a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, Affordable Care Act, America, corrupt administration, Corrupt Politicians, corrupt president, death rate, democratic traditions, disastrous consequences, Government corruption, Government disgust, Government fraud and corruption, Health Insurance System, History, media propaganda, medicine, money-laundering scheme, Obama Administration, Obamacare, political corruption, social engineering, Tyranny, White House
Engineering consent: “Oh, We Care, We are from the government…”
In the states that will determine control of the Senate, the health law is falling apart.
“You bet I voted for that bill. I’m proud I did it!” yelled Russ Feingold at a Wisconsin campaign stop in 2010. That pride—in ObamaCare—lost the three-term Democratic senator his job. Now his party’s ownership of the health-care law may once again decide the Senate.
ObamaCare is roaring back as a political liability to Democrats in a way not seen since that 2010 wave election. Right in time for this fall’s presidential contest, insurers are bailing out of the government system, leaving millions of voters with dwindling options and skyrocketing premiums. ObamaCare was always destined to crack up, but there is something notable that it comes precisely as so much control of Washington is up for grabs.
(Excerpt) Wall Street Journal
As far back as 2008, at the presidential debate in Nashville, Democrat candidate Obama advanced his signature plan that was ultimately enacted (by an historic straight Democrat party-line vote) into the “Affordable Care Act:”
“No. 1, let me just repeat, if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All I’m going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You’ll still have choice of doctor.” — Barack Hussein Obama
This mantra has been repeated over and over by every loyal Democrat:
SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): “In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): “We believe — and we stand by this — if you like your current health insurance plan, you will be able to keep it, plain and simple, straightforward.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6401, 6/10/09)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/29/09)
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.” (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)
SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)
SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-Iowa): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like — existing policies — you can keep them. … we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)
THEN-REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-Wis.): “Under the bill, if you like the insurance you have now, you may keep it and it will improve.” (Rep. Baldwin, Press Release, 3/18/10)
SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.” (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.” (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 6/11/09)
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-Calif.): “So we Democrats want people to be able to keep the health care they have. And the answer to that is choice of plans. And in the exchange, we’re going to have lots of different plans, and people will be able to keep the health care coverage they need and they want.” (Sen. Boxer, Press Release, 2/8/11)
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio): “Our Democrat bill says if you have health insurance and you like it, you can keep it…”(Sen. Brown, Congressional Record, S.12612, 12/7/09)
SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-Md.): “For the people of Maryland, this bill will provide a rational way in which they can maintain their existing coverage…” (Sen. Cardin, Congressional Record, S.13798, 12/23/09)
SEN. BOB CASEY (D-Pa.): “I also believe this Democrat legislation and the bill we are going to send to President Obama this fall will also have secure choices. If you like what you have, you like the plan you have, you can keep it. It is not going to change.” (Sen. Casey, Congressional Record, S.8070, 7/24/09)
SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-N.C.): ‘People who have insurance they’re happy with can keep it’ “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they’re happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.” (“Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, 6/18/09)
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-La.): “If you like the insurance that you have, you’ll be able to keep it.” (MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/16/09)
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-Vt.): “[I]f you like the insurance you now have, keep the insurance you have.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 10/22/09)
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-N.J.): “If you like what you have, you get to keep it” “Menendez is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to release a bill later this week. He stressed that consumers who are satisfied with their plans won’t have to change. ‘If you like what you have, you get to keep it,’ he said.” (“Health Care Plan Would Help N.J., Menendez Says,” The Record, 6/19/09)
SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-Oreg.): “[E]nsuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it” “The HELP Committee bill sets forward a historic Democrat plan that will, for the first time in American history, give every American access to affordable health coverage, reduce costs, and increase choice, while ensuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it.” (Sen. Merkley, Press Release, 7/15/09)
SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-Md.): “It means that if you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it.” (Sen. Mikulski, Press Release, 12/24/09)
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-W.Va.): “I want people to know, the President’s promise that if you like the coverage you have today you can keep it is a pledge we intend to keep.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 9/23/09)
SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.): “If you like the insurance you have, you can choose to keep it.” (Sen. Reed, Town Hall Event, 6/25/09)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.): “‘If you have coverage you like, you can keep it,’ says Sen. Sanders.” (“Sick And Wrong,” Rolling Stone, 4/5/10)
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): ‘if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it’ “My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a Democrat bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I’ve seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it.” (Sen. Shaheen, “Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire,” Accessed 11/13/13)
SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-Mich.): “As someone who has a large number of large employers in my state, one of the things I appreciate about the Democrat chairman’s remark is — is the grandfathering provisions, the fact that the people in my state, 60 percent of whom have insurance, are going to be able to keep it. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. That’s a strong commitment. It’s clear in the bill … I appreciate the strong commitment on your part and the president to make sure that if you have your insurance you can keep it. That’s the bottom line for me.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)
SEN. JON TESTER (D-Mont.): “‘If you like your coverage, you’ll be able to keep it,’ Tester said, adding that if Medicare changes, it will only become stronger”. (“Tester In Baker To Discuss Health Care,” The Fallon County Times, 11/20/09)
SEN. TOM UDALL (D-N.Mex.): “Some worried reform would alter their current coverage. It won’t. If you like your current plan, you can keep it.” (“What I Learned: About Health Care Reform This Summer, By Your Lawmakers In Congress,” Albuquerque Journal, 9/8/09)
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-R.I.): “..it honors President Obama’s programs and the promise of all of the Presidential candidates that if you like the plan you have, you get to keep it. You are not forced out of anything.” (Sen. Whitehouse, Congressional Record, S.8668, 8/3/09)
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) the 60th vote on Obamacare: “people who are happy with their current plan, wouldn’t need to change it.”
FRANKEN YOUTUBE SOUND BITE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCZmAYYNz8Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCZmAYYNz8I
The following result speaks for itself
Twenty-nine Democrats who voted for it (including Landrieu who pocketed a bundle to vote for it) were ousted in the last midterm Democrat Demolition Derby.
So, Where is the administration getting the money to fund these Obamacare programs?
“Congress is looking into the funding for several Obamacare programs for which no money has been directly appropriated.”
The Obamacare atrocity was a cunning vehicle for consolidating Democratic power. Note the Democrats cashed-in big time.
(A) Michelle’s buddy—botched the billion dollar web site rollout—still doesn’t work.
(B) Harry Reid’s $4 billion “accidental” payment to Landrieu is a clue to how the straight party-line vote got this atrocity passed.
(C) A multi-billion dollar slush fund—the Untraceable $8 Billion ObamaCare PR Budget—truly govt fraud at its finest.
Egged on by Pelosi, no one in Congress told Americans about Section 4002—which mandates an $8B untraceable fund to “promote” Obamacare (apparently b/c Boobamba had so little confidence in his signature legislation).
In 2010 Taxpayers are extorted $500 million, in 2011, $750 million, 2012, $1 billion, 2013, $1.25 billion, 2014, $1.5 billion and in 2015 and on, $2 billion……..
…. the reasons for all those O/Care delays, fixits, exemptions, waivers, extensions, etc, are becoming crystal clear.
plus, Obama and his family personally spend $1.5 billion dollars on themselves every single year and Obama’s Spring Golf Trips and Fundraiser Vacations Cost Taxpayers $4,436,245.50. To be expected from someone who never made a dime that didn’t come from the taxpayer.
In reality, it is a penalty and a tax. — But Congress is exempt?
As for the blatant unconstitutionality of Obamacare:
- “State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” – Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
- “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” – Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
- “Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” –Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
- “The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss.” – Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.) From Paul v. Virginia. In that case, state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
- “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” – Linder v. United States, 1925.
- “From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So what unconstitutional Obamacare actually did was to show how corrupt all three branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are, the feds wrongly ignoring securing the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority before establishing Obamacare.
Don’t forget, “Elections have consequences.”
Prof. Gruber’s admission that passage of Obamacare depended on the “stupidity” of the American public should come as no surprise to anyone; the man should be applauded for his candor. Examining the answers to the following questions would suggest that he was and is absolutely right. It is the dependency on the existence of these people that has kept the Democrat party in power; it is their base, it is to whom they appeal and the rest of us, while living in this country, simply pay the price for their voting habits .
(3) in spite of his government’s record, how did he win a second term in 2012
(4) why did the “war on women” work; how did “binders full of women” get to be more important than Benghazi in 2012
(5) what else would explain the herd mentality of entire groups of people (journalists, minorities, etc.) that drives them to vote for Democrat candidates, repeatedly and with the same outcomes
(6) related to item 5, what else but the belief that there exists mass stupidity among her largely black audience would drive Michelle Obama to tell them in the lead up to the last election, “And that’s my message to voters, this isn’t about Barack, it’s not about person on that ballot– its about you. And for most of the people we are talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on, regardless of who said what or did this– that shouldn’t even come into the equation.” In other words, blindly do what I say.
(7) what else would explain the rise to Speakership of Nancy Pelosi
(8) how did Michael Moore and those of his ilk become rich
(9) what possible reason is there for the existence of TMZ, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight and assorted gossip magazines, e.g., “People,” etc.
(10) related to item (9) what else drives the obsession with celebrities, including sports figures and yes, in general, sports. Relatedly, why do grown men wear “Jeter” or “Manning” or whomever else apparel?
(11) what audience is there for the mindless and utter crap that is broadcasted on daytime television
(12) why do advertisements for products with the words “actor portrayal” clearly indicated work
(13) what else drives young women in NYC to wear jeans/pants of a particular shade of blue or for that matter, what makes any person a fashion, trend or any kind of follower
(14) days before the 2014 elections, why did a video of a woman being “catcalled” become viral and receive coverage over a broad spectrum of the media
(15) what else would enable the rackets of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
(16) why is it that the greatest country in the world cannot have elections without fraud, glitches and voter IDs when we demand the same across the globe with Jimmy Carter as observer
(17) why is Hillary Clinton qualified to be POTUS? That’s right, we have lowered the bar and the “glass ceiling” with it but the fact that she will now be touted as the most “experienced” candidate – probably in the history of the republic, no less – by the very same people who gave us a president with absolutely no experience at running anything, is yet another sign of the level of stupidity Democrats can count on.
(18) why else would people cede their power for decades to the government and the media
(19) what has enabled the states to cede their power the federal government
(20) why does the global warming/climate change hoax continue to perpetuate? How many Prof. Gruber’s are involved?
(21) why is President Obama able to distance himself from all the scandals that have plagued his administration
(22) on what foundation was the Occupy Wall Street operation built
(23) Why do anti-war protesters become latent during Democrat presidencies
(24) Why are there people who still believe that the federal government can do anything efficiently or effectively except through coercion?
This list can go on but we have a general sense of what’s going on here. The final question, however, is this:
(25) why does it seem that folks are more outraged about Prof. Gruber’s confessions than they were about “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” and all the other failed promises of the abominable law? In the light of the professor’s revelations, the most relevant question to ask is, “what did the President know and when did he know it?” The evidence suggests that the President was fully aware and an active participant in the fraud being perpetrated on the American people; this is where the real outrage should be directed. But, what is anyone going to do about it?
Which is a good segue to Executive Amnesty or President Obama’s ultimate “FU” and revenge against the American people and particularly, those who dared to vote against his policies and party recently. It is not clear that defunding the operational aspect of it will work because USCIS could simply pass on the cost to mint new documents to the amnesty beneficiaries – which is what they normally do, anyway. The Courts might have a say about the legality of the EO but perhaps a more effective way to deal with the matter is for the Republican party’s leaders and those looking at running for nomination to be president to step forward right after the EO is issued and say some or all of the following: (1) with a potential Republican president the EO will be voided on Jan 20th, 2017 (2) those who benefit from the amnesty will NEVER be put on a path to citizenship – per existing law and (3) by registering for the amnesty’s benefits, you are telling the government who you are, where you live, etc., and this may make deportation later easier. The impact of these comments may depress interest in the offered “amnesty” which should make it easier to undo later on.
In light of the professor’s revelations, the most relevant question to ask is, “what did the President know and when did he know it?” The evidence suggests that the President was fully aware and an active participant in the fraud being perpetuated on the American people; this is where the real outrage should be directed. But, what is anyone going to do about it?
Obama personally crafted a major Obamacare deception with Jonathan Gruber at one of Gruber’s numerous White House meetings, according to a 2012 Gruber interview with PBS
November 14, 2014
Mononymous1 | WordPress