Please don’t forget our next meeting and let’s PRAY the weather cooperates.
Tuesday, March 4th: Whitley County Patriots proudly welcomes WOWO’s Mr. Pat Miller, Fort Wayne’s favorite radio talk show host.
Mr. Miller will wrap up our discussion on Obama-care and “where we go” from here.
The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at The Church of The Nazarene. Please plan to attend and bring all your family and friends! We will collect non-perishable food items for the local food bank.
Our next three meetings will feature ObamaCare and YOU:
- January — ObamaCare and Your Healthcare
- February — ObamaCare and Your Money
- March — ObamaCare and What You Can Do About It
Feeling perplexed by all the changes being made to your health insurance through “ObamaCare” (a.k.a. Affordable Care Act)?
Are you apprehensive about how the Affordable Care Act will impact you and your loved ones?
Then plan to attend the next Whitley County Patriots meeting on Tuesday, January 14th.
Several healthcare professionals will be on hand to explain how this law will effect your healthcare options and to answer your questions.
Our meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at The Church of The Nazarene, 506 N. Main St., Columbia City.
The public is welcome to attend.
From The Heritage Foundation:
Not only did the President and his partners in Congress take $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare, but they also raise taxes by $836.3 billion to pay for it, with $36.3 billion hitting Americans in 2013 alone. Here’s the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation‘s (JCT) updated cost of the Obamacare tax hikes and penalties.
To read about more of Obamacare’s negative effects, click here.
As you may have heard by now…Obamacare has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
This startling and unbelievable outcome means that we have only one option left…November.
The House, Senate, and Presidency MUST be conservative in January, or we’re headed for destruction.
There is one bright point of light in the ruling: The Opinion declares that the penalty for ignoring the mandate is a TAX. Therefore, Obamacare can now be truthfully called the largest tax increase ever put upon Americans. This will be a good campaign point for Romney.
HERE”S WHAT WE CAN DO:
It’s not going to do any good to get angry. It’s hot enough outside without adding steam from our ears. We must act.
We cannot be violent, because violence never wins.
I’m going to be very frank with this next statement: Some of you may believe that Glenn Beck is crazy, stupid, or both. Put those opinions aside for five minutes and read this plan of action:
- COMMIT: COMMIT to a higher calling. COMMIT to be personally responsible. COMMIT to be non-violent. Sign Martin Luther King’s pledge of non-violence.
- ACTIVATE: Use the tools linked below to check your voter registration. 14% of Americans THINK that they’re registered, but they’re not. Check yours. Then, check your friends, family, church roster, neighbors, and anyone else you can think of. Get out the vote!
- LIVE IT: Prove that we don’t need Big Government in our lives. Take care of the poor and needy WITHOUT government. Help your church or charity do these things. Be a better person tomorrow than you are today.
- CREATE: Take back the culture. Refuse to accept the CRAP that is being pushed upon us by Hollywood, television, and music. Support artists who are wholesome, good people who produce quality movies, TV, music and art. Create your own art with your values.
Please go to glennbeck.com and read about The Four Things. Learn about how to fix 100 years of Progressive damage. Then, act.
From Wrap Your Head Around:
Today on The Hill’s healthcare blog, Julian Pecquet cites Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker’s disgust with Senator Lugar’s flip-flop on the healthcare mandate.
“This is the worst ofWashington,” Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said in a statement. “Sen. Lugar co-sponsored the individual mandate, but when he finds himself in a partisan primary, he calls it unconstitutional without so much as attempting to explain his flip-flop. Hoosiers deserve better.”
This is in reference to Lugar joining an amicus brief of 36 Republican Senators, who are urging the Supreme Court to strike down the entire healthcare reform law if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. In 1993, Lugar supported such a mandate.
I agree with Parker that it’s the worst ofWashington, that Lugar should explain why he’s changed his mind, and that Hoosiers deserve better. However, while it may be the worst of Washington, I think what we’re seeing here is the best of we the people.
While I’d love to hear Lugar’s explanation of why he flip-flopped (and even why he finds it unconstitutional), he really doesn’t need to explain it to us. We know why he changed his mind: Richard Mourdock. He knows that enough Hoosiers are fed up withWashingtonand that they’re looking for someone who is going to represent their values and protect their rights by defending the Constitution—and from what they’ve seen, Richard Lugar is not that man. And he’s scared, as well he should be.
The reality of the situation is that Lugar is most likely changing his mind to get votes this election year—and so what! You know what that tells me? That we the people are holding him accountable for once, and he’s listening! This says so much for Hoosiers, Richard Mourdock, and the Tea Party. Does that mean Lugar can be trusted? No. Does that mean that we should give him those votes? No. He’s still not proving himself to be the senator we need. In fact, he’s proving himself to be just the opposite (things like the recent NDAA vote come to mind). But at least we can see the influence that we the people are having.
From The Weekly Standard:
The latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows that, by a margin of 19 percentage points (54 to 35 percent), Americans support the repeal of Obamacare. Among independents, the margin is 27 points (60 to 33).
Americans are also relatively confident that their desired result will be achieved: More people think Obamacare will be repealed (46 percent) than not (37 percent), with only 7 percent thinking repeal is “not at all likely.”
Of course, repealing Obamacare will require defeating President Obama.
From Hot Air:
Since the beginning of the debate over health-care reform, opponents of ObamaCare warned against the unintended consequences of setting up a mandate-and-subsidy system in place of the more free-market approach applied by existing state legislation. If the federal government provided subsidies in the form of refundable tax credits to the middle class to pay for health insurance, businesses burdened by expensive coverage costs would take the opportunity to exit the current model, throwing tens of millions onto what essentially amounts to government welfare rolls. Supporters claimed that businesses would ignore the clear cost benefit of abandoning insurance out of a sense of labor competition, and the administration’s cost estimates for the first ten years were predicated on a low rate of retreat.
According to a new study, the Democrats have guessed wrong — and that could cause subsidy costs to be tripled over initial estimates:
The more a company knows about coming changes to the nation’s health care laws, the more likely it is to consider radically restructuring the way it provides insurance to employees, according to a study by the consulting firm McKinsey and Co.
The study, which is being circulated among Republicans, predicts that as many as 30 percent of companies will stop offering health insurance benefits, reduce the level of benefits, or offer benefits only to certain employees. If this prediction holds, the number of Americans who could see changes to their health insurance would be far more than the 9 million to 10 million estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
That means that the cost of subsidizing plans for those people—about $19 billion a year, according to the CBO—could more than triple. And, if the report’s predictions are borne out, many Americans would lose their health insurance.
National Journal reports that most people won’t be too bothered by such a move, especially if they get a raise to partly offset the drop in compensation. Why? In part, people judge the compensation by the dollar value of their salary, but also because workers will believe they’ll end up ahead of the game. Although they’ll have to pay out of pocket for coverage, the extensive subsidies provided by Uncle Sam will make the choice look cheap.
Unfortunately, that’s only true if workers don’t consider the hidden costs of the subsidies themselves. That money has to come from somewhere, and it’s going to come in either higher taxes or bigger deficits, or both. The net result either way is to add trillions more in entitlement liabilities when our current liabilities are already spiraling into the realm of irrational numbers. That will cause the dollar to continue to decline, eroding the buying power of everyone but especially the working class that thinks a government freebie is a bargain.
Who coulda thunk this? Well … it’s really not that difficult to do math, except apparently in Washington DC.
You might have wondered how the American Association of Retired Persons could throw its money and influence behind ObamaCare. True like most establishment associations it is run by moonbats, but it still has to look out for the interests of retirees or there’s no point to its existence — and ObamaCare is about as friendly to seniors as Obama’s foreign policy is to Israel. Now comes the explanation — supporting ObamaCare earned the AARP an exemption from it:
The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.
Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.
The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare plans that add onto what Medicare won’t cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies’ biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.
As Big Government metastasizes, corruption spreads with it. The technical term for this process is Obamunism.
Whenever someone uses the term “slavery,” you can almost hear Lefties’ heads exploding–they get so apopaleptic. Immediately, they go into a frenzy, break open their Alinsky manuals, and attempt to ridicule the person making the point.
An example of this occurred just yesterday, when Sen. Rand Paul [R-KY] stated that those who believe that health care is a “right” believe in slavery. Yep. He used the dreaded ‘S’ word and, predictably, the whacky Left went bonkers.
Of course, his comments come on the heels of Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-VT] introducing a bill in the Senate for socialized medicine.
The fact of the matter is, and regardless how the Left wants to insipidly spin it, Rand Paul’s right. It is not an abstraction. It is the full realization of the principle the Left espouses when they claim there is a “right” to someone else’s labor.
Here is what Paul stated:
“With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me,” Paul said recently in a Senate subcommittee hearing.
“It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses,” Paul said, adding that there is “an implied use of force.”
“If I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to healthcare, you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be,” Paul said.
In hearing Paul’s argument, it is pretty clear that his definition of rights is that of individual rights, not collective rights, as defined here:
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
When Rand Paul speaks of the Left’s use of the term “right” to healthcare, he is speaking about a concept where one man (or society) has the “right” to demand the labor of another. It is a collectivist argument and Paul is right to frame it as such, regardless of whether people cringe over his usage of the “S” word.
Paul is not alone in his beliefs either, as illustrated here:
The true nature of rights — the type of rights the Founding Fathers believed in — involved the right of people to pursue such things as health care, education, clothing, and food and that government cannot legitimately interfere with their ability to do so.
Thus, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as described in the Declaration of Independence, doesn’t mean that someone else is forced to provide you with the means to sustain or improve your life. It means that government cannot enact laws, rules, or regulations that interfere with or infringe upon your right to pursue such things.
There is no difference whether the collectivist is demanding his “right” to health care, a job, a house, or high speed internet–all of these are “rights,” according to today’s Left.
Ironically, for all the Left’s recent clamoring over the “right” of government workers to collectively bargain, they apparently do not see the hypocrisy in their demanding an entire profession to be under the yoke of governmental control.
Unfortunately, today, we have a society where it has become acceptable for the Left to demand as its “right” the labors of an individual* without well-deserved repudiation. However, that does not make it right.
Rand Paul is right. Health care is not a “right.”
“Do you know what a camel is?” It was a strange question, but since it came from one of my uncles who retired as a university professor, I knew the answer would be interesting. So what is a camel? “It’s a horse assembled by a committee of PhDs,” replied my uncle. Excellent point. Something happens when you assemble in a room a group of people who fancy themselves as the best and the brightest in a given field, something that in biblical terms is best described as a thing which, “passeth all understanding.”
Back in 2009, President Obama wrote to Senator Max Baucus and the late Senator Ted Kennedy that, “We should ask why places like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and other institutions can offer the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” The answer appears to be that the Mayo Clinic knows how to reject a 2,000 page camel when it sees one. Today’s in-box includes news that a group of medical providers has taken the measure of the President’s health care law and found it wanting in virtually every category except that of bureaucratic incomprehensibility and heavy-handed regulation. Describing it as an “unusual rebuke” (to which one answers, “why should it be unusual?”), the AP story reports:
…an umbrella group representing premier organizations such as the Mayo Clinic wrote the administration Wednesday saying that more than 90 percent of its members would not participate, because the rules as written are so onerous it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed.
Donald Fisher, President of the American Medical Group Association, representing close to 400 large medical groups who provide services for approximately 1 in 3 Americans said, “It’s not just a simple tweak, it’s a significant change that needs to be made.” I suppose someone can tell Nancy Pelosi that people have finally read the bill that had to be passed before anyone would know what was in it, and they have concluded that this monstrosity simply will not work. The courts may or may not ultimately rule it Constitutional. But the people who have to ultimately implement this thing want no part of it.
Describing the laws provisions as, “overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome, and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive,” the medical group association sees huge problems on the horizon in a law that, according to the story, “rapidly exposes them to potential financial losses.”
All of which begs the following question: Why were the rules fashioned to be so burdensome as to jeopardize the very survival of these entities in the first place? As Obama himself put it, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process.” Or, as Barney Frank said, “…we don’t have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer and that’s the best way to reach single payer.” Anyone want to wager that this “overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome” camel is designed to precisely to squash private providers and usher in the era of a benevolent government provider?
History is replete with central planners who set out to make a better horse and instead brought forth a lopsided, smelly, obnoxious beast who spits and bites those who feed it while requiring more and more of them. Republican members of congress enjoy the trappings of office right now courtesy of an electorate that wants this law stopped, repealed, defunded, and killed. We may not be allowed to see Bin Laden’s corpse, but we’d sure like to see this odious law become fish food.