-
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
White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare
The Obama administration attempts to bully the Court with a brazen lie about Medicare.
Last month, having watched in frustration as his Solicitor General got his clock cleaned during the Supreme Court’s Obamacare hearings, the President made matters worse by publicly braying about how “unprecedented” it would be for an “unelected group of people” to overturn a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. This idiotic assertion provoked a tsunami of scorn from constitutional experts of all stripes, and angered the judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals so much that they humiliated the lawyers of the Justice Department by giving them a homework assignment on judicial review. If, however, you thought that embarrassing episode was enough to stop the Obama administration from trying to bully the Court, you were mistaken.
In a new attempt to influence the justices as they deliberate over the ultimate fate of Obamacare, the White House has told them that striking down the “reform” law would wreck the Medicare program: “Medicare’s payment system… could freeze if President Barack Obama’s health care law is summarily overturned, the administration quietly informed the courts.” This bizarre claim is, according to former CMS administrator Thomas A. Scully, nonsense: “If you look at the way the law was financed, it was a combination of higher taxes and lower Medicare payments. That’s what you would be rolling back.” In other words, by striking down the law, the Court would forestall $500 billion in Medicare cuts called for by Obamacare as well as deep slashes in Medicare Advantage.
The claim that Medicare payments might stop if the Court ignores the administration’s intimidation tactics is much like a threat the President made during the 2011 battle over the debt ceiling. At that time, Obama averred that Social Security checks might not be mailed if the GOP refused to roll over: “I cannot guarantee that those checks will go out … there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.” That was a lie, of course, as is the threat that Medicare payments might halt. But that hasn’t stopped Donald Berwick, the recess-appointed CMS head who resigned when he became an election year embarrassment for Obama, from repeating the whopper: “Medicare cannot turn on a dime… I would not be surprised if there are delays and problems with payment flow.”
By reiterating the preposterous claim that Medicare payments might be delayed if Obamacare is struck down, Berwick is participating in a predictable election year strategy that goes beyond meddling with the Court. The threat is also meant to frighten seniors. Like the perennial Democrat claim that the GOP is secretly planning to destroy Social Security, this strategy seeks to exploit the insecurities of the elderly. Obama and his creatures want the nation’s seniors to be so afraid of losing their retirement benefits and medical coverage that they will go to the polls and vote Democrat notwithstanding the President’s pathetic record and the failure of his party’s congressional leaders to produce a single piece of useful legislation since they returned to power in 2007.
Ironically, it is the prospect that the Court might preserve Obamacare that should frighten seniors. The health care “reform” law contains two primary features that should worry all Medicare beneficiaries. First, it will raid Medicare’s coffers to the tune of $500 billion and use that money to pay for the health care of young, healthy Americans. Many of the 30 million people whom Obamacare will allegedly lift from the ranks of the uninsured will receive coverage subsidized by money siphoned from Medicare. Much of this money will come from cuts in the Medicare Advantage program, which means that the benefits now enjoyed by 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will be dramatically reduced.
The second, and even scarier, prospect that seniors face if the Supremes allow Obamacare to stand will involve the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). This committee of fifteen unelected apparatchiks will begin rationing care to the elderly shortly after Obama’s reelection. IPAB’s mission is closely modeled on that of Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE has been rationing care to elderly Brits for many years, and it routinely denies British patients access to drugs and treatment regimens taken for granted in most developed countries. In fact, it recently declined to approve the first new drug developed in half a century for the treatment of lupus because it was too expensive.
And yet, in a typically Orwellian submission, the Obama administration has told the Court that overturning Obamacare will create “extraordinary disruption” to the Medicare program. And it would no doubt be inconvenient for the government bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As tragic as it would be for these apparatchiks to earn their paychecks for once, there is no honest basis for the claim that it would somehow freeze Medicare payments. As the Washington Post points out, “Even if the law were completely overturned, the government still would have authority under previous legislation to pay hospitals, doctors, insurance plans, nursing homes and other providers.”
The people who run the Obama administration understand this, of course, but they are evidently betting that the justices of the Supreme Court do not. This is the kind of forlorn hope to which desperate people cling. The palpable fear at the White House that the law may be struck down is causing them to do stupid things. A month ago, the President tried to intimidate the Court, and succeeded only in making a fool of himself. Now his minions have produced this latest lame attempt to influence the Court. As objective as the justices try to be, they must by now be growing weary of these amateurish attempts to meddle in their deliberations. The justices expect the executive branch of our government to treat them with the respect due a coequal branch. This deference has been glaringly absent since Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address.
During that speech, you will recall, the President contemptuously rebuked them before Congress and the American people for possessing the temerity to rule in favor of the First Amendment in their Citizens United decision. Such presumption, combined with the pettifoggery to which the Obama Justice Department has subjected them in the Obamacare case, is unlikely to have endeared the administration to the Court. Indeed, it has probably angered more than one of the justices. This is not the kind of mood you want them in when they are considering the constitutionality of your most “significant domestic achievement.”
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 (101) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/07/white-house-again-threatens-sc
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
Darin| 5.7.12 @ 6:40AM
If you tell a lie that's big enough, people might believe it. Time to call Obama what he is - a liar. This is not "distortion of the facts" or a "misinterpretation." It's a bold-faced, blatant, intentional lie.
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 7:24AM
I just don't understand why this Black Marxist, Jive Ass, Street Hustler, from Chicago, (by way of Indonesia), is doing the things he does, every day. Wiping his ass with our beloved Constitution. Flouting our Laws. Crippling our Oil and Gas and Coal Industries. Regulating the rest of our Businesses to the point that, they pick up and leave.
The Housing Market is the WORST, it's ever been. Foreclosures are the WORST they've ever been. The number of Americans at or below the Poverty Line, is the HIGHEST it's ever been. The Credit Rating of the Richest, most Powerful Nation the world has ever known, has been Downgraded to that of your local Banana Republibic. We are more divided, as a people, than we have been, in my lifetime. He has PISSED AWAY 50 Years of Racial Healing, in this Country, and wants nothing less, than a repeat of the 60's Race Riots, the Burning of America's Cities, and an Opportunity to Declare Martial Law, so as not to WASTE the Crisis. He just had The Muslim Brotherhood to the White House?
He Lies, every time he opens his mouth. He assures Russia that "I'll have more flexibility, once I no longer have to run for election, again". He went after our Ally -Honduras - in an attempt to have a Marxist Hugo Chavez wannabe - Manuel Zelaya - put back in Power, after the Country's Congress, and Supreme Court, had ordered the Military to throw him out, for his efforts to perpetrate a Nazi Style PUTCHE.
He betrays our Ally, in the Middle East - Israel - by "leaking sensitive Military Secrets" to HIS allies, in the Press. He does a Jimmy Carter, in Egypt - Throwing Mubarek under the bus - thus paving the way for a new Iranian Style Islamic Fundamentalist Regime. He has Khaddafi taken out, so as to pave the way for the same result for Libya, that he allowed in Egypt? He says NOTHING as the Christians, and the Christain Churches, in the Middle East, are Murdered and Destroyed. Not one MFing word.
And, now we see that he is back to doing what he does best: THREATENING people who don't tow His line. Phones will be picked. Calls wil be made. And this Black Marxist POS will get the Buses loaded up with his Union Street Gangs ("We need a Civilian Force, just as big, and just as well financed, as the Miltary one.") and they will seek out their Enemies WHERE THEY LIVE with their Families. Windows will be broken. glass will be shattered. And we will be one step closer, to repeating the past.
For 236 Years, this Country has been the Best Place on Earth. The Strongest, Richest, most Powerful Nation the world has ever know.
In less than 4 Years, the First African American President, has done more to Destroy everything that made America great, than any Hostile Nation ever has. And, he's done it on purpose, and he'll keep doing it, until we are no more, unless SOMEBODY STOPS HIM.
LarryK| 5.7.12 @ 8:35AM
Wow. Why don't you tell us how you really feel about O. ;)
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 9:31AM
I don't get it.
Rick Caird| 5.8.12 @ 9:20AM
TLP,
"Why don't you tell us how you really feel about O. ;)"
The comment is just a joking way to say that there is no doubt about how you feel. There is no requirement for someone to read between the lines. Your feelings are clear.
Jobe| 5.7.12 @ 10:19AM
Kudos! I have said on many forums that obama has done more dammage to this nation than the Japanese did during WWII.
A. C. Santore| 5.7.12 @ 10:38AM
TLP, you ask, "I just don't understand why this *** is doing the things he does, every day."
Answer: He is "fundamentally transforming America."
He has to destroy [or at least fatally weaken] our economy, our Constitution, our democratic system of government, and our culture, in order to "save it."
If you thought that the "fundamental transformation" was TARP and Obamacare, you were fooled. It's American freedom and our way of life itself that he intends to transform.
I've been calling him the "proto-dictator" for years, and sadly he's closer than ever to dropping the "proto" part and start wearing red jump suits and taking over everything as he has often promised.
He calls it his "flexibility."
Mimi| 5.7.12 @ 11:36AM
Oh yes! he did tell the Russians he will have way more "FLEXIBILITY" after he is elected ! Fat chance...he'd be lucky to get 20% Liberals to vote for him! Even they don't like to be betrayed!
Donald Young's Revenge| 5.7.12 @ 12:29PM
I think Obama is still pissed off at Roberts for screwing up the swearing in ceremony. I wholeheartedly believe that was intentional because Roberts knows that Obama was NEVER eligible for the office in the first place. I would have loved to have been the fly in the room when many of the justices met with the usurper prior to the ceremony.
All of our present day problems caused by Obama and his radical appointees are to be blamed on the Republicans in Congress. They have had enough evidence at their disposal to start a Congressional criminal investigation into this country's most dangerous national security risk but won't. The Conservative media love bashing this President 24/7 but they all cower to political correctness and the fear of being charged as racist that prevents them from exposing Obama for his many crimes (forged birth certificate; forged selective service registration; fraudulent SS#; not a "natural born Citizen" and more)
TrueBlue | 5.7.12 @ 6:55PM
They can start an investigation but the Senate would have to run the impeachment trial. They can't actually charge him with a crime in a normal court until after he is impeached or out of office. Since the Democrat-controlled Senate wouldn't run a real impeachment trial it'd be a waste of their time.
Better for them to keep passing bills and then actually stand up in front of the people to point out that it's the Senate and the President that are refusing to even talk on anything they pass. It's the second part that is important and has been done enough.
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 3:44PM
That was Sarcasm.
Jobe| 5.7.12 @ 11:23PM
The thing that bothers me most about obama is the way people keep making the mistake of saying that what is going on in Washington is just "politics as usual". It is anything BUT that. This fight against this would-be tin pot dictator is the defining moment for America. All else in our History has been but a prelude to this situation. This is ACTUALLY an elected official who is hell bent on squashing the freedoms that have been the birthright of American citizens since the promulgation of the Constitution. There has never been a danger as dire as this, either internal or external. If this election does not provide us with the first move in rolling back the destructive red tide of imbecilic liberalism, and if the stain of obama, pelosi, reid, rangel, and the rest of the anti-american parasites who are destroying the country is not cleaned, sanitized, and erased, there will be no America left to lament.
ssabmud| 5.7.12 @ 4:37PM
God love ya Tim
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 6:33PM
Thanks buddy.
Mrs. Vito| 5.7.12 @ 6:50PM
Nicely said, Darin. You no doubt have heard the old saying, "give an idiot enough rope and he'll hang himself". Come June, Obama will be twisting in the wind!
MONTOVINE| 5.7.12 @ 7:49PM
He isn't an idiot though, he is very calculated. Knows exactly what he is doing, and has the money and mob behind him to get it done.
PaulB| 5.10.12 @ 11:00AM
I think we all should encourage the Obummer administration to increase the pressure on the Supreme Court. They should threaten them alot more. It may piss them off enough to shut down this ridiculous Obamace care crap and teach them a lesson.
For those that support this insanity, just ask yourself one question: has government done anything in the past that worked and is efficient?! I can't think of one damn thing. Thanks.
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 6:45AM
First, if Obama's statement effects SCOTUS then we have a problem. Otherwise, it's just politics as usual on both sides -- we do have an election going on. Secondly, since when should fiscal conservatives argue against a huge cut in Medicare? We spend too much already. Furthermore, the Medicare Advantage program spends about 8% more government money for each person than regular Medicare. This amounts to corporate welfare which any fiscal conservative should be against. I have no problems with the program, only the fact that we pay too much for it. There are many problems with Obamacare, but these are not part of it.
Mark| 5.7.12 @ 7:01AM
$500 billion taken from Medicare to fund the budgetary monster that it is the healthcare reform act is not a cut in spending.
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 7:19AM
I didn't say it was. I don't have a problem with the $500 billion cut -- I do have a problem with Obamacare. I just don't understand why a fiscal conservative would use a budgetary cut in Medicare as a negative.
DTOM!| 5.7.12 @ 8:55AM
You, Mark and fiscal, have just demonstrated conclusively the often-voiced concern about how difficult it will be to end government funded single payer healthcare. More like impossible.
SCOTUS are you going to let that little pipsqueak in the White House dis you all like he did and he does? Come on! Judge UP!
Don't Tread On Me!
PS Isn't the Solicitor General's last name pronounced, "Way silly?"
darcy| 5.7.12 @ 3:39PM
Medicare was foisted on America in 1965 by sleight-of-hand politics (CATO's website has, or at least had, the particulars on that), almost as nefarious as the methods by which Obamacare became law.
It should be abolished. If the individual states wish to cushion medical expenses for the elderly indigent, then they could do so.
As it is, both Medicare and Obamacare serve to expand federal power and are sold to the public under the guise of compassion.
I prefer an America where FAMILIES take care of each other; but no, that would hamper the statist project and eat into radical individualism, what passes for god these days.
Beth| 5.19.12 @ 2:21AM
I agree with Fiscal. What I have yet to understand is (even though I know the answer) is why there is a LOCK on Medicare's ability to negotiate prices.
We aren't talking Dictating Prices but Negotiations with it's vendors. I see the waste and the abuse here.
Medicare is Big Pharma , Labs and Medical Device companies, biggest Customer. Why would somebody own a business and not Negotiate Prices with its vendors?
Of course, I know the answer, Lobbyiests and Campaign Contributions. Sorry, this just isn't helping sustain Medicare.
numbatdog| 5.7.12 @ 7:17AM
Fiscal,
This is not politics as normal. Politicians threaten and taunt each other, not the institution.
What we have here is the flexing of muscles of a thug regime. Just like the mafia it uses a clenched fist under a thin veil of respectability to intimidate.
This authoritarian behaviour will indeed become business as usual if Obama scares and intimidates his way to a second term.
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 7:24AM
Get over it. All administrations flex their muscles for the things that will get them votes -- that's just politics. Both sides do it because it is possible to buy votes. Both sides act thuggishly when it suits them. Besides, if you grew up in the neighborhood I did, you'd know what a "thug" really looks like. I don't see Obama kneecapping SCOTUS or killing their families. This is just politics. Why burst a blood vessel over it?
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 7:30AM
I thought that you understood what was going on in the Country, when you made your first Comment.
After this latest one, it's obvious that you don't, and you probably never will, until it's too late.
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 7:50AM
What's going on in this country is that both sides produce hyperbolic statements because of politics. When they get into office, there is no difference. That's what's going on in this country... This is a "sticks and stones" argument and I don't see any bones breaking.
DTOM!| 5.7.12 @ 8:59AM
Don't like politics? Get yourself to a deserted island. Even Robinson Crusoe had politics after Friday!!!
And, fiscal, if you cannot see the difference between "Constitutional??? Hahahahahaha! We have to pass this bill to see what's in it?" and anything Paul Ryan ever said, well then you must not be very bright...and I'm being kind to you!
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 9:33AM
So who is the judge of what is constitutional? My point is that none of the political hyperbole effects much once they get into office.
Jobe| 5.7.12 @ 10:32AM
If you actually believe that conservatism and radical liberalism are "just politics", and that there is an equality there, then arguing with you is a waste of time.
DTOM!| 5.7.12 @ 12:51PM
SCOTUS is.
And you keep typing "effect" as a verb. The word you are looking for is "affect."
Jobe| 5.7.12 @ 11:26PM
Correct! To effect means to bring about. To affect means to influence.
richard ryan| 5.7.12 @ 1:25PM
example of conseervative hyperbole please. Not media personalities, office holders.
Jim | 5.7.12 @ 12:53PM
Hopefully, more like you will burst a blood vessel, without compentent medical help nearby (which WILL be the case under O'Care) as then we can stop arguing over the palucidly evident fact that Obama is a socialist ninny. The only folks who support this Dimwit In Chief are those who hope to live off of someone else's dime for life, or those politicians wishing to cater to such low lifes.
Beth| 5.19.12 @ 2:30AM
Fiscal, you have to admit this administration is quite unique and thug like.
I have lived through nine presidents and don't recall any of the previous ones causing the country such division. He is a wonderful marketer and campaigner but not a good President for our country.
Admitedly, I voted for him the first go round, because I bought into his hype. But because of him, I have changed my party.
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 7:27AM
Exactly. If these guys can be INTIMIDATED?
Then I see no reason for a Lifetime Appointment.
Do you?
Jeffw| 5.7.12 @ 7:27AM
I'm a 37 year old white male. I'm 6ft -0, 165 lbs, and with a cholesterol level under 140(my 2009 cholesterol test result was the lowest cholesterol level that I've ever heard of). Despite that, I'm uninsurable. I was rejected by 6 different for-profit health insurance companies for individual insurance. For all of these applications I wasn't applying for Cadillac plans that GOPs hate with mandated services. I was only applying for HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE HSA CATASTROPHIC HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS. You know, the ones that GOPs keep trumpeting as all we need to promote to solve the health care crisis because they supposedly promote personal responsibility and will drive down health care costs better since the patient will have more skin in the game since he/she is paying for it. I have to say I sort of agree with the later premise that HSAs do help drive down costs somewhat, but clearly as you can see by my rejections they are no solution to the problem of the uninsured & uninsurable with pre-existing conditions, since I was rejected by all of the High-deductible HSA plans that I applied for, and in some case those deductibles were as high as $10,000. These had NO MANDATED SERVICES before the deductibles were met(No,for women not even mammograms or even worse not even contraception was free), Now, I do have a pre-existing condition. I have a shunt for Hydrocephalus and had 5 surgeries in my lifetime(for my age that is WAY below average actually), but none since 2001. Plus, I did have an individual HSA plan with United HealthCare in 2006-2009 and never went over the deductible so they made money off me. Nevertheless, I was rejected by all of these for-profit companies for the the very insurance plans that GOPs claim are the solution. Thankfully, ObamaCare has given me access to the PCIP,gov or HIPMichigan.org in Michigan. Like PCIP, it has 3 deductible levels. BTW, another myth/LIE about ObamaCare that you didn't mention was the myth/lie that ObamaCare will outlaw HSAs & High-deductible plans. HIPMichigan's deductibles are 1000, 2500, and 3500. The deductibles in the exchanges will be similar or HIGHER. I agree with some of the conservatives when they say that we need to get away from an employment based health insurance system, EVEN IF UNIONS ARE AGAINST THAT. I agree on the margins that consumers are more price concious with their own money than company buyers, even though most of the health care expenditures are on big services that would be above even the highest deductible. Of course, GOPs are hypocritical on this issue when they spew the scare tactics to bash ObamaCare about how it will result in ALL COMPANIES DROPPING THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. Didn't they say that was a good thing? The Bipartisan Wyden-Bennet plan would result in that as would've the McCain plan. I supported the Wyden-Bennet plan. I'm very much an all-of-the-above kind of guy. If the GOPs wanted credibility on this issue, they would've all gotten behind it instead turning against their own co-author Bob Bennett and making any GOPs who briefly initially supported it retract their support.
chuck| 5.7.12 @ 7:57AM
Hate to sound cold, but.........
Your problems with your health is no excuse for the government to force everyone else in the country to buy a product they may not want, nor need.
DTOM!| 5.7.12 @ 9:14AM
Oh, jeffwie!
Anyone thanking Obamacare for anything is a communist.
Your penultimate statement, "I'm very much an all-of-the-above kind of guy." self-label you quite clearly. You believe that your health and the expense of maintaining it are somebody else's responsibility. They are no one's responsibility but your own-and they end with you. You have no more right to free health-care anymore than you have a right to free Cadillacs! Which is exactly how communists think.
You are as conservative as the little socialist in the White House!
Or you could be a useful idiot?
Don't Tread On Me!
Mimi Mayes | 5.7.12 @ 3:46PM
I vote useful idiot.
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 8:13AM
I have a suggestion. Instead of everybody being put in to a Soviet Style Cradle to Grave Government Utopian one size fits all Baby out with the Bath Water?
Why don't we just FIX the things that are wrong. Instead of giving Total Control of every aspect of our lives, to the most Corrupt, Crooked, and Dishonorable people in the Country? Maybe we can just put people with Preconditions in to Medicare.
Instead of letting the people who STOLE our Retirement Fund from Social Security, be in charge of whether we can Get a Procedure, or a Pain Pill? Maybe we should Deregulate the Health Insurance Industry, so as to let all of them COMPETE for your business, instead of just the ones in your State.
Instead of giving this to people who can't Run anything, without Running it in to the ground? You might want to reconsider.
We can land a Spacecraft on to an Asteroid. We can land on Mars. We can Remove a person's Beating Heart, from his body, and repair it in a Metal Dish, and then put it back, again. We have Cell phones that make the Computers, of just a few years ago, look like an Abacus. And I don't believe that any of the Insider Trading, Bribe Taking, Arrogant, Self Serving bags of SH*T in Congress, or the Oval Office, had one Goddamn thing to do with any of these things. If anything, they made these things harder to accomplish.
Something like this needs to be done by people who actually CARE about us, and are Medical Professionals. Not by a Street Hustler/Community Organizing Coke Head, and a Congress with a 2% Approval Rating, who never miss a chance to Feather their own Nests, and to Hell with the REST OF US!
Teaghan| 5.7.12 @ 9:08AM
Is Jeff really "Julia"?
TLP| 5.7.12 @ 9:33AM
Maybe not.
But he sure wants to be.
Von Mises Jr| 5.7.12 @ 10:48AM
Speaking of "Julia," has it occurred to anyone else that the "Julia" in the cradle to grave Obama commercial is the Julia from Orwell's "1984?"
Just as this communist/fascist threaten the Supreme Court, this "Julia" seems to be a message that if you put anyone or anything over the state, perhaps you get the rat cage on your head and a silver bullet in the skull despite your confession.
Just as these sadistic bastards passed ObamaCare "Death Panels" in the Senate on Christmas Eve, and Sandra "Fluke" doesn't pronounce her name like the fish; Julia is a subliminal message.
Signing off, Winston Smith AKA Von.
USSAlabama| 5.7.12 @ 12:01PM
Julia as Winston's girlfriend in 1984 has been all over facebook and Twitter since Julia came out.
Notice, she's white.
Von Mises Jr| 5.7.12 @ 1:30PM
I emailed Rush about the coincidence and he just mentioned it. Did you hear it Perp?
Jobe| 5.7.12 @ 11:29PM
If Julia is the one from 1984, it would be nice if obama were Winston Smith and the rat helmet were placed on his head.
buckeyeman| 5.7.12 @ 10:52AM
"I'm very much an all-of-the-above kind of guy."
Maybe he's uninsurable because he's HIV positive. His other explanation sure didn't make any sense.
Beth| 5.19.12 @ 2:40AM
I think Jeff's main point is that he wanted to buy Insurance but NONE of the Private Insurance companies would sell to him.
He wasn't trying to get FREE Healthcare off of our backs.
There are some good aspects in the Bill. Many people cannot help that they have a pre-exisiting condition. One can take care of themselves by diet and excercise and still have a genetic predisposition to High LDL , diabetes or cancer.
Private Insurance companies have big pools of healthy people, young employees from employee health plans, they shouldn't turn people down who are willing to pay a high deductible and monthly premium.
kwan| 5.7.12 @ 9:50AM
Problem is Jeffrey as your condition worsens the Grim Reapers on the Obama Death Panels will eventually decide that keeping you alive is too expensive and the money can better be spent on funding another Obama "green energy" scambozzle like Solyndra.
USSAlabama| 5.7.12 @ 12:03PM
They won't decide it is too expensive. They will look this guy over and figure what he can or cannot contribute to the Society and deem him unworthy of the money it would take to nurse him to health or keep him healthy.
kwan| 5.7.12 @ 1:26PM
There is one consolidation should your illness be deemed too expensive to treat by the "Hanging Judges" on the Obama Death Panels you will be provided with your own personal "Jack Kevorkian Do-it-Yourself Death Machine" so that you can off-yourself in the comfort and privacy of your own home while watching the latest episode of "Dancing With the Stars".
crookedwren| 5.7.12 @ 10:02AM
Jeffw, I understand that you, like so many individuals, are struggling with these issues. I have pre-existing conditions, but -- so far -- haven't been turned down -- and I am struggling with my physical disability more than ever before. For years, I have had to purchase my own health care.
But I do NOT want ObamaCare to stand.
Yes, the insurance industry is far from perfect (and probably much of their problems with insuring those who are more of a risk come from the stringent regulatory environment that they faced prior to ObamaCare).
Remember, companies have to make some kind of a profit. We all want them to make a profit. If they don't make a profit, then the company fails. If the company fails, then the insurance isn't there for anyone -- and we end up where we are today: becoming Britain and suffering with NICE.
One thing you don't mention is the IPAB. If you have health issues that prevent insurance companies from insuring you, just wait. Now IPAB will be able to tell your physician your treatment schedule, and if your physician doesn't follow their recommendations, he/she will be (first) fined (in big bucks) and (second) face worse penalties.
As you get older, IPAB will be less inclined for you to receive actual treatment, especially if your treatment bears a substantial cost to the "pool."
My family physician has already left his practice for an alternative, medically-related career. Why? Because he's going to be paid what ObamaCare decides to pay. His costs (malpractice insurance, running the business, paying his staff, etc.) won't matter to them. They work for the government -- and cost NEVER matters to the government.
The profit motive doesn't exist ( well, except for those in office) in the bureaucracy.
There are alternative solutions to ObamaCare. Rejection of ObamaCare does not have to mean ignoring problems that need a solution.
BUT ObamaCare is just one step away from Obama's overtly-stated desire: the universal, single-payer system of completely nationalized health care.
(Where the elite will still receive the best, and the rest of us will suffer with care that is far worse, care that is based on your age and "productivity" level. You'll be made comfortable, perhaps, but you won't get real treatment -- unless IPAB deems it so.
That horrifies me. And it should horrify you. )
At least one pharmaceutical company has drastically shifted their structure. The research and development is headed overseas -- and they are strengthening their hiring in countries such as India. BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE.
The GOP is up against it. You must see that. The media tears down anything the GOP brings to the table. They scare the elderly and the busy-working-to-keep-my-family-in-the-middle-class-so-I-can't-really-pay-attention white and blue collar workers, managers, etc. They scare those who have been indoctrinated into progressivistic ideology.
This reply is way too long. I apologize. But I feel strongly about this. Socialized medicine is a real and present danger to the level of health care in this country. It also comes with political hazards, hazards to our Federalist system.
If ObamaCare stands, Federalism is gone.
That, Jeffw, should make you weep.
W| 5.7.12 @ 10:26AM
Your problem could have easily been solved with legislation restricting pre-existing conditions as a consideration for insurance.
I purchased a similar policy and there was a pre-existing condition for my daughter which was not covered for one year.
I have trouble believing five companies rejected you because I had similar issues and worked it out with one insurer.
The Dems could have easily fixed this problem of pre existing conditions but chose not to so to create a demand for Obamacare.
buckeyeman| 5.7.12 @ 10:55AM
But if you force insurance to be granted in the face of pre-existing conditions then it is no longer insurance.
W| 5.7.12 @ 11:00AM
It is an issue that has to be adressed if we repeal Obamacare. You could have a wating period, a graduated cap, tax credits, etc. The insurance industry should have info on how much this would cost and how many people are affected.
Warrior | 5.7.12 @ 3:59PM
The problem with pre-existings needs to be left to the individual states to establish a high risk pool or other mechanism should they see fit. The federal government has no enumerated power and/or authority to deal with people's health care issues.
W| 5.7.12 @ 4:43PM
That objection is long gone.
We have Medicare, Cobra, Hippa, tax deductions for health premiums, HSA, etc.
Warrior | 5.7.12 @ 5:20PM
Of course, easier to keep the leviathan full steam ahead towards insolvency than to actually make even the smallest step towards restoring some semblance of following the Constitution. Keep up the good work, your handle is fitting.
W| 5.7.12 @ 6:30PM
What are you doing realistically besides preening? Do you think Congress will repeal Medicare, Cobra, Hippa, tax deductions for health insurance, HSA? Do you think the Supreme Court will rule any of these unconstitutional, especially Medicare?
Why don't you try to deal with reality and reply to reality instead of snarky comments from a keyboard warrior.
Give us some proposals for Congress to do.
Jim | 5.7.12 @ 12:56PM
You are just a plain liar. Of course you can get insurance, and if you are not lying about your health stats, you can do so easily and cheaply (at least for now!) I am 52, and in definitely worse shape than you, and I have ZERO problem getting good, inexpensive insurance. Drool out poor little me nonsense all you want, but at least don't lie, of if you do (likely) at least make up an interesting and/or remotely likely lie.
richard ryan| 5.7.12 @ 1:29PM
Most people could obtain insurance if they were not cared for without it. Most medicaid recipients spend thousands per year on cigarettes. If they stopped smoking they would have at least half the money to buy a policy.
Beth| 5.19.12 @ 2:49AM
Amen, Richard!
I am in healthcare and most Young, Medicaid recipients smoke, have multiple piercings, long fake fingernails and at least four kids.
Then they get mad if they have to pay a 4 dollar co-pay for their pain meds.
Not all but most. Medicaid should only be reserved for those who are disabled and too old. In our state we call it the Big Money Pitt.
The Bruce| 5.7.12 @ 2:54PM
The reason you couldn't get a catastrophic health-care policy is because Obamacare eliminated these types of policies. And now you're THANKING Obama.
That kind of like getting stabbed in the leg and then thanking the guy for handing you a bandage afterwards.
Jeremiah Smirking| 5.7.12 @ 7:40AM
The most distressing point of this article is that the author seems oblivious to the fact that the Supreme Court HAS ALREADY DECIDED the fate of Obamacare. They were to vote on it almost immediately after the oral arguments. We, the people, are not to find out until summer. But they have already voted, and know, the outcome. The only thing left for them now is to write their opinions based on that ourcome. Obama is still a turd. But he's not trying to intimidate the court, because they've already voted. He's doing the typical, genetically inbred Democrat thing... lying to scare people into voting Demoncrat.
Mike Hawk| 5.7.12 @ 8:15AM
It is not decided yet. What, do you have an inside track?? The final decision vote has not yet been taken, just the initial one and you don't know the result of that. Obama may, due to his inside hack, Kagan leaking it, but the final vote has not yet been made.
megapotamus| 5.7.12 @ 1:53PM
The Justices have taken a vote. Yes, they may have their minds changed in the exchange of draft opinions but that is a long shot.
c. j. acworth| 5.7.12 @ 7:58AM
What Obama (and most other folks, probably) don't understand or want to deal with is that Obamacare is unconstitutional, no matter how many votes it got in Congress, or how many polls say America wants it, or even if it would deliver on all of it's promises and work like a charm. The Supremes should kill it because it violates the Constitution, end of story.
Jim| 5.7.12 @ 1:46PM
Sadly, most federal laws/regulations are unconstitutional. If this is what it takes to draw the line in the sand, so be it, although I sure wish it were sooner. I think it's time to impeach, and far more than just Obama. Oh, for some conservatives with the balls to do it.
kwan| 5.7.12 @ 9:20AM
"Resistance is futile you will be assimilated"...The Borg
Like the Borg the left is seeking to eradicate individualism and fundamentally transform the citizenry into a mindless collective controlled by an all-powerful central government. The left believes that ObamaCare is one of the steps that must be taken in order to achieve the destruction of freedom and individualism, two of the basic characteristics of the American way-of-life that the left hates with a passion.
Steve Jay| 5.7.12 @ 10:03AM
We all knew kids like those in this administration as we were growing up. I would think that Obama & friends would be embarrassed to make such nonsensical assertions but I suppose that's what politicians and children do when trying to propagate a falsehood.
Bill| 5.7.12 @ 10:14AM
Barack Obama's "Albatross": Obamacare.
buckeyeman| 5.7.12 @ 10:57AM
The real danger to Medicare if Obamacare is rejected might be the logical conclusion that Medicare is unconstitutional also. Someone quote the Constitutional authorization for the FEDERAL government to establish a tax supported public welfare healthcare plan.
Oldefarte| 5.7.12 @ 11:32AM
This is typical of these domestic terrorists aka Democrats, in their Chicago Community Organizing 101 street OWS tactics. The STUPIDITY of the American people in electing them on 11/4/08 is mind boggling!!!!
Bill| 5.7.12 @ 12:27PM
Obama is the commander in "Bullying."
1ConservativeUSA| 5.7.12 @ 12:48PM
Regardless of Obama's disgusting conduct and affronts to the Supreme Court, all any American needs to know is found in one sentence.
When Obama said about Social Security checks, that "I cannot guarantee that those checks will go out … there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.", any reasonable American should then and forever understand that you do not entrust your hard earned private property to government.
Because Americans fell for the security of Socialism under this plan, you have scumbags like Obama playing politics with Social Security benefits by threatening to withhold them. These are the funds, by the way, liberals claim we "own" in a Social Security "trust fund".
In truth, there is no Social Security trust fund. Americans own a bunch of IOUs that say the US government will pay us back. Obama's words more than prove that our government may choose not to pay us back. Worse, Obama's policies will guarantee that the United States will be unable to pay us back.
How does any American fall for this fraud and how does any American continue to vote for people who favor statism over individual liberty?
Nite| 5.7.12 @ 7:18PM
Obama is full of threats. He is so arrogant he thinks SCOTUS really is afraid of his sorry butt. They are NOT.
Steve Spafford| 5.7.12 @ 12:49PM
Obama was not theatening the Court. Obama was giving his Constituency some simplistic logic to regurgitate ahead of the November election. Pure politics & control of the simple-minded.
Ron| 5.7.12 @ 12:51PM
When is someone, anyone in the "public eye" just going to come out and call NerObama a LIAR? period. No "misspoke", "stated in error", "misunderstood"...just out and out LIES!!!!!
Lies fall from his lips like leaves from the trees....
David| 5.7.12 @ 2:33PM
I agree Ron. That guy who called him in out in the State of the Union a couple of years ago is my hero.
If the repubs had any balls whatsoever, they would all be calling him a liar, a deceiver, a divider of the worst kind. Just stop short of calling him evil personified, which in my mind, he certainly is.
jstwndring| 5.7.12 @ 2:53PM
"That guy who called him in out in the State of the Union a couple of years ago is my hero."
Representative Joe Wilson (R), South Carolina.
Three years ago during "President" Obama's Congressional address he shouted, "You lie!". He did it because, well, Obama was lying. And, his pants were on fire. It was awesome.
David| 5.7.12 @ 2:39PM
Hey folks, the justices will vote more than one time on Obamacare and whether it should be repealed in its entirety or just the individual mandate.
I recall reading a book about how Roe v. Wade was decided and it was amazing how one justice (can't remember who) kept switching his vote from one side to the other until the very end and ended up with the majority.
skip| 5.7.12 @ 10:18PM
Except for the 2 - 7 verdict that contradicts that story easily enough.
Byron White and William Rehnquist voted against the 'legal' murder of 55 million innocent and defenseless Americans to date. 3.836 toady alone. The other seven are sharing a bench in there very own special circle of jerks in a very warm place.
skip| 5.7.12 @ 10:23PM
3,836 TODAY alone.
That is one typo mistake I do want the focus on, to highlight, the shiny object, well within peripheral vision, drawing attention to, to emphasize the point.
skip| 5.8.12 @ 10:06AM
Oops. Don't reach exhaustion and post. I read the post as a judge flip flopping when the others were 4-4. In the light of a new day I read the post much differently. Their, refreshed, I feel better owning up to it. Wonder how those 7 deem they're decision in the refreshing perspective of hindsight.
jstwndring| 5.7.12 @ 2:44PM
We all know that Obama is lying. It's what he does. But, from the perspective of the Supreme Court Justices, it does not matter. It is not their job to determine the financial viability of any particular government program. It is the job of Congress and the President. The SC Justice's job is to determine the constitutionality of a law. Period. If Congress and the President want to pass laws that aren't fiscally responsible, that is their prerogative, but, it does not obligate the SC to issue a ruling with those concerns in mind.
Joe D.| 5.7.12 @ 2:56PM
You are right on target Mr. Cantron. However, there is one mistate. The Judicial branch is not "coequal". They are a co-branch but not equal. It was set up this way on purpose by our founders. There was to be no Imperial Judgical branch.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.7.12 @ 4:11PM
In Brian Depalma’s film “The Untouchables”, Sean Connery gives Kevin Costner a speech on “The Chicago Way”. It is, of course, the speech where he says “If they bring a knife, you bring a gun” that Obama used at a campaign rally in Philadelphia during the campaign in 2008, revealing his familiarity with and endorsement of the concept.
The POTUS has of course long been an practioner of the Chicago Way in politics. If your precincts don’t vote the right way, your streets don’t get plowed in the snow storm. Your trash doesn’t get collected. Support a rival against an incumbent by putting a poster in your business, and the building inspector suddenly shows up and starts finding violations. Dare to challenge me in an election, and I’ll have your sealed divorce records released. Don’t pass my budget, and your mother’s social security check doesn’t go out, and her doctor won’t get paid.
We are not supposed to hold their tactics against them (though it could be one of the RICO predicate offenses) because their intentions are pure, and they’re doing this all for our own good.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.7.12 @ 9:28PM
"practioner of the Chicago Way "
Outside of Chicago, we say practitioner.
Abu Nudnik| 5.20.12 @ 12:56PM
That's it!
MorrowRosanna| 5.7.12 @ 6:52PM
what Steve responded I am amazed that you able to get paid $8751 in one month on the internet. have you read this web page makecash16.cøm
Tom Kyba| 5.7.12 @ 7:09PM
Methinks the dink is getting really, really desperate. Waah,waah(hands flapping up and down in a very effeminate manner and feet stomping)I want, I need, I must have!
Nite| 5.7.12 @ 7:20PM
Guess he could be trying to scare the old people again about Medicare. Trying to get them to vote Democrat. I don't know any Republicans or a lot of Independents that are that desperate.
MONTOVINE| 5.7.12 @ 7:45PM
President Obama's tactics work, the GOP gave him what he wanted when he theatened the Medicare checks wouldn't go out. Maybe the supreme court will buckle also.
Joe Owen| 5.7.12 @ 9:50PM
Sick 'em, David!! I am tired of the president's tangled mess of politics! He's a great big bag of "suck!"
POST American| 5.8.12 @ 12:04AM
----AS Pelosi, Ginzburg, Gen. 'Betray--US',
Leon PAN--NET---A' and 'BAR--Rockefeller'
Obama himself make the moves, gestures and
speeches of open handover, TREASON-----
and OCCUPATION --
----AND just weeks off from the ever more
unnatural looking 'natural' death of Andrew
Breitbart
----------AND just days after learning
Breitbart's very coroner has been found
poisoned to DEATH ----
----------------------------UH-----------------------------
WE DO NOT THINK we can afford
still another handpicked, vetted, and 'on board'
member of the CFR---RED China handover
and takedown op.
-------'SUB---Mitt ROME--knee' will NEVER do!
For this ---IS-- the very 11th hour.
---AS RUSSIAN troops are, at this very moment,
jointly training with Americans in Colorado
to 'take on American Terrorists' ------EVEN
dead-heads and MED-heads are starting to stir!
Larry| 5.9.12 @ 12:53AM
I think that SCOTUS is ignoring the braying jackass Barack the Usurper. They are already in the process of writing the opinion that holds Obamacare totally unconstitutional and they will release it in late June, when the Court's term ends. The Usurper's term will end shortly after that.
Abu Nudnik| 5.20.12 @ 12:55PM
We have no way of knowing this. It's complicated. I can see some justices striking down the whole thing because, as Scalia said, no one is going to go through a Bill three times as long as War and Peace and infinitely more boring to decide constitutionality item by item. Not even the members of Congress read it.
But there is a conservative tradition of treading lightly on Congress's toes. That might mean that only the mandate is struck down in the minds of some justices.
On the other hand, there is no severability clause. It is a complicated matter. I see three different opinions, none of which constitute the necessary majority. That might mean a compromise decision and that would leave the law in place and the mandate gone.
But none of us know this and none of our speculations will influence the Court.
nick | 5.15.12 @ 7:28PM
Thanks! Every once and a while I think I`m the only one who`s paying attention to what this guy is doing to this country and it drives me crazy. Even when he loses in November, he`s not going to go gracefully.
Abu Nudnik| 5.20.12 @ 12:49PM
Wow. That's shocking. Isn't that a criminal act? If you were to threaten a juror or judge (SCOTUS is one and the same) outside of court, that would be a crime, wouldn't it? It is at least an ex parte communication. Shouldn't Obama, as a former professor of constitutional law, know these things. Correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't he know that jurists are prohibited from considering consequences and must rule solely on legality?