Obamacare Explained

Posted by admin     Category: Politics

Obamacare-health-ins.-cc2-565x5651

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare has many people confused, and rightly so. President Obama promised Americans that if you like your (pre-Obamacare) health insurance you can keep it. Now we know that he knew that that was not true, so he lied. As of December 2013 over 5 million policies have been cancelled due to new regulations required by Obamacare. Understand, 5 million policies cancelled equates to many millions more PEOPLE having lost their coverage…possibly as high as 20 million Americans, so far, have lost policies that they liked and wanted to keep.

Next, Obama promised that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Now that knowledgeable people have had time to read the law (thanks Nancy Pelosi for passing a law that no one Democratic lawmaker had actually taken the time to read and understand), it has become clear that under the new regulations most Insurance companies will be dropping a high percentage of doctors from their Networks across the country. This is because the insurance companies are trying to save money by going with physicians who make the most economic sense, not the doctors who are most qualified to treat sick patients. Also, a lot of doctors are willingly not accepting patients who are covered under Obamacare because of the low rates that the doctors would be required to accept. Basically the doctors have determined that the amount of patients that they would be required to see each hour of the day, just to make enough money to keep their doors open, would be a disservice to each and every patient. So, Obamacare will promote over worked doctors who are not able to give adequate time and attention to any patients.

Third, Obama promised that if you like your Hospital you can keep it. Another lie, Insurance companies in their quest to make enough money to stay in existence under the new Obamacare regulations are picking and choosing which hospitals, based on which hospital is economically best for the insurance company, and making the other hospitals out of network. This means, that if a patient chooses to go to the hospital closest to them, they may be forced to pay a high percentage or quite probably all of the hospital bill.

Can it get worse, you say?

Yes, it can.

Obamacare made it a law that no one could get turned down for insurance even with pre-existing conditions. Sounds good, right? Well, it appears that the insurance companies determined that if they were required by law to insure people who were guaranteed to cost the insurance company ALOT more money than that person could ever possibly pay in over their whole life, then the insurance company must do something to offset that. Their answer was quite simple. Make EVERYONE’s rates much higher than pre-Obamacare, accept into the network the cheapest doctors and hospitals, AND make the normal and most expensive drugs prescribed to patients (who were previously uninsurable) not covered by any policies. Plus, the insurance companies made everyone’s deductibles much higher than before, so high in fact, that most people would pay in for health insurance and never be able to use it because their out of pocket deductible would be so high that a normal person would never use that much health care to meet it. So, previously uninsurable people would get the privilege of being able to pay for health insurance, but the insurance would not pay much of their health bills because of high deductibles, non-covered medications, and out of network doctors, clinics, and hospitals that these poor people have been seeing, possibly for years.

Another one of the foundations of Obamacare was to insure the 30 million people who were not insured prior to the implementation of the law. This number included a lot of young adults, in the 18 to 30 year old age groups. Talk about poor planning, it turns out that most of these people did not want to pay for health insurance and still feel that way. Obamacare not only needs these people buying health insurance in vast numbers, but it needs them to be paying much higher premiums (with deductibles so high that their insurance will never kick in to pay ANYTHING for a normal, healthy young adult) than they would have paid before Obamacare. So, basically Obamacare NEEDS 30 million Americans, most of whom make less than $24k per year, to pony up and begin paying an additional multiple hundreds of dollars per month for insurance that most will not need or use for the next 10 years or so. Really? Do you see that happening, I sure don’t.

Now, supporters of Obamacare, frustrated with President Obama and the White House are going to launch a new marketing campaign aimed at convincing Americans that this horrible law is actually good for us. Kinda like selling that emperor new clothes that were only visible to people who were not stupid and who were not unfit for their position.

So, in a nutshell Obamacare are those new invisible clothes that Americans will pay for..health insurance that is not really there but that costs ALOT more than what we had before. Thanks Obama.

Authors note: If you are unfamiliar with the Danish fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Anderson, please read a brief synopsis of it below:

The Emperor’s New Clothes is a Danish fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen and first published in 1837, as part of Eventyr, Fortalte for Born (Fairy Tales, Told for Children). It was originally known as Keiserens Nye Klæder.

Plot synopsis
Many years ago there lived an emperor who cared only about his clothes and about showing them off. One day he heard from two swindlers that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.

Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were.

The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing. For he was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid.

Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:

“But he has nothing on”!

This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and felt that they were correct, but held his head high and finished the procession.

Origins
It has been claimed that Andersen’s original source was a Spanish story recorded by Don Juan Manuel (1282-1348).

Analysis
This story of the little boy puncturing the pretensions of the emperor’s court has parallels from other cultures, categorized as Aarne-Thompson folktale type 1620.

The expressions The Emperor’s new clothes and The Emperor has no clothes are often used with allusion to Andersen’s tale. Most frequently, the metaphor involves a situation wherein the overwhelming (usually unempowered) majority of observers willingly share in a collective ignorance of an obvious fact, despite individually recognising the absurdity. A similar twentieth-century metaphor is the Elephant in the room.

The story is also used to express a concept of “truth seen by the eyes of a child”, an idea that truth is often spoken by a person too naïve to understand group pressures to see contrary to the obvious. This is a general theme of “purity within innocence” throughout Andersen’s fables and many similar works of literature.

“The Emperor Wears No Clothes” or “The Emperor Has No Clothes” is often used in political and social contexts for any obvious truth denied by the majority despite the evidence of their eyes, especially when proclaimed by the government. Amazon.com alone lists 17 works with one of these two phrases in the title, and this ignores political magazine articles and non-mainstream authors

A question for President Obama or Jay Carney

Posted by admin     Category: Politics

obama-carney-0226

Below is a question that I would really like answered by President Obama. If you agree that he should answer this question please share this and maybe it will get to one of the reporters that gets to question the President’s Secretary Jay Carney:

Did President Obama thoroughly read the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) prior to signing it into law?

I understand that he had meetings and spoke with Democratic lawmakers as this bill was put together (no Republicans were used in the designing, writing, or passing of this bill/law) but once it was complete and it passed the House and Senate, did the President actually take the time to read it before he signed it?

If so, did he not understand the bill? Is this why it appears that he lied to the American people about being able to keep our existing insurance, our existing doctors, etc. ? If he did not understand the bill shouldn’t we repeal it and come up with something that the President and the lawmakers actually understand?

If the President did understand the bill, then why did he lie to the American people?

Some Republicans obviously read the bill prior to it becoming a law. I saw a video clip recently of John Boehner from back in 2009 or 2010 specifically stating that other lawmakers (that were saying that Americans could keep their existing insurance) had either not read the bill or not understood it because Mr Boehner had read it, and he pointed out that the bill would force insurance companies to drop existing policies for millions of Americans.

So, we now know that the economists, financial analysts , experts, and Republicans that actually read the Affordable Care Act were correct. This means that the Democrats were wrong. The only question to be answered is did the Democrats not understand the law that they were creating or did they just lie to the American people, repeatedly, for the last handful of years?

Democrat’s Changing Their Tune

Posted by admin     Category: Politics

I live in Louisiana and recently sent a letter to Senator Mary Landrieu asking her to reconsider her position on Obamacare. Below is her first reply:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mary Landrieu

I understand your frustration with reports that Members of Congress and their staff are receiving an “exemption or “special subsidy” through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I hope I can shed some light on the Office of Personnel and Management’s (OPM) recent proposed rule regarding health insurance coverage for Members of Congress and their staff.

As you may know, the Affordable Care Act establishes new health insurance marketplaces called exchanges in every state where individuals without employer coverage and small businesses can shop for comprehensive, affordable health insurance beginning October 1, 2013. Members of Congress and their staff, who are employed by the federal government, are explicitly required to participate in the marketplace and will have the same choices offered to individuals and small businesses. This was a provision of the ACA that I voted for. As a result, on January 1, 2014, my staff and I will be covered by health insurance we obtain through the ACA’s marketplace.

The proposed rule you mentioned in your correspondence only clarified that the federal government, as an employer, can continue to make an employer contribution toward the cost of premiums. This means Members of Congress and their staff will continue to be responsible for paying their premiums in excess of the government’s share. For decades, many other public and private employers, including the State of Louisiana, have offered employee contributions as a benefit to attract and retain quality employees. In fact, the State of Louisiana’s employer contribution is approximately 75 percent for an individual and 65 percent for a family, which is in line with the federal government’s contribution, which is between 72 and 75 percent. In addition, in the private sector, for companies that employ more than 200 people, the national average for employer contributions is 83 percent for an individual and 78 percent for a family. This recent ruling by the Office of Personnel Management clarified that the federal government can participate in the marketplaces just like other employers that choose to obtain group coverage.

I hope I have cleared up that what Senator Vitter and others have mischaracterized as a “subsidy” or “exemption” is actually a continuation of the standard employer contribution benefit paid to U.S. government employees. The ACA will provide all Americans access to greater choice of higher quality health insurance, which will be there when you need it and include consumer protections such as no denials for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual caps on coverage, and preventive care without out-of-pocket costs. That is why I voted for it and will continue to work to improve our health care system.

With kindest regards, I am

Sincerely,

Signature

Mary Landrieu
United States Senator
________________________________________________________________________________
I then contacted Senator David Vitter and sent a copy of Senator Landrieu’s reply to my request. Below is what Senator Vitter replied to me:
________________________________________________________________________________
DVitterOfficial

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Washington exemption from Obamacare and Senator Landrieu’s response letter to you stating unequivocally that no such special treatment for Congress exists.

Senator Landrieu is trying to mislead you, to put it kindly. Others might say she is lying. As you have no doubt read, President Obama recently issued a special rule for Congress only. Under it, members of Congress and congressional staff will get a special subsidy to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare Exchange unavailable to every other American at similar income levels. That special subsidy is worth approximately $11,000 per family.

This is completely contrary to the letter and intent of the statutory language of Obamacare, which makes no provision for any special congressional subsidy. No where in the law or in the administration’s implementing regulations, does it allow private employers to contribute to their workers’ insurance on Obamacare’s individual exchange. In fact, the Treasury Department released guidance this week warning employers all of the ways they could not help their employees purchase insurance of the Obamacare exchange.

To block this illegal rule, I’m fighting for my “No Washington Exemption From Obamacare” bill. I feel strongly that the sooner Washington lives by the same provisions that it imposes on all other Americans – including millions who are being forced to go to the Exchange against their will – the sooner Washington will start fixing what is so obviously broken. I hope this clears up any confusion.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Now, for my question to you dear reader…which Senator is telling the whole truth and which is not?

Also, since this correspondence between me and the Senators, Senator Landrieu seems to have had a change of heart regarding Obamacare and has now introduced a bill on the Senate floor to allow Americans to keep their current insurance even if it does not meet the new standards. I assume that Ms. Landrieu either did not read the Affordable Care Act when she voted for it (and hence when she was telling everyone that Americans could keep their existing insurance policies she was just ignorant of what is in the bill), or she did not understand the bill and just voted for it to be a good Democrat, or she did know that people would lose their existing insurance and lied anyway thinking that she could just get away with it. In any of these cases, shame on her.

Raisin Farmers vs the Socialist Government of the United States

Posted by admin     Category: Politics

raisins

As of right now, the United States Government has the right, by a law passed in 1937, to confiscate up to 47% of a raisin farmer’s crops and then the USDA can sell it and ALL profits go to the government with absolutely nothing going to the farmer.

Isn’t this type of treatment by an imperialist government why the 13 Colonies revolted against British rule in the 1700’s? Well, we have come full circle now and our government is just as imperialistic.

Don’t believe me…do a little research.

Sybrina Fulton is milking Trayvon’s death for all it is worth

Posted by admin     Category: Politics

Sybrina Fulton

Let me be the first to say it, Trayvon Martin’s mom needs to shut up.

I mean, really, she thinks that George Zimmerman is at fault for her son’s death.

Here is another theory…she was a bad mother that did not teach her son right from wrong. He did not respect authority and I suspect he had an entitlement attitude. They are both probably racist too.

So you get this young punk that thinks he is “all that” because he is black. He has been picked up by the police before and they even admitted that they did not actually arrest him because he was black. The police did not want to seem racist so they let him go. Hell, just them saying that shows that they are racist…if Trayvon was white he would have been arrested. So, in this instance, letting a black teen go instead of showing him that there are consequences to his actions may have actually led to him getting himself killed. Trayvon smokes pot, he is a thug-wannabe as is shown by his cell phone pictures that he took of himself with guns, and he more than likely broke into a house and stole some jewelry that he was later caught with at school. I suspect that Trayvon was probably looking for houses to break in to the night that he died.

So, you have this little pot smoking punk who ATTACKS a man, unprovoked. Fuck what all these racist assholes are saying that George Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his truck. George Zimmerman should not have followed Trayvon. Yes he should have. Trayvon was a punk that was up to no good. Everyone, deep down, knows this…otherwise he would never have seemed suspicious to George Zimmerman. If Trayvon truly went to buy tea and skittles in the rain and was not looking for houses to break in to, he would have been at the very least walking briskly, in the rain, to get home. Had Zimmerman seen a guy walking fast in the rain, with the obvious purpose of getting home and out of the rain, Zimmerman would have never given it a second thought.

Anyone with a brain knows that Trayvon was up to no good, and his body language portrayed that, and Zimmerman called the police because of this.

Hell, just the FACT that Trayvon ran off and Zimmerman thought that he was gone, then Trayvon ATTACKED Zimmerman without any provocation PROVES that Trayvon was bad. Zimmerman did what any person in that situation would have done, he protected himself!

Now, you have Trayvon’s mom, who has trademarked her son’s name (I mean, really, who does that?!?), on national television talking against the Stand Your Ground law. Hell, the defense did not need, nor did they try to use, that law because it was so blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he killed that young asshole!

I think that it is repugnant that this supposedly grieving mother is trying to stay in the public eye and trying to keep this stuff alive. So, she is a poor parent who didn’t teach her son that it is wrong to attack an innocent man and we are supposed to pay attention to her political views. She doesn’t like the Stand Your Ground law? Fuck her.

There I’ve said it. You know you think the same thing deep down. We need to stop being so politically correct.

Are your brave enough, and honest enough, to “Like” this?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next