Archive for the ‘Obamacare’ Category

“Health System” Advocates Push For Fingerprinting Gun Owners in obamacare Schemes

January 1, 2013 3 comments

By and , Published: December 30

The words were tucked deep into the sprawling text of President Obama’s signature health-care overhaul. Under the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” was a brief provision restricting the ability of doctors to gather data about their patients’ gun use — a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.

The language, pushed by the National Rifle Association in the final weeks of the 2010 debate over health care and discovered only in recent days by some lawmakers and medical groups, is drawing criticism in the wake of this month’s schoolhouse massacre of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Conn. Some public health advocates, worried that the measure will hinder research and medical care, are calling on the White House to amend the language as it prepares to launch a gun-control initiative in January….


Military Veterans Facing Infringement Of Their Second Amendment Rights

December 4, 2012 3 comments

TWG: Another reason the lefties are getting so involved in Veterans causes. Notice how they’ve suddenly created a plethora of groups “dedicated” to returning Veterans?  They’re diligently working to get as many Veterans as possible labeled with the “PTSD” illness in order to disarm them.   Liberals involved in Veteran’s health and well being is a ruse. Don’t fall for it, Veterans.  Their goal is to disarm you, drug you up and steal your rights.  


Veterans’ gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill

Published December 03, 2012

Associated Press

  • ShumerCoburn2.jpg

    Sen, Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., left, talks with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on Capitol Hill in Washington, during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address in Washington. (AP)

WASHINGTON –  Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?

The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

“I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us,” Schumer said. “If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran’s name in the Criminal Background Check System.

A core group of lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has for several years wanted to prohibit the VA from submitting those names to the gun-check registry unless a judge or magistrate deems the veteran to be a danger. This year’s version of the bill has 21 co-sponsors. It passed the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee by voice vote, a tactic generally reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Coburn’s amendment to the defense bill contained comparable language.

“All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution,” Coburn said in the Senate debate last Thursday night.

Congressional aides said Coburn will likely drop his effort to amend the defense bill with his proposal, but that he intends to try again on other bills coming to the Senate floor.

The number of veterans directly affected by the VA’s policy doesn’t appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.

Still, the legislation over the years has attracted strong support from the National Rifle Association and various advocacy groups for veterans.

“We consider it an abject tragedy that so many of our veterans return home, after risking life and limb to defend our freedom, only to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights because they need help managing their compensation,” Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, wrote last year in an editorial.

The NRA did not respond to queries from the AP about Coburn’s latest effort.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VA’s current policy reasonable.

“We’re talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that they’re unable to manage their own affairs,” Gross said. “If you’re deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that’s likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.”

Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said veterans with a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder but who pose no threat to others are possibly being barred from gun ownership. The current restrictions might even be a disincentive for veterans to seek needed treatment, he said.

“We want to remove these stigmas for mental health treatment. It’s a combat injury,” Tarantino said. “They wouldn’t be doing this if you were missing your right hand, so they shouldn’t be doing it if you’re seeking treatment for post-traumatic-stress-disorder or traumatic brain injury.”

VA officials have told lawmakers they believe veterans deemed incompetent already have adequate protections.

For example, they said, veterans can appeal the finding of incompetency based on new evidence. And even if the VA maintains a veteran is incompetent, he can petition the agency to have his firearm rights restored on the basis of not posing a threat to public safety.


Five States That Voted For Marxist obama About To Get Hit With TOP TAX INCREASES.

November 21, 2012 6 comments

While I’m sad for the American Conservatives who have to suffer this, I wouldn’t give the teeniest, tiniest, turdiest turd about the DIMS who have to suck this up.  THIS is what “social justice” looks like.  HA!  They get what they voted for.   Just wait until they see how many companies are shutting down because of the obamacare scheme.   I’ve seen lists that are JAW DROPPING.  Those that voted for marxism are about to see what consequences look like.  BOOT MARKS ACROSS THEIR SCRAWNY LITTLE NECKS AND WHIP MARKS ACROSS THEIR BONY, BOWED BACKS. I’ll spit on their DAMNED graves. “Elections have consequences” SUCKERS.

Sandy-Ravaged New Jersey Families Face $6,933 Tax Hike in Fiscal Cliff Stalemate

November 21, 2012

( – Families in Hurricane Sandy-ravaged New Jersey will face the highest tax increase as a percentage of their income – 6.82%  or about $6,933 more in taxes — if Congress does not reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff tax issues during the lame-duck session, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

In its study of how the fiscal cliff would affect typical families in each state, the Tax Foundation reports that if the numerous tax provisions that are due to expire on Dec. 31 are not changed, a four-person family in New Jersey with a median income of $101,682 will see its taxes go up at a rate 6.82 percent of its income, which translates into about $6,933.

The tax issues in question are the expiration of the Bush tax rates, which also include the elimination of the 10 percent tax bracket and the reduced deduction for married filers; ending the 2 percent cut to employee-side Social Security taxes; and the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Maryland was ranked second by the Tax Foundation because a four-person family there, with a median income of $106,707, would see its taxes go up 6.74 percent as a percentage of income, or about $7,194.

Connecticut, ranked third, would see taxes for a family of four go up by 6.62 percent, or $6,653.

All five states with the top tax increases are “blue states,” which President Obama won in the 2012 presidential election. But so are four out of the bottom five states with the exception of Kansas.

Top Five Tax Increases Tax Increases as % of Income

#1 – New Jersey $6,933                                6.82%

#2 – Maryland    $7,194                                 6.74%

#3 – Connecticut $6,653                                6.62%

#4 – Massachusetts $6,632                           6.53%

#5 – New Hampshire $5,660                          5.81%

Forty states would see tax increases between $3,000 and $3,999. Six states would see an increase between $4,000 and $4,999 and three would see increases between $6,000 and $6,999.

New Hampshire would be the only state to see a tax increase between $5,000 and $5,999 and Maryland would be the only state to see a tax increase over $7,000.

Bottom Five Tax Increases Tax Increases as % of Income

#50 – Washington $3,362                                4.12%

#49 – Hawaii    $3,453                                    4.16%

#48 – Colorado $3,646                                    4.29%

#47 – Kansas $3,227                                      4.31%

#46 – Illinois $3,417                                        4.32%

The potential for tax increases on millions of U.S. taxpayers is still possible, the Tax Foundation explains, and would be especially devastating for lower-income families because of the changes to the child tax credit; the elimination of the 10 percent bracket, which would go back to 15 percent; and the reduced standard deduction for married filers — all of which are provisions in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.


Question For The Glassy Eyeds…

November 21, 2012 5 comments


Will State Lawmakers Stand Against Voters And Impose Obamacare?

November 16, 2012 2 comments


By Dana Loesch

Source: DanaLoeschRadio.Com


Going solely on the remarks of Missouri State Rep. Jay Barnes, that answer is yes.

Yesterday I promised to assist in the primarying of any Republican lawmaker who refused to stand with the people who have twice voted against Obamacare. I disagreed on Twitter with Rep. Barnes’s assessment of our options where it concerns state exchanges and asked him about his quote in the St. Louis’s daily. His reasoning is that it’s better for us to implement Obamacare exchanges at the state level because that way we retain some sort of control, a premise that I and a frillion other conservatives who have followed this topic closely strongly dispute — along with Governors Perry, Jindal, Walker, Kasich, Snyder, Scott, and others, plus voters in Alabama, Montana, Wyoming, my state of Missouri, Ohio, Arizona, and Oklahoma who have voted for or amended their state constitutions to exclude Obamacare, and the 27 states suing over Obamacare — Barnes’s assessment. But apparently, we’re all uninformed and it’s a good thing we have state lawmakers with imperialistic complexes to guide us through the difficulties of self government.

I figured that we would end up agreeing to disagree but what I did not expect was to be yelled at, grotesquely condescended to, and have my intelligence questioned on live air by a sitting state representative simply because I disagreed with his opinion. I was shocked, to say the least. I want better for my listeners than a conversation where one party constantly interrupts and talks over the other one as she tries to ask a question. I wished it had gone better.



One question I tried to ask, to which Rep. Barnes responded with straw man and immediately convoluted, concerned how the Supreme Court gave states an opt out where it concerns Medicaid. Specifically:

By upholding the mandate as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power in June, the U.S. Supreme Court maintained the provision that helped hold the law together. But if the mandate is the cement, the law’s expansion of Medicaid and establishment of subsidized health insurance exchanges is the house itself. It’s these two provisions that will be responsible for $1.7 trillion of spending over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.




One of the silver linings of the Supreme Court decision is that it gave states the ability to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. Medicaid is one of the programs that is crushing state budgets and if implemented as intended, Obamacare will add 18 million beneficiaries to the program’s rolls. Though the federal government lures states with a honey pot in the short term – covering all of the expansion through 2016, by 2020 the states will be asked to kick in 10 percent of the cost, amounting to billions of dollars of spending imposed on states nationwide each year. It would be to the long-term benefit of governors to opt of the expansion.

How are states going to cope with this added cost?

My colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale estimates that expanding Medicaid will cost individual states up to $53 billion over the first ten years. That’s before an emboldened President Obama follows through on his threats to shift more Medicaid costs to states.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to fully ask this question at it relates to Missouri as Barnes interrupted and stated that Obamacare has nothing to do with this. Obamacare has nothing to do with increasing Medicaid costs for the states?

The law requires states to offer Medicaid to everyone making less than 138 percent of the poverty line — just over $30,000 for a family of four. In exchange, the federal government covers the cost of the expansion for the first three years — and 90 percent thereafter.


Sounds like a great deal for the states. But the administrative expenses involved in expanding the program will increase Medicaid costs for most states — even during the period when the government foots the bill, according to a new survey conducted by the Government Accountability Office.

Oooook. I’m not sure if Rep. Barnes understood what I was trying to ask or if he was excited and heard something else. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt even if his manners today have shown he doesn’t deserve such a courtesy; there’s simply no way possible that one can separate Obamacare from the increased costs states are going to assume with Medicaid in addition to the costs associated with operating the health exchanges estimated to be anywhere from $10 million to $100 million per year.

Furthermore, there is only the appearance of state control. As Phillip Klein notes:

Though the law creates the veneer of providing states with flexibility on the exchanges, the reality is that all of the major decisions – from the broad structure of the exchanges to the details of what kind of health care plans will be offered in the exchanges and how they will be marketed – will be made from Washington. A careful reading of the law finds that all of the sections about state “flexibility” are filled with caveats that render them useless in practice, because Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius will be running the show. For instance, Obamacare specifies that, “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.” And later orders that “An Exchange may not make available any health plan that is not a qualified health plan.” In other words, Sebelius will get to decide what type of health care plans can be offered on these state exchanges.


The law dictates that states must “assign a rating to each qualified health plan offered through such Exchange in accordance with the criteria developed by the Secretary” and “utilize a standardized format for presenting health benefits plan options in the Exchange.” The law also specifies that health plans must disclose certain information in plain language. Who determines what constitutes plain language? Well: “The Secretary and the Secretary of Labor shall jointly develop and issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.” Then, there’s this dandy: “An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this subtitle.”


Given that governors will have no real control over the exchanges anyway, they may as well let Obama administration officials sleep in the bed they made for themselves.

Rep. Barnes’s claims, and the claims of any Missouri Republican who say that these exchanges will be free of HHS oversight, simply don’t make sense, especially as the law itself dictates otherwise.

Barnes’s argument is that because Prop E says “legislature,” the will of the voters can be overlooked, emphasis mine:

Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature?


No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues are unknown.

Reminder: the people of Missouri have twice rejected the supremely unpopular law. Being elected to office isn’t a free pass to supplant voters’ will with that of your own.

I want to help the Republican party become more constitutionally-focused and see them win more elections. It’s really difficult to do that when voters feel undermined after twice making their wishes known to lawmakers only to find them falling upon deaf ears.

Help me help you. 

Please keep the pressure on.

This Is Your Life Under The obamacare Scam. Congratulations, Idiots.

November 15, 2012 4 comments

{TWG:  Thanks a lot, you ignorant,  glassy eyed, obama-snuggling God Damned MARXIST PIGS.  We, The People, will NEVER forgive you for what you’ve done.]


November 15, 2012

This Is Your Life under Obamacare

By James Arlandson

Thanks, Obama voters. You just imposed on the rest of us degraded medical care and rising costs. This is no longer hypothetical or abstract. It’s real. It’s the law.

Read more:

Status Of State Health Insurance Exchanges

November 15, 2012 Leave a comment

Status of State Health Insurance Exchange Decisions

Governors and other state officials, across the states, are deciding whether their state will establish a Health Insurance Exchange. The Department of Health and Human Services has given States until Friday November 16, 2012 to decide. We have been following this issue closely and here’s the status of the states as best as we can tell.

States NOT establishing a State Exchange (17):


Undecided States (15):


States plan to establish a State Exchange (18):


Created from information Kaiser Health News’ Exchange map>/a> and reports from PoliticoPro Health and other news sources.

FL: We have not removed Florida yet despite comments made by Gov. Scott that seem to indicate he may change his mind. PoliticoPro reports that the CATO Institute and Freedom Works received multiple assurances that Gov. Scott hasn’t changed his position “one iota.”)

NH: New Hampshire’s new governor may attempt to move towards establishing an exchange but we have left it in the “No state Exchange” category based on past legislation signed by the governor that blocked the Exchange. See .
MO: Missourians passed a referendum this month that prohibits its governor [who supports a state exchange] from acting unilaterally

WV: West Virginia is expected to announce 11/15/2012 that it will NOT establish a state exchange;

%d bloggers like this: