authors of PPACA used the health care bill to revise the statute such that “a person need not have actual knowledge of [AKB] or specific intent to commit a violation.” The “person” who will most likely be prosecuted regardless of “actual knowledge” or “intent” is, of course, your doctor or someone with whom he does business.
As ominous as this surreptitious revision is for physicians and other health care providers, it has even scarier implications for our justice system in general. PPACA’s reduction of the prosecutorial burden for AKB is part of a broad legislative pattern that has been gaining momentum in recent years. Congress has ignored the principle of criminal intent in an increasing number of statutes covering a wide variety issues and industries. As Edwin Meese III and Norman L. Reimer put it in their Foreword to the recently published Heritage Foundation report, “Without Intent: How Congress is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law,” this pattern has “dangerously impaired the justification for criminal punishment that has for centuries been based on an individual’s intent to commit a wrongful act. This trend undermines confidence in government and risks pervasive injustice.”
“OK,” you’re thinking, “The erosion of the criminal intent principle is troubling. But, as a practical matter, how can a doctor or some other health care provider violate the statute without knowing it?” With frightening ease, as it happens. The line separating legal and illegal business practices under AKB is not easy to see. A provider’s guilt or innocence in an anti-kickback prosecution, to paraphrase a former President, depends on what the meaning of “remuneration” is. And AKB is written in such impenetrable bureaucratese that a generally accepted legal definition of that word has been elusive. “Remuneration” means obvious things like kickbacks and bribes, of course, but it can also mean “payment in kind” made “directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly.” Interpreted broadly, such language can cover virtually every transaction that occurs in the health care industry.
Predictably, the Beltway bureaucrats have interpreted the “R” word very broadly indeed: “[T]he government has invoked the broad prohibition against ‘remuneration’ to target common business arrangements, such as product discounts, marketing agreements and home health-management deals.” The latter example has produced a number of weird advisories from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including one in which a home health agency was told that providing free educational videos “could potentially generate prohibited remuneration under the anti-kickback statute.” HHS has also issued warnings to charitable organizations wishing to assist financially needy patients with Medicare deductibles, and a particularly perverse HHS advisory warned that AKB could be invoked pursuant to a hospital’s desire to provide “free oral nutritional supplements to malnourished end-stage renal patients.”
Even a practice as common and necessary as physician credentialing by hospitals has been associated with “remuneration” by HHS. A hospital is required by law, industry standards, and its general health care mission to verify physician credentials and assure the clinical proficiency of its medical staff. Indeed, HHS itself admonishes hospitals to monitor quality “by appropriately overseeing the credentialing … of their medical staffs.” Yet the very HHS notice in which this quote appears also warns that, under certain vaguely-defined circumstances, “medical staff credentialing practices may implicate the anti-kickback statute.” This would be amusing and ironic except that, due to PPACA’s evisceration of the intent requirement, the wrong judgment call could well cause doctors (i.e. the people receiving the alleged remuneration) and hospital executives (i.e. the people “paying” it) to go to jail.
Would a sensible federal prosecutor go after obviously innocent people? Probably not. But the good sense of government lawyers is a very thin reed upon which to lean. The application of federal statutes under the current administration has been so irrational that the Department of Justice recently prosecuted a group of physicians for “price-fixing” because they had refused to accept a price-fixing scheme. A group of Idaho orthopedists declined to work for the low payment rates arbitrarily dictated by the state’s industrial commission and, in typically Orwellian fashion, the Obama administration “unambiguously stated that refusal to accept government price controls is a form of illegal ‘price fixing.’” In the hands of an administration so hostile to the remaining vestiges of free market health care and so disconnected from common sense, the prosecutorial discretion created by PPACA is a very dangerous weapon.
In addition to undermining the legal rights of health care providers and eroding a core principle of our justice system, Section 6402 will also have an adverse effect on the ability of many patients to access care. The only sure way for a doctor, hospital, ambulatory surgery center, etc. to avoid being sucked under by this dangerous legal quicksand is avoid Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP patients like the plague. If a doctor simply declines to treat patients whose care is paid for by the government, he need not worry about landing in the penitentiary for unintentionally violating a law about which he knows little or nothing. Because none of these programs pay enough to cover costs, providers are already reconsidering the wisdom of treating government-covered patients. PPACA’s revision to the intent language of the AKB may provide the impetus for a mass exodus of providers out of all government health care programs.
The primary victims of such an exodus would, of course, be the most vulnerable patients — seniors, poor people and children. Section 6402’s potential impact on these patients, combined with its corrosive effect on the legal rights of providers and our justice system in general, makes it one of the most important provisions of PPACA. And yet it was conspicuously absent from the list of provisions touted by the White House and the media on ObamaCare’s six-month anniversary. Nancy Pelosi famously said that we would have wait until Congress had passed “reform” before we could see what was actually in the bill. Well, now we have read it. And it is abundantly clear that she, her congressional accomplices and the President intentionally engaged in conduct they knew to be, if not technically unlawful, wrong.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (115) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/08/the-criminal-intent-of-obamaca
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger| 10.8.10 @ 6:31AM
From the desk of Attorney General Eric Holder:
To: All Federal Prosecutors
Re: Anti-Kickback Statute (AKB) queries
As many of you know, we have received a growing number of inquiries of late in to the matter of the AKB statute in the health care law. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a few matters of concern regarding what does and does not constitute a kick-back under this law, as well as a brief discussion of when prosecution is called for.
If a medical professional (doctor, nurse, chiropractor, dentist, massage therapist, herbalist, counselor, life coach, psychologist, yoga instructor, etc.) receives a payment beyond the amount specified for his/her/its profession, this would constitute a kick back under the statute. I realize the final payment amounts acceptable for all professions and procedures covered by this bill have not yet been stipulated. Thus it is the responsibility of the health care practitioner to be sure that any payments he/she/it currently receives are not above what would be considered "reasonable". We will be using the "reasonable federal bureaucrat" theory of jurisprudence to make these decisions as they come up. Please be aware that an actual intent to defraud or overcharge is not necessary for prosecution, merely a determination that the fee charged by the medical professional in question is beyond the amount a reasonable federal bureaucrat feels appropriate for the medical professional to accept as compensation.
There are, of course, some important exceptions to this law. First and foremost, no abortion provider is subject to prosecution under this law for any reason whatsoever. As was discussed in our previous memo, the right to abortion is absolute, and to ensure that as many as possible are carried out without infringement upon this right, abortionists are allowed to accept whatever remuneration they deem necessary and appropriate without government oversight. Likewise, any provider of euthanasia (to be referred to only as "end of life counseling" to the general public) is exempted from the AKB provision, as it has been determined that regardless how much each individual provider may charge, it will still be less expensive to the government than keeping the patient alive.
Of important note here are M.D.s, nurses, and dentists working for "charitable" or "non-profit" hospitals and clinics. These individuals have long enjoyed a standard of living completely incompatible with their claims of charity and non-profit status. Hence, from 2003 forward (yes, retroactively), any medical professional working for a "charitable" or "non-profit" hospital or clinic who has a standard of living above that deemed acceptable by a reasonable federal bureaucrat may be assumed to be in violation of the AKB statute and subject to immediate prosecution. Please bear in mind that the "intent" of the medical professional is irrelevant in such cases, and thus the judge and jury should be instructed to disregard any defense consisting of these medical professionals intent to provide services to disadvantaged populations. It might be a good idea to point out to the court that had these medical professionals truly intended to be of service to the disadvantaged there are always numerous positions for community organizers available with ACORN, the SEIU, etc.
Keep up the good work,
Attorney General Eric Holder
dw| 10.8.10 @ 11:31AM
P.S. No medical personnel considered to be of a minority status will be eligible for investagation, let alone prosecution.
Eric Cartman| 10.9.10 @ 10:28AM
dw, you'r going to have to fill out some forms on that, please. Here, let me get those for you: We have a 1099 tax form for ya; there's the DOJ Ignore Whitey form here; I got another tax form, 1040 - you know that one - just fill out for any back taxes you may owe for any past medical treatment; you will find on page 1500, Chapter MMX, part A, Sub Chapter 3, second sentence, a No Trans Fat pledge obligation form for you . . . got that right here; we have an eye exam waiver and promise not to sit too close to the television form, here ya go; you have your Penalty For Not Having Approved Insurance form here (only $800 - no worries); here's your apology to the Native Americans form here (with penalty). Ya know, this is so simple, I don't know why we didn't do this sooner.
Wait a minute, dw, we're not done, here. There are more forms here. Pledge to not lick the spoon after making chocolate cake form; Pledge not to eat chocolate cake; An anti-mayonnaise pledge, got that right here. . . . .
dw| 10.9.10 @ 2:12PM
I don't mind the government cradle knowing that it will increase my life expectancy by 20, 30 years. I mean 30 more years in this socialist utopia is much like my vision of heaven.
I only wish the forms could be reduced some.
withheld | 10.10.10 @ 10:37AM
The intent of the Attorney General is clear. Rid the popluation of non-productive people, kill the future generation and the ill or disabled. Punish anyone who cares for them and DICTATE how and who may live. Power absolutely corrupted. God help us all, or is it a crime now to pray?
old white guy| 10.11.10 @ 9:10AM
the right to pray was cancelled in a bill to reduce the growth of crops in california a couple of years ago.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.8.10 @ 8:08AM
Ayn Rand predicted this day would come. Here are three of her quotes that fit the moment perfectly:
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
Ayn Rand
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Ayn Rand
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
MoeBlotz| 10.8.10 @ 8:13AM
Mr.Catron should be made aware that an anniversary occurs one year after a specific date. After six months you would have a sixmonaversary.
Intelligent Design| 10.8.10 @ 8:18AM
Key point: "The only sure way for a doctor, hospital, ambulatory surgery center, etc. to avoid being sucked under by this dangerous legal quicksand is avoid Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP patients like the plague. If a doctor simply declines to treat patients whose care is paid for by the government, he need not worry about landing in the penitentiary for unintentionally violating a law about which he knows little or nothing."
Precisely. And the only logical and responsible course of action for the new conservative Congress is to repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Not just portions of it, but every single page, paragraph, sentence, and word. This abomination is hereby repealed.
Nunya| 10.8.10 @ 1:43PM
I couldn't possibly agree more. This piece of crap legislation that got shoved down our throats is a complete disgrace.
Claypoole| 10.8.10 @ 3:13PM
Regarding Obamacare, a wonderful comment by P.J. O'Rourke in his latest book, "Don't Vote/It Just Encourages the Bastards" (highly recommended): "No congressman had read this bill (even assuming they all can read). And the busy president of the United States could hardly have had time to do so. Not that this matters. Health care reform is the 'Sports Illustrated' Swimsuit Issue of politics. Beautiful, enticing, generously endowed legislation like this is not for reading. How it looks is what matters. From the neck up it can be as empty as you like."
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.10 @ 8:51AM
Intelligent,
I'm not sure we can repeal it any time soon. What Congress can do is simply not fund any of the agencies supporting it...and if we get the House back...sic Mr. Issa on every bureacrat in the system including Medicare which is a mess.
Intelligent Design| 10.8.10 @ 9:00AM
I think it is very likely that we will get control of the House, and maybe the Senate too! If so, failure to repeal would raise the question: Why bother to live here anymore?
Pete| 10.8.10 @ 10:01AM
Sad but true. American citizenship won't mean a whole lot if we turn into just another eurotrash country. Heck, might as well open up the border with Canada and start labeling everything with 50 different languages.
Appleby| 10.8.10 @ 7:55PM
Once ObamaCare is firmly established, millions of Canadians will die!
Then they will discover what a hollow fantasy Canadian *Free* medicine really is.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 10:54PM
I advocate disobedience --- civil and uncivil. The first Tea Party at the time of the First American Revolution threw chests of taxable tea into Boston Harbor. Bad idea. The colonists should have kept the tea and killed the Crown-appointed tea monopolists and tax-eaters and thrown their bodies into Boston Harbor. That would have been mighty uncivil of the Sons of Liberty --- and check out their connection to Samuel Adams --- as quoted, in the blog below.
Bruce | 10.8.10 @ 9:44PM
One word: NULLIFICATION.
Period, end of discussion.
Eric Cartman| 10.9.10 @ 10:45AM
Two words: Balless Republicans.
I hope I'm wrong on this one.
Bruce | 10.9.10 @ 1:16PM
Unfortunately to some extent you have a point, Eric. We can't get those ball-less RINO's out of Congress in one fell swoop, mores the pity. Another 4 years before all of them are up for re-election in the Senate - but we'll get them as long as we don't lose our way and elect right thinking people with constitutional principles.
Eric Cartman| 10.9.10 @ 4:01PM
I hope so. We may not have the numbers for repeal after November (who knows, tho), but they can at least start the ball rolling. Is it too much to ask them to start being Reagan? Stand up, explain why this is bad law (or the other 1000 laws they have planned) and get some balls about ya, GOP! If you have to, watch the old Reagan speeches and figure out that free markets and freedom works, will ya? Stop acting and wishing Bush was back! We are not that party - we are Reagan! Get it? And can somebody go kick Rove in the balls (all together now) - if he had any! - for us?! Please?!
Ken Roberts | 10.10.10 @ 10:29PM
Does anyone here even think about what it took to get people riled up here? it will not last until 2012 I fear , as we will be placated with this bill and that repeal and this one down so we will sit on our complete asses and let them do as they please. The change will come and then it will be so deeply implanted it will never be extracted. who here has an idea of what it would take to keep the fire burning for another two years? 22 days from election day and I feel a slippage and a staying at home deal happening again. so how in the world will we keep it alive for two years if it can't survive 22 days. We will know in 22 days if it may be possible to live this for two more years
Louis Jenkins| 10.8.10 @ 8:52AM
How many more gems will surface now that the bill has been voted on so it can be read? We have been led backwards into a burning house with a case of dynamite in one of the rooms. Repeal the law! To do nothing but accept is maddness.
Ralph| 10.8.10 @ 9:55AM
Repeal seems to be the honorable thing to do before it self implodes and takes America down with it, for at the heart of it, this law seems to be about everything except health. It seems to me a bill that was passed to address money and control, not health and protection of individuals whether they are consumers or providers. A few individuals determining who gets and who spends by force of law is not free or caring. There will be winners and losers, and I am afraid more losers than winners, for even the majority of congress who wrote and voted don't seem to like it very well.
Richmond Spitfire| 10.8.10 @ 11:39AM
Ralph,
Maybe I'm a cynic, but to me, Government is ONLY about Money and Control (i.e. Power).
Best Regards,
RS
Nunya| 10.8.10 @ 1:45PM
There's a reason I call our current occupant of the White House "Obeyme" at times. That's exactly what this abomination of legislation is all about.
Texas Mom 2010| 10.8.10 @ 9:40PM
Not to forget, the people who passed this Obamanation made sure that they do NOT have to live under it... They are the problem!
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 9:58AM
The hurdle to repealing this law is the political fallout on the pre-existing condition issue. If we repeal, you must replace it with a system that handles the pre-existing condition issue. Now, obviously, you put tort reform in there & permit policy purchase over state lines, but you still must address "insurance" for those with these conditions. Keep in mind we are talking about Insurance here, not treatment.
Being in the insurance business for 15 years, I can only come up with the following possible solution. An assigned risk pool: You take the % market share of each health carrier state by state, if the person applying with the pre-existing condition lives in California, for example, & Blue Cross has 30% of the market share in Ca., they get assigned 30% of those with pre-existing conditions at a surcharged rate. No state lines can be crossed here. The drawback is that rates will still skyrocket as the reserve pool is decimated by payouts for treatment on those with these conditions. There must be a cap (maybe 1 Mill) on the policy lifetime. A tort reform cap on damages alone would help control costs on malpractice insurance for the doctors & lower cost a bit to help. Bottom line, it is still a mess no matter how you slice it if your cover those people with a KNOWN, huge cost basis. If you tell these people to go pound sand, even if justified, you have a political millstone around your neck.
Nunya| 10.8.10 @ 1:48PM
Steve,
I think you're missing the overall picture here. I don't think anyone would have opposed a program that covers those that need help, or those that can't get coverage elsewhere. In fact, we HAVE programs that do that. What DIDN'T need to happen was to have Obeyme and his minions take over the ENTIRE health system, which is in fact, what they have done. This crap legislation needs to be repealed. Period.
Texas Mom 2010| 10.8.10 @ 9:42PM
AMEN!!!!!!
Chuck| 10.9.10 @ 6:48PM
No we don't! We don't have to replace it with anything. To think otherwise is to think after we kill Godzilla we have to replace it with a more acceptable way of demolishing neighborhoods that need it.
We need to get the poison out of our system. Then after the patient has recuperated, we might think about some other treatment. The problem is that what needs to be done is what we do not want to do. No one wants to really tackle the Medicare-Medicaid fiasco.
And no, I am not mixing metaphors. I am doubling them. Extremism in pursuit of stupidity-annihilation in no solecism. Moderation in defense against mortal danger is no virtue.
hoads| 10.8.10 @ 10:10AM
Obamacare seeks to ensure that government will control all medical resources. The goal is for "standardized care" that mandates the absolute minimum and maximum of healthcare a person can receive.
Section 6402 provides the foundation towards this goal. It will soon enough be illegal for anyone to provide or consume healthcare resources outside the purveyance of government.
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 10:16AM
hoads, No offense but, yeah, no kidding, we get that. The key is the alternate solution & if you suggest business as usual, you lose.
hoads| 10.8.10 @ 10:22AM
We have a huge number of uninformed citizens who do not understand the dire implications of Obamacare. I believe condensing vast amounts of information into its most simplest form will go a long way towards increasing public awareness and protest against Obamacare and hopefully, lead to its repeal.
Caudillo| 10.8.10 @ 10:33AM
When I ruled El Salvador,shortly after La Matanza, It was said "everything not prohibited is forbidden." That settled that. In a rare compliment, I was told that my country was "a well run jail."
George S| 10.8.10 @ 10:36AM
Here you have a law that basically tells doctors what kind of care they are permitted to give based on the person's treatment "value". Without the law, this treatment rationale would have been the mother of all tort malpractice. So what to do to put the biggest cash contributors to Democrats at ease? Hey, how about criminalizing economic transactions? Now, instead of hiring lawyers to make sure that all avenues of diagnosis and treatment have been exhausted, doctors will now need the same dollar legal services to check every penny value of what they say, write or motion. It's all about transferring wealth -- the easiest way to do that is to have lawyers write the laws and the rules of evidence.
Intelligent Design| 10.8.10 @ 11:20AM
About the minimum coverage exemptions just granted to McDonald's, the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, which is a union in New York City that provides health coverage for city teachers, et cetera ....... What do they do in return, pledge donations to Democrat candidates?
So Obama decides who has to obey the law and who doesn't? Isn't that what dictators do? What happened to the rule of law (such as it is)? Isn't the president supposed to uphold and enforce the law?
Texas Mom2010| 10.8.10 @ 9:52PM
What truly ticks me off is that I cannot keep my current policy. We have catastrophic care. We pay very little and the insurance co pays after $3000 per individual and $5000 for our family deductible. We put up to $5000 in our medical expense account which is tax deductible, so basically it's a wash. This type of plan is 'forbidden'! So our cost will go up hundreds of $ a month. Plus if the Bush tax brackets are allowed to expire another few hundred $ a month will be lost. Thanks a lot demoRats. I plan to spend what is left over on your opponents. Like I did for John Thune... So Dems, FU and the horse you rode in on... Looks like I will have to fire our home help and keep the oldest son home from away college another year, again, thanks for not nothing... Thanks for screwing us!
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.10 @ 11:25AM
Somone
above said not worth living here any more.
BULL...UH MALE OXEN NIGHTSOIL!
TH IS MY COUNTRY...AND YOUR COUNTRY!
wE AIN'T GONNA BE THE ONES LEAVING.!!!
Maddox| 10.8.10 @ 11:52AM
If this cannot be stopped through Congressional means perhaps citizens should stop complying, reporting to, and paying the crooks who are ruling us. They are no longer following the rule and intent of Constitutional law and are not even providing security to parts of the country. Many services may be suspended but that is what is coming as the budget grows beyond our ability to pay. It would take almost most total cooperation but would force the government to shrink without firing a shot...unless they bring the fight.
joli| 10.8.10 @ 4:06PM
This would require the cooperation of businesses who submit income tax withholdings directly to the government, instead of giving the money to the employee. Not gonna happen.
Appleby| 10.8.10 @ 8:45PM
Nup. This would require businesses to Go Galt! And its my feeling that more and more will do so.
Texas Mom 2010| 10.8.10 @ 9:57PM
Of course they will come after us. Remember Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians at Waco. Tanks, etc. But they can't get us all! This is why I read William W. Johnston. I used to think his senarios were way out there, but now, his theories are coming to fruition... I simply no longer trust the Feds at all.
sasob| 10.8.10 @ 5:35PM
unless they bring the fight.
Oh, they'd do that - you can bet on it. Government is not going to shrink or give up any of its power willingly. It certainly would not stand for outright, organized disobedience.
Carol| 10.8.10 @ 11:38AM
VOTE AGAINST ALL DEMOCRATS EVERYWHERE!!!
DO NOT LET THE DEMOCRATS STEAL THE ELECTIONS AGAIN LIKE THEY HAVE DONE SO MANY TIMES IN THE PAST.
SINCE NO JUSTICE SYTEM EXISTS IN OUR COUNTRY ANYMORE WE WILL HAVE NO WAY TO FIGHT THE CHEATING SOROS AND THE DEMOCRATS PLAN ON DOING.
ONLY HUGE NUMBER WILL ENSURE A VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLE.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 10:59PM
If the Democrats continue stealing elections, keep in mind their desire to destroy the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and the right of the privately-employed taxpayers "to keep and bear arms." That right is not simply so that we can blow-up Bambi's ass with a few shots and then make venison tacos out of her. That right is specifically for the pupose of overthrowing and killing dictators. As well, don't forget that the only reason for dictators to exist anywhere on the planet is "for target practice."
Houston Rao| 10.8.10 @ 11:39AM
"Would a sensible federal prosecutor go after obviously innocent people? "
Perhaps not.
Would a partisan federal prosecutor go after health care providers that criticize Obamacare laws, rules and regulations?
The recent experience of Henry Waxman going after companies stating costs, Kathleen Sebelious going after insurance companies for higher premiums, doctors protesting Obamacare, suggest yes.
"Show me the man, and I will find you his crime."
dac| 10.8.10 @ 1:09PM
Houston, you beat me to the post...
But to emphasize: YES, absolutely a federal prosecutor would go after obviously innocent people. They do it all the time (see, e.g., the Scooter Libby case, the Martha Stewart case, etc.), and the more publicity they can obtain whilst doing it, the better.
Prosecutors are--unless they're found on film/youtube with a dead boy or a live (underaged) girl--basically unaccountable. Judges accept what they say as God's truth, and they can threaten, cajole, and harass witnesses with impunity so that they cover whatever half-truths or lies they propound in public. If there is political gain available from prosecuting the innocent, they'll do it in a heartbeat. Under Il Duce Negro, there's a LOT of political gain in prosecuting anyone who criticizes or resists the socialist takeover of health care--so expect that vile bitch Sebelius and corrupt-to-the-core AG Holder to announce an entire new "task force" to ferret out any dissenters. And as the article points out, with no need to prove intent, it's basically a civil law standard of proof, designed to threaten the dissenters with jail time. Brave new world. Remind me again how this administration is for "the little people" and supports small businesses? The only folks who will be able to afford high-dollar white collar criminal defense attorneys are large health care/hospital conglomerates, who are mostly in the tank for Maobamacare anyway.
I give the Demon party credit for orchestrating this so seamlessly. I don't give them credit for lying about it relentlessly. I'll give the American people credit if they do not rest until this pile of reeking dogshit (the PPCA) is swept aside and incinerated.
Texas Mom 2010| 10.8.10 @ 10:06PM
We have a prime example here, our rep was Tom Delay. Texas attorney Ronnie (can't remember last name) went after him for violating a statute that was not on the books here in Texas when Delay was supposed to have violated it. He had to resign and we got Nick Lambert in the next election because the Republicans could not get a different name on the ballot. Couldn't replace him for two years then voted in Pete Olson!!!! Delay acquitted on fed charges while state bogus charges linger on... It is wrong. Should permanently get rid of all political attorney. It is a travesty for Ronnie to continue to hold his job when so many of his prosecutions are actually political persecutions.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.10 @ 1:06PM
I am having a baby!
With a little luck, my novel is released today or tomorrow. sales@texassaidno.com
...Put on a sweater before you down-load it.
Mojo Risin| 10.8.10 @ 1:45PM
I guess my habitual bartering is now off the table, no more exchanging young hens, a nights worth of frogs, or the occasional road-kill for those services rendered, "JAIL-FOR-YOU, you indentured medical professional!!!" Where's this all headed???
DRed| 10.8.10 @ 2:00PM
If the author's understanding of healthcare law is as limited as his understanding of criminal law, than this article is totally worthless.
Truth to Power| 10.8.10 @ 2:16PM
DumbRed is projecting again. Trolls are such a pathetic lot. They convinced themselves that they were responsible for Obama's victory. Now they are finding out how deluded they were. They are merely a sign of a significant part of the Democratic Party that is mentally ill. Get back on your meds DumbRed.
TopHall| 10.8.10 @ 2:33PM
And your law degree is from...??? And SPECIFICALLY, where is the author "misunderstanding" healthcare law or criminal law?
DRed| 10.8.10 @ 2:45PM
"It must be shown, in other words, that he intentionally engaged in conduct he knew to be illegal. This is a venerable legal principle whose pedigree reaches back to the beginnings of Western Civilization . . ." This is totally false. Ignorance of the law hasn't been a valid defense in the western world for a few thousand years.
dc| 10.8.10 @ 2:54PM
As I suspected, you're a complete fraud and a braying jackass. Find me one citation to a criminal (not civil--there is a difference) law that does not have, as a necessary element of the offense, INTENT to commit the prohibited crime.
Your addled half-brain is mixing up a regulatory violation--which may be civil or criminal--with a criminal offense. There's no need to prove intent for a CIVIL regulatory violation, and ignorance of the law is not a defense in such an action. But intent is, and always has been, a necessary element of a criminal conviction. Go back and play in your sandbox.
DRed| 10.8.10 @ 3:12PM
DC, I'm not even talking about intent. I'm talking about knowlege of illegality ("intentionally engaged in conduct he knew to be illegal")
As for intent, yes, that's almost always a requirement of criminal law.
And now, back to building my sandcastle.
Warrior | 10.8.10 @ 8:45PM
Read again only this time think with more than a 4th grade education. A felony, which the author clearly states in the text, requires intent. The usual delineation between a felony and a misdemeanor is that a felony is punishable by more than a year in prison. Again, the author clearly states that violation of the AKB is punishable by up to five years in prison. You left wing morons have no idea what the government is doing and continue to make yourself look like complete morons when trying to defend the insanity your ideology is imposing upon this country.
DRed| 10.8.10 @ 8:57PM
Your insults would be a lot more deserved if I was talking about intent. Almost all felonies require an intentional act, but almost none of them require that the actor knows his actions are illegal. The author of this article doesn't seem to understand that basic principle of criminal law, which makes me question the rest of his analysis. I may well be a jackass and a moron, but on this point I'm a jackass and a moron who is right.
DRed| 10.8.10 @ 10:01PM
Also, violating the AKB has been a felony for over 30 years. And a majority of the federal courts have historically applied the standard for intent that this provision makes explicity.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 11:31PM
Saying that "Ignorance of the law" is no defense for disobeying it means that we the people have to hang around waiting for the armed axxholes who rule us by force and by fraud to add / change / delete a legal principle and then figure out how to obey it. I have a better idea. Let's burn all the law books and all the lawmakers and start over --- and the first government skunk who reaches for me or for my wallet gets his or her head chopped off. Nice, no?
dc| 10.8.10 @ 2:50PM
It's from People magazine, or the Linda Greenhouse NYT column school of law. Anyone who had actually earned a law degree from an actual law school would know that prosecutorial discretion is unreviewable. Judges don't second guess why a prosecutor does or doesn't bring a case--regardless of legal merit (and they're awfully deferential on the argued merits, too). Which means, in effect, that a statutory provision like this is a license for politically upwardly mobile federal prosecutors to harass and destroy dissenting doctors.
Neither DRed nor any other sub-bridge dwelling leftist troll will be able to tell you what provisions of "health care law" or "criminal law" override or supersede what Maobamacare will effect upon implementation. The only legal hope is repeal legislation or piecemeal Constitutional lawsuits, which have less than average changes of success.
simpleton sam| 10.8.10 @ 4:08PM
all arguments hinge on one thing. greedy theft. #1 insurance, duh? I can't afford to pay my medical bills, so i will pay someone else to pay them for me. DUH??? all medical help and prescriptions are like the 15 century medicine man and witch doctor. bring me 20 ponies, 10 goats, 13 chickens 12 beaver pelts and your youngest daughter and you will get help or herbs (meds). they want all they can get and in order to get that they ask (demand) more than they think you have. this little scam needs to be broken. if only people could see and understand.
Eric Cartman| 10.8.10 @ 4:36PM
Um, can any of the oh-so-smart, more brilliant than a thousand suns, giant brainiac, Liberal Aholes who post 100,000 word tomes complete with facts, figures, numerous CBO citing, doodles, links to Wikipedia and YouTube, and Harvard studies proving that the cost curve will bend (hell, disappear!) and all will be peachy keen and swell, explain to us poor, state university educated slobs who simply run businesses and have created jobs why it is necessary for the stupid federal government to grant Obamacare waivers for, what, 20 - 30 large businesses, and assorted states and municipalities if it is such a wonderful, ever-so-lovely, greatest thing ever thought of, health care plan? If it is so great, why the waivers? Why don't people want it? Please, fill us in.
Mojo Risin| 10.8.10 @ 5:22PM
Spot-on perfect!!! Of course they can't address your questions, they didn't read the bill...
Texas Mom 2010| 10.8.10 @ 10:11PM
Fox reporting another 114 requests for waivers are being considered... Dang reality! That's just the people that can maneuver the 6 clicks it takes young find the waiver form on the HHS website...
Eric Cartman| 10.9.10 @ 9:54AM
Mojo: They must know. They are the smartest people in the world!
Texas Mom: 114? Wow. I'm stunned. I would have never of guessed.
Eric Cartman| 10.9.10 @ 9:51AM
Any Liberal Ahole have an answer? Anybody? Anybody at all?
*Crickets chirping*
Please tell us why so many are requesting waivers if the plan is so wonderful.
*More chirping. Paint drying*
You are the supreme brings with such in-depth knowledge of business and economics that you came up with this plane knowing all the consequences. You have to know why. Please, just a simple explanation.
*Crickets, frogs, barnyard noises, Baaaahhhhh, hee haw!, reeeeeowwww! hoot hoot, hoot hoot, buuurrrrp! toilet flush*
Well, we'll be standing by for your answer.
CalMark| 10.8.10 @ 5:42PM
Lots of heavy breathing in a pundit-land vacuum here.
Just how do they intend to enforce such an onerous and horrible law? By prosecuting doctors?
If the doctor is popular, do they think people will just stand idly by? Only totalitarians are able to make things like this stick--and then only with secret police raids, purges, and midnight disappearances. And even then, after awhile, the monsters have to stop.
Do the pundits REALLY think the American people will stand for this? Stand idly by, like sheep? The Tea Party spirit indicates that not only no, but HELL NO.
This is like the common atrocity whereby people are forced to dig the ditch into which gunshots will topple them moments after they finish--and they know it. It may happen in lots of places. But America isn't like anyplace else.
Boston12GS| 10.8.10 @ 6:41PM
Not to nit-pic, but you write that:
"It must be shown, in other words, that he intentionally engaged in conduct he knew to be illegal."
This is not correct. We've all heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse". It is not necessary for a criminal conviction that you knew your conduct was illegal. It IS necessary that you were aware you committing the act that turned out to be illegal. For example, if you're carrying around a gun in a shopping bag in the belief that it is legal to do so, and it turns out it is in fact illegal, your misunderstanding of the law is no excuse. On the other hand, if someone slips a gun into your shopping bag and you are in fact not aware that you are carrying it around, then you lack the necessary criminal intent. (A simplified example, obviously.)
Wintoon Greaves| 10.8.10 @ 9:18PM
This is the sort of nonsense that leads to violence.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.10 @ 9:52PM
RCV
and others..
The novel is released upon the world.
Simply type in the website and punch the paypal button.
www.texassaidno.com
Linda Joy Adams| 10.8.10 @ 10:48PM
Medicare Dept Appeals Board has just overturned a 30 yr law that provided a safety net for injured workers with an approved case and approved medical treatment plan. Medicare law provided for a 'conditional pay' if games were played and then recovery was requested back from OWCP. This ended on case: M-09 1406 on 9/29/10. ( my case) EGHP's paying was not addressed . other claims at FAB or on their way. Medicare had refused to do any recoveries for years which they are legally to do. They aren't, laws passed in the '80's to prevent deaths, overturned administratively. I'm looking for legal counsel as this must not stand. The happen to be about a year of O2 claims-06-07, others in the pipeline ACS-XEROX won't input as US Dept of Labor contractor as their offline system will the 'talk to the official govt computer and bills would be paid. ordered by OPM who will be in charge of all the health care plans under the new law. You' all wanted the Federal plan, you got it and believe me you don't want it with documented abuses of power going back to 1979 when the agency replaced the old federal Civil service office. It caused the emergency law I have permanent medical benefits with owcp to be passed then, when one has a life sustaining need for life and would die without intervention by OWCP, permanent medical benefits can be awarded even though issues of returning to work ever or not are decided. Checks to Health Connections continued until Lincare bought them out and then Lincare refused to bill/and owcp refused to sign a new agreement to continue payment to sign a new agreement even thought they are the monopoly supplier in my area and have other owcp patients.. For 21+ years, my pending federal files disappear in agency after agency and US atty's say its a felony to cause it to disappear and another to not report it. in '97 we were to have hearing on a comprehensive overhaul of owcp and Fan Burton;s committee had my records and I Was told that every weakness in the law had been used against me. The merits were not in question and it illustrated well changes in law that needed to be made, Monica-gate came and no law got passed. Any one can have an injury or get ill. our laws say if it happens at work, workers comp pays.. Who enforces the laws? No one. In my case 15 owcp judges and 2 hearing officers orders are thrown away and ignored. as was the first appeal judges' decision at medicare who ruled that medicare is secondary to both fed blues and OWCP and that medicare coordination of benefits contractor * Group health) should bot be constantly changing the legal line up of my three health plans. They said: we don't care what a federal judge says, nor the terms of their contract and every other Tues they delete my fed blues off the computer file so no doctor knows whom to bill, and the other govt contractors alter /manipulate diagnosis codes to circumvent owcp and have medicare pay. Patients will now suffer because of out of control contractors who should have been stopped from their violations of civil rights along time ago; but the office of Civil rights, HHS won;t even docket in the complaints, let alone review, answer or investigate. I 've filed 21 since 1/08. any suggestions? Linda Joy Adams
Yosemeti Sam| 10.9.10 @ 1:34AM
" ... As Edwin Meese III and Norman L. Reimer put it in their Foreword to the recently published Heritage Foundation report, "Without Intent: How Congress is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law," this pattern has "dangerously impaired the justification for criminal punishment that has for centuries been based on an individual's intent to commit a wrongful act. This trend undermines confidence in government and risks pervasive injustice." ...."
Wait a minute, wait a minute - WAIT A MINUTE!
How can this stealth process have gone on under the estimable nose of 'principled' Constitutionalist champion Utah senator Hatch?
Marc Brown| 10.9.10 @ 7:40AM
It's no surprise that David Catron has only a hazy knowledge of law when he is demonstrates gross and negligent lack of understanding of health statistics in other 'articles' (and he purports to work in healthcare).
The fact is there is a spectrum of law relating to intent - it's no defense in statutory rape to say you didn't know someone was underage - while in this case if you engage in something you believe to be legal you still intentionally commit an act, and in fact in the kickback area most courts have already held that 'if even "one purpose" of the remuneration at issue is to induce or reward referrals, the statute has been violated, regardless of the defendant's knowledge of the applicable law.'
The new law strengthens this point, it seems.
See http://healthlaw.ncbar.org/new.....paca-.aspx
It's a complex area and cannot be reduced to suit simple minds such as that possessed by David Catron, who as usual twists the truth by 180 degrees by saying the poor and vulnerable will suffer - when in fact his whacko free market way has long had the precise aim of social exclusion that has resulted in the suffering of many millions of Americans.
Eric Cartman| 10.9.10 @ 2:48PM
And so the answer is to make more people poor and vulnerable, right? Or, put another way, my family and I have great health care right now - I work for it and it covers what I need covered. I just received my health care contract for next year. Guess what? Because of your compassion for the "poor" (mostly lazy asses with their hands out, i.e. Democrats) I will be paying $1200.00 more and receiving less coverage. So thanks, you and your ilk have made me less well off both financially and health wise. That's why you and yours will lose in a few weeks.
Marc| 10.9.10 @ 4:25PM
Eric, how much did premiums go up during say 2001--2008? Do you think they just rose with inflation? The reality is they doubled. And the health insurance industry is on record as saying that 'Obamacare' will only add a small part of the forthcoming rises - it's business as usual for most of them, although in fact some insurers are actually cutting rates - yes really. So don't belief all the right-wing-puff - it just isn't true.
Eric Cartman| 10.9.10 @ 5:30PM
Well, let me fill ya in. I have had insurance with the same company for 6 years. It has NEVER gone up this much and I have NEVER seen a drop in coverage like this, either. As a matter of fact, over the past 6 years my insurance has only gone up by $1,000 - over six years - and that's with adding 2 people. This year its gone up $1,200 - in one year - with a scale back on coverage. Let me see . . . What has changes since last year??? So, really, don't give me your Lefty bullshit. I didn't need your Obamacare to "fix" my health care. And to answer your next question, No, I don't care about the uninsured. I care about my family. Maybe if more people cared about their own, they wouldn't need people like you to force me to pay for them. Why don't you Liberals pay for this if its so wonderful? Why all the waivers? If it's such a great program, why doesn't anybody want it?
Marc| 10.9.10 @ 6:01PM
Well, you've been lucky or low risk - the average family insurance premium went up by 131% from 1999 to 2009. There is absolutely no indication that this huge rising trend would have slowed if McCain was now president. Only now is there actually a plan to try and contain costs, but I agree it's not enough.
What does your insurer say about the cost increase?
You also seem to misunderstand the healthcare reform - the idea is to mandate everyone to have insurance precisely so you can move away from picking up their bills in ER.
And on a wider point, do you really want to live in a society where health care costs spiral out of control as they have been, while many millions with poor health who have little access to care add yet more economic drag on the country? A well cared for population is more productive - I would have thought that would appeal to your money instincts.
Eric Cartmen| 10.9.10 @ 8:08PM
In these poor are there drug addicts? Ex-prisoners? Illegal aliens? People who want to spend their money on other things? (HDTVs cigarettes, cars - mostly young). People who actually need help -like a little girl who has cancer I know and is being cared for by Shriners - I will gladly help and think the government should help people in these circumstances. But a beach bum or "artist" who wants to buy other things and pursue their dreams (take a risk) , sorry. Nope! And in case you haven't noticed, we are broke. This has to stop.
Marc| 10.10.10 @ 5:13AM
You obviously have a comprehension problem Eric. The reform means your 'bums' are mandated to buy insurance. I guess you're so full of hate and prejudice that facts mean nothing to you.
Eric Cartman| 10.10.10 @ 10:35AM
That's s hoot, coming from a Liberal Ahole who wants to command everyone to buy insurance - or whatever it is that you and your ilk deem is good for them. Here's a thought: Butt the fuck out!
Freedom - you remember what that is don't you? - means you have the freedom to fail. To spend your money how your see fit - on a new car, an HDTV or health insurance. You want people to have insurance, stop mandating hospital emergency rooms accept people who wonder off the street with a head cold. The word "emergency" should give even dumb ass Liberals a clue. Get government OUT of health care and the prices will fall. And don't give me the "Oh, well, I guess you don't want universities researching drugs then, huh?" How about "No, asshole, I don't want hospitals mandated to care for illegal aliens and bums - that's right, bums!" Just because you call the different names "homeless", "artists" "Liberals who want everything given to them" doesn't mean they are not bums.
Marc| 10.10.10 @ 12:05PM
So you want people dying on the streets then. Now that will make America look like a great country. You can't have it both ways - no mandate but no cost to you as not even the most right-wing GOP government is going to throw desperate people out of hospitals.
As for costs, I see you have no response as to why premiums went up 131% mostly during the Bush years. Your posts are full of bile and devoid of facts.
Eric Cartman| 10.10.10 @ 4:51PM
Only a liberal would think that people will be "dying on the streets!" Like they were all through the past centuries in this country. Why, I've been told of the bodies piling up outside my Grandfather's house (who worked for FDR, BTW). Mounds of bodies, bloating and rotting in the streets. It was terrible!
And the sick being, not just escorted out of hospitals, but actually thrown out the windows only to land on the dead and dying below - you know, with all the bodies all piled up in the streets like they were. There were no hospitals for the poor back then, so they were just lined up against the wall and shot. Yup! The good old days. The days before your God Obama appeared on the scene.
Stop with your bullshit. No one believes it anymore except freshmen girls majoring in social work and dumb ass liberals.
And I don't need to address the "131%" increase in insurance rates bullshit. Why didn't mine go up that much, boy genius? And why all the waivers for Obamacare? Why? Answer that. And why isn't everyone falling in love with your ideas? We start taking apart your socialist bullshit next year. Say good bye to your Health Nazi dreams.
Marc| 10.10.10 @ 5:07PM
So let's get this straight. You want the poor and uninsured to be treated, but you don't want to pay for it. How does that work?
And assuming you live in mainstream USA, and not in a cave in Montana, surely you must realise that massively rising healthcare costs and premiums over the last 15 years or so have put severe pressure on many people. Your own experience is a sample of one. There are more than 300 million other Americans,
Eric Cartman| 10.10.10 @ 6:02PM
Can't you read? I want the poor and uninsured lined up against a wall and shot! Jeez - buy some reading glasses!
And as for the uninsured, again, how many of these people choose to not buy insurance? Some 22 year old isn't thinking of health insurance. So be it. I never had it (besides in the military) until I started a family - and my first little BOJ the wife and I paid for the delivery and all appointments ourselves. See, that's how it works. Guess what I did until I needed insurance? I paid for my doctor's appointments OUT OF MY POCKET. Get it? I didn't buy the new TV, the new car or vacation until I had the needs paid for. We did what normal Americans do. We budgeted. You should look that word up.
I know what your going to say: "Well, what if they get in a car accident and end up in the hospital. What then?" That's what car insurance covers, another insurance I have to have by law.
"Well, what if they get cancer? What then?" Well, I guess they will find a way to pay for it or die. Like they will someday anyway, even with insurance.
Stop with all the bullshit, please. No one likes Obamacare and its going down. We are broke and your socialist BS will simply spread the misery equally - it isn't and won't fix anything. And I may be just one, but over 70% of Americans don't want what your selling.
So answer the question posed above: Why so many waivers if this plan is so great? Why doesn't anyone but brain-dead socialist accept it? Move to a state that offers "free" medical and live there. They are going broke and need your money (you want that, right - to give them more money?) I'll move to a state like Texas which has no state income tax and a budget surplus and jobs. See you in November.
Oldefarte| 10.9.10 @ 1:08PM
His/their sole intent is a federal takeover of healthcare insurance in order to use the profits from same to fund more welfare. Their welfarecare will financially gut Medicare and private insurance companies in the process. Their healthcare legislation is just another form of their WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION, taking away health insurance [paid for by taxpayers' paid premiums] and replacing same with a worthless/diluted welfare system of health insurance. Medicare etc as we know it will be worthless in several years!!!!
Bruce | 10.9.10 @ 1:33PM
OF - many people on Medicare - as I am - will tell you that it's next to worthless now.
Between the deductibles and limits of coverage, I now pay my doctors more for a visit than I did before going on that program due to permanent disability. Tests and procedures cost me almost double what they did before.
Bernie Ness| 10.9.10 @ 1:52PM
I have been involved in the laboratory business for over 30 years. I am also now eligible for M/Care. Once the many hundreds of physicians learn of this new law my ability to see an MD as a M/Care patient is doomed. I will be standing in line at the hospital ER with all the illegal aliens requesting health care.
DRed| 10.9.10 @ 1:55PM
This new law is over 30 years old. I wouldn't worry.
David| 10.9.10 @ 3:27PM
When 'Pretending' President was signing the "Death Care Bill" on March 23rd of this year, did anyone notice what transpired (Expired) in front of the Statue of Liberty? It was the idol Anubis on a barge which symbolizes Liberty Post-Mortem. Was not this bill passed using the "Slaughter Solution? the "Self - Execution Rule? the Deem and Pass Rule? (Demon Pass) Oh, and Patrick Henry said on this exact date "Give me liberty or give me DEATH.
Ralph Novy| 10.9.10 @ 4:58PM
"...maladies they have already contracted...."
You heartless, worthless pig.
Bet you call yourself a Christian too.
Get lost. Decent human beings don't need your stinking ilk in their midst. You're an infection, an affliction, a parasite.
Texas Ted| 10.9.10 @ 6:09PM
Yeah, I think we all know who he'd be following if he'd lived in Nazi Germany.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 10.9.10 @ 8:20PM
We're buying shrimp, Ralphy. Like all my trolls you are losing it. Stop talking to yourself. It is unnerving. We're hitting the reset button. Ralph, we are unsustainable. You know what we need to do. You first, I am playing golf tomorrow, for the poor of course.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 10:48PM
I have no money, so naturally I'd like my medical insurance to cover all my pre-existing conditions. But let's be honest --- that's like buying atuomobile accident insurance --- after you have had the accident --- and then demanding that those heartless insurors pay you for your bad luck, negligence, or stupidity. The champions of forced coverage of pre-existing medical conditions are not altruists or compassionate humanitarians --- they are thugs and thieves who pretend to occupy the high moral ground and who make threats against anyone who challenges them. The overthrow of the US Constitution is an act of treason. We should arrest Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, his henchmen, cronies, and confederates.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 10.9.10 @ 11:00PM
We're buying shrimp, Mr. Pajamas. Do they have golf in prison? If they do I might consider having the FBI arrest me. I am really tired of pretending to do this job, watching all my ideas destroy the country and be surrounded with saps like Ralphy. White people are so annoying sometimes. As an added benefit I wouldn't have to be around the insufferable Michelle any more. I am tired of telling her that those ridiculously small sweaters don't make her look a little heavy. NFL tomorrow. No more wire taps, baby.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 10:46PM
I have no money, so naturally I'd like my medical insurance to cover all my pre-existing conditions. But let's be honest --- that's like buying atuomobile accident insurance --- after you have had the accident --- and then demanding that those heartless insurors pay you for your bad luck, negligence, or stupidity. The champions of forced coverage of pre-existing medical conditions are not altruists or compassionate humanitarians --- they are thigs and thieves who pretend to occupy the high moral ground and who make threats against anyone who challenges them. The overthrow of the US Constitution is an act of treason. We should arrest Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, his henchmen, cronies, and confederates.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 10:36PM
Horsewhipping is too good for dealing with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew --- but I suppose you have to start somewhere.
Alamitos Bay| 10.9.10 @ 10:36PM
OhBummer is a b00b and a fool for attacking the American Tea Partiers. He is annoyed that they’re not grateful to him for hijacking the American healthcare system --- the greatest act of vandalism perpetrated upon the American people since a gang of jihadi frootloops and loonytoons hijacked some planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, and made a failed attempt to crash into the White House and instead drilled a hole in a Pennsylvania farm thanks to some very courageous American passengers.
And --- now widely seen for what he is --- the president presents a problem for the Democrat-captured media. They pump out his propaganda for him --- and, like the opinion monitors in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” --- they are dodging brickbats and rotten vegetables.
He’s pompous, pampered, and pretentious --- a pseudo-intellectual fop. He’s a glorified, smooth-lyin’ dandy, and slicker than Sick Willie Clinton. He’s a dictator-on-the-make, a bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thug, and a low-down skunk.
He’s a fraud and a swindler. He lies when he inhales and he lies when he exhales; his oxygen is the falsification of reality. He lies, placidly and laconically, as if deception were a soporific drug.
He’s a friend of the poor and the downtrodden --- indeed, you can hear the milk of human kindness sloshing around inside of him when he walks.
He declares himself the post-racial leader --- “Let me be clear!” he intones --- and he hides behind his race, daring his critics to put their reputation for fairness at risk.
He pauses to ponder the portent of his propaganda --- and it is fakery; he smiles and his mendacity comes shining through. Shake hands with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- “The Mistake of ‘08” --- the illegal alien squatter in the White House --- and America’s first and last Arab president. Now count your fingers.
Marblehead Light| 10.9.10 @ 10:37PM
The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a “Racist!” and you can be a “Homophobe!” and you can be a “Teabagger!” --- a homosexual man taking his partner’s scrotum into his mouth. You can be “Selfish!” and you can be a “Hick!” and you can be a “Rube!” You can be a “Right-wing-nut!” and you can be a “Warmonger!” and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a “Fascist!” --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of “Fascist!” than the usual Demo propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.
So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Demos’ enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things - and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, dope-smoking, coke-snorting, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, tax-eating, gun-stealing, predatory humanitarian thugs --- by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction.
Fort Sewall| 10.9.10 @ 10:38PM
SAM ADAMS IS MORE THAN JUST A GREAT YANKEE BEER!
TAX HATER SAMUEL ADAMS, ON A ROLL AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, AUGUST, 1776……
"You darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check.
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, and supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?”
“It does not take a majority to prevail….but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
John Locke| 10.9.10 @ 10:39PM
What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!
But the Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."
They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government" here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism ---- this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago ---- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?
Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity! Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2010 and 2012!
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 11:16PM
Ayn Rand wrote a nice little revolutionary pamphlet some decades ago, "The Doctor --- The Forgotten Man of Socialized Medicine." Probably still available from the Ayn Rand Institute.
Time for all the doctors and all other medical professionals to arm themselves with "weapons of deadly force" and plenty of ammunition --- and then to go on strike.
OhBummer will try to conscript them in order to force them to work under his Healthcare Hijacking Scheme. At that point I would like to see the bullets fly --- and I'd like to see piles and piles and piles of dead government "enforcers." We need an armed revolution to overthrow and destroy the dictatorship.
Uncle Scam is "an enemy of the people." The intent of our criminal goverment is to overthrow and destroy the US Constitution --- our government is seditious and it advocates treason against the Consitution, and against the citizens of America, and against The Rights of Man.
I refer to the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere. Let us begin --- it is time to destroy the destroyers.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.9.10 @ 11:42PM
I have no money --- absolutely true --- so naturally I'd like my medical insurance to cover all my pre-existing conditions. But let's be honest --- that's like buying automobile accident insurance --- after you have had the accident --- and then demanding that those heartless insurors pay you for your bad luck, negligence, or stupidity. The champions of forced coverage of pre-existing medical conditions are not altruists or compassionate humanitarians --- they are thieves and thugs who pretend to occupy the high moral ground --- and who then make threats against anyone who challenges them. The overthrow of the US Constitution by the United States Government is an act of treason. We should arrest Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, his henchmen, cronies, and confederates, and deport them to Kenya or Indonesia or some other Third World dump. Preferably from 30,000 feet, and without a parachute. SPLAT!
Intelligent Design| 10.10.10 @ 9:30AM
Let's rename this article to: The Criminal Intent of Obama.
somnolence| 10.10.10 @ 11:51AM
Marc, I'm one of these "bums". At age 56 and with a net worth in the mid six figures I'm out of work but still living well. I do not anticipate going to work anytime soon, although I am very healthy. I also will not buy health insurance. I will pay the fine, if need be, even if I don't have income coming in four years from now. I have never applied for food stamps, SSI, etc. My wife continues to work so we make it very well. If I get sick and I'm in pain I'll just go into shock. That will be my decision, not the feds.
Marc| 10.10.10 @ 1:32PM
Don't be silly - if you have a stroke the first thing your wife will do is get you to ER. It's not worth dying for.
And when you're 65 will you be enlisting in Medicare? You've paid for it I expect so why not?
John II| 10.10.10 @ 3:51PM
To employ a current buzzword of lefty busybodies, neither Medicare as it was devolving before Obamacare nor the preposterously named "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is "sustainable" financially, let along morally.
This garbage legislation was shoved through Congress by a smelly brew of political manipulation and degenerate lefty ideology--without so much as a nod to serious and informed debate.
It will be repealed root and branch after the fetid Augean stables have been washed out in the coming election. The real question is what shape serious market-based reforms will take; the squealing of smug statists like yourself, Marc, will only be a sideshow.
Don't reckon I'll miss hearing from them when the trolls here at TAS disappear after November
2.
Marc| 10.10.10 @ 4:33PM
'This garbage legislation was shoved through Congress by a smelly brew of political manipulation and degenerate lefty ideology'
John, sometimes I wonder whether people like you have any idea about has gone on in the country. Obamacare is in fact very similar to the Republican proposals for reform in 1994. Hardly 'degenerate lefty ideology'. It's a pretty moderate reform.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 10.10.10 @ 6:31PM
We're buying shrimp, Marc. We are not moderate Marc, we are radical. It is time to be honest about who we are. That is how we got elected. We are going to change this country into Venezuela. I guess it won't be exactly like Venezuela since my good fiend Hugo doesn't really like golf. We are interested not in these reforms but that these these reforms will end in failure and allow us to take over the whole deal. It is already doing all we could have hoped, raising prices and eliminating coverage. Soon we will step in to save the day. We will be just like Franklin Roosevelt except with a worker to retiree ratio of just 2 to 1. Come to think of it we Democrats seem to be floating another pyramid scheme. It is kind of ironic, we have these ideas that are made impossible by our desire and success at having zero population growth. Maybe we could have all of Mexico move up here and pay for this. I like to think out of the box. You know if we didn't care so much somebody might think we were common criminals. Well back to the football games. Don't ask, don't tell forever, baby.
John II| 10.10.10 @ 8:18PM
Well, it's a big country, and I've got a Missouri-like soft spot for empirical data, and I'm often surprised, so I'd be cautious about claiming to know what's going on my own town, much more so my whole country.
I confess, for example, that I'm sometimes jaw-droppingly flabberghasted whenever I bother to wonder what "people like you" mean by such terms as "very similar" and "pretty moderate" and, what the heck, "people like you."
Fundamentally, though, I suppose people like me want people like you to stay the hell out of our lives, particularly given that people like you (as in the public spectacles of Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Professor Obama, Associate Professor Biden, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, etc.) have made colossal messes out of their own lives, and are thus motivated, one supposes, to distract themselves from their own hollowness by butting into the lives of others.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.11.10 @ 2:19AM
Your statement is not specific as to parallels and it is important to rememeber that the Republican party is infected with the same statist bug that inhabits the Democrat party --- although to a significantly lesser degree. I advocate the overthrow and destruction of OhBummerCare by whatever means it takes to kill it.
Hugh Cole| 10.10.10 @ 11:56AM
This provision of Obamacare (AKB) is worse than you think.
Most Federal and State Prosecutors practice "extortion law". Look at what Eliot Spitzer did. He added to his portfolio by threatening to sue individuals, corporations, etc. with the express purpose of allowing them to plead and settle rather than go through the expense and bad publicity of a public trial. This he did regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Prosecutors will use the "easy " provisions of AKB to add convictions to their record, exploit this law & cause harm to the most vulnerable - seniors, poor and children.
DRed| 10.10.10 @ 12:39PM
This law is over 30 years old, and most federal courts already interpret the law according to this new provision.
John Hodgden| 11.18.10 @ 7:56AM
This is just the tip of the iceberg and the whole process has been in the works for decades while America slept at the wheel. Our government has become the very same oppressor that our ancestors fled from to experience a new country free of government and governmental oppression. I was active behind the scenes for several decades and have overheard the planning of the overthrow of this country and its government by Democrats using our own system against us. (I like to evesdrop at closed doors!) I told any number of people about what I had heard and what was coming down the pike and nobody listened. America is getting just what it asked for. I have very little sympathy other than the rest of us have to go down with the ship with the pirates of liberty. The Obamacare must be repealed and what the DNC has been sliding under the door while we slept needs brought to light. Some of these people need to be charged with High Treason, including George Soros who has publicly declared the intent to facilitate the destruction of America just as he has done three or four other countries. (Lost count!) The Democratic Party needs to go! It is no longer an embracer of American philosophy but has come to embrace the tenets of the Communist Socialist philosophies and principles. It has become toxic to our nation's existence and the only way to deal with it is to re-educate Americans by exposing them to the truth about where we came from and where we are being taken. Obama, Dean and Pelossi, (and several others), have violated their oaths of office in spades and need to be called to task. Only "We the People" can do it. We need to start exercising our part of self-governance as given us by the Constitution so that our elected reps don't have to stand alone. This especially applies to the just-elected newbies that are going to be facing a hostile audience in the House and Senate chambers. They must know they have support and votes behind them or they will loose their grit. Let's Git-er-Done!
John H.