Are you old? Under Obamacare you're not likely to get much older!

Article provided by Andrew Koeppel, convervative Wilmington activist, January 3, 2012 -- and it doesn’t apply to Congress!

I PRAY THAT OBUMMA CARE WILL BE REPEALED AND WE WILL HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT!!!!!  WHEN YOU READ THIS IT WILL MAKE YOU MAD!!

LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO US!!!  EVERYONE IN CONGRESS WHO VOTED FOR THIS BILL SHOULD BE KICKED OUT IN THE STREET - OR WORSE!!  

 THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE READ BY ANYONE WHO HAS TO RESIDE IN THE USA FROM NOW ON. IT IS REALLY UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!

This is the law that was passed. God have mercy on us

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment
What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, "pass it and then read it!!." Here it is!
______________________________
Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number

THE CARE BILL HB 3200


JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL. 

Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200

Please read this........ Especially the reference to pages 58 & 59 !!!!!!


JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. 

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. Section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. 


 
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..) 
 
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

- Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas
All of the above should give you the ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.

  

Obama cuts major part of health care reform law -- a few more bites and it will be all gone!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 14, 2011

 

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR   10/14/11 05:50 PM ET  

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law – a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.

Targeted by congressional Republicans for repeal, the program became the first casualty in the political and policy wars over the health care law. It had been expected to launch in 2013.

"This is a victory for the American taxpayer and future generations," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spearheading opposition in the Senate. "The administration is finally admitting (the long-term care plan) is unsustainable and cannot be implemented."

Proponents, including many groups that fought to pass the health care law, have vowed a vigorous effort to rescue the program, insisting that Congress gave the administration broad authority to make changes.

Long-term care includes not only nursing homes, but such services as home health aides for disabled people.
Known as CLASS, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program was a longstanding priority of the late Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Although sponsored by the government, it was supposed to function as a self-sustaining voluntary insurance plan, open to working adults regardless of age or health. Workers would pay an affordable monthly premium during their careers, and could collect a modest daily cash benefit of at least $50 if they became disabled later in life. The money could go for services at home, or to help with nursing home bills.

But a central design flaw dogged CLASS. Unless large numbers of healthy people willingly sign up during their working years, soaring premiums driven by the needs of disabled beneficiaries would destabilize it, eventually requiring a taxpayer bailout.

After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, finally admitted Friday she doesn't see how.

"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.

The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place.

But officials said they discovered they could not make CLASS both affordable and financially solvent while keeping it a voluntary program open to virtually all workers, as the law also required.

Monthly premiums would have ranged from $235 to $391, even as high as $3,000 under some scenarios, the administration said. At those prices, healthy people were unlikely to sign up. Suggested changes aimed at discouraging enrollment by people in poor health could have opened the program to court challenges, officials said.

"If healthy purchasers are not attracted ... then premiums will increase, which will make it even more unattractive to purchasers who could also obtain policies in the private market," Kathy Greenlee, the lead official on CLASS, said in a memo to Sebelius. That "would cause the program to quickly collapse."

That's the same conclusion a top government expert reached in 2009. Nearly a year before the health care law passed, Richard Foster, head of long-range economic forecasts for Medicare warned administration and congressional officials that CLASS would be unworkable. His warnings were disregarded, as Obama declared his support for adding the long-term care plan to his health care bill.

The demise of CLASS immediately touched off speculation about its impact on the federal budget. Although no premiums are likely to be collected, the program still counts as reducing the federal deficit by about $80 billion over the next ten years. That's because of a rule that would have required workers to pay in for at least five years before they could collect any benefits.

"The CLASS Act was a budget gimmick that might enhance the numbers on a Washington bureaucrat's spreadsheet but was destined to fail in the real world," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Administration officials said Obama's next budget would reflect the decision not to go forward. Even without CLASS premiums, they said the health care law will still reduce the deficit by more than $120 billion over 10 years.

Kennedy's original idea was to give families some financial breathing room. Most families cannot afford to hire a home health aide for a frail elder, let alone pay nursing home bills. Care is usually provided by family members, often a spouse who may also have health problems.

"We're disappointed that (Sebelius) has prematurely stated she does not see a path forward," AARP, the seniors' lobby, said in a statement. "The need for long-term care will only continue to grow."

Sebelius said the administration wants to work with Congress and supporters of the program to find a solution. But in a polarized political climate, it appears unlikely that CLASS can be salvaged. Congressional Republicans remain committed to its repeal.

 Barack Obama ,   Health Insurance ,   Obama Health Care ,   Video , Community Living Assistance Services And Supports Program , Obama Health Insurance Reform , Class Insurance , Class Program , Obama Health Care Reform , Politics News

Betsy McCaughey: Court ruling 'Slams the Brakes' on Obamacare.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / August 12, 2011

BOTTOM LINE IS -- OBAMA CAN GIVE YOU STUFF, AND TAKE STUFF AWAY FROM YOU, BUT HE CAN'T MAKE YOU BUY STUFF YOU DON'T WANT.

 

Friday, 12 Aug 2011 06:59 PM

By David A. Patten / NEWSMAX

...

Opponents of Obamacare rejoiced Friday after a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled the individual mandate at the heart of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform legislation is unconstitutional. 
 
The 2-to-1 verdict in the 11th Circuit court in Atlanta sets up a dramatic, seemingly inevitable election-year showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of President Obama’s signature legislative initiative.

Former New York lieutenant governor and healthcare expert Betsy McCaughey said the ruling effectively puts the brakes on cash-strapped states’ implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Many more states now will slow down or entirely halt their current efforts to create state insurance exchanges,” said McCaughey, who hailed the decision as “a very important day for all Americans who care about individual liberty, and a very important day for those who are concerned about the economic growth urgently needed by this nation.”

McCaughey predicted states won’t spend scare resources preparing to implement a law that appears very vulnerable to being thrown out as unconstitutional.

Asked if the decision slams the brakes on implementation efforts at the state level, McCaughey replied: “Oh yes. They will be obligated to make that decision, because that’s the prudent decision in the best interest of their own local taxpayers.”

Friday’s ruling gave ObamaCare opponents a much-needed victory. In June, a Cincinnati court ruled in favor of the law in a case brought by the Thomas More Law Center. That ruling was notable because one of the judges in the majority was a Republican.

So far, federal judges in Florida and Virginia have ruled against the Act, while judges in Michigan and Virginia upheld it. Judges appointed by Democrats have consistently upheld the law, while Republican judges generally ruled against it. But Friday, one Republican judicial appointee and one Democratic judicial appointee concurred that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has been leading a separate legal challenge to ObamaCare in the Old Dominion, issued a statement congratulating the 26 state attorneys general who successfully brought the constitutional challenge to the 11th Circuit Court.

"The court determined that the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another is outside the established outer limits of both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” Cuccinelli stated.

 “The court also ruled that although the president and Congress want to now call the penalty a tax to make it pass constitutional muster, the penalty cannot be sustained under the federal government's taxing authority because the penalty is clearly not a tax,” he said.

In May, the separate suit brought by Cuccinelli was heard by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, which has yet to issue a ruling.

The setback on its legislative centerpiece put an exclamation point on another tough political week for the administration. The White House issued a statement Friday that it “strongly” disagrees with the 11th Circuit’s decision, and predicted its ruling will be overturned. Considering the decisive language used in the 11th Circuit’s majority opinion, however, that could prove difficult.

“The individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and is therefore unconstitutional,” wrote Chief Judge Joel Dubina. “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potential unbounded assertion of congressional authority: The ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

McCaughey’s reaction: “That’s very accurate. If Congress can force individuals to buy health insurance, Congress can force individuals to buy stocks and bonds to prop up Wall Street, or American-made automobiles to prop up Detroit.”

In one setback to ObamaCare opponents, the 11th Circuit Court also ruled that the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the 2,700-page law. That means the other provisions can remain in effect.

Legal experts say it is almost inevitable now that the Supreme Court will hear the challenge to ObamaCare prior to the election.

“There are a few minor procedural tools the solicitor general might try to use to delay things,” McCaughey said. “But I think the Supreme Court will understand that this is very much in the nation’s interest, not simply because of the presidential election. A reasonably timely decision is needed because of the timetable within in the law itself, states are expending huge amounts of money preparing for a law that might never go into effect.

“States are crippled with uncertainty over the future impact of this law. So it is very important for the welfare of the nation that this decision be made,” she said.

Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, estimates an 85 percent chance the Supreme Court will rule on the various appeals in June 2012.
“It was sharply worded,” Alt said of the 11th Circuit ruling. “But I think it was sharply worded in part because of the very serious constitutional problems that are inherent in the statute.”

Alt said the 11th Circuit rejected the constitutionality of the individual mandate based what he called the administration’s “broccoli problem.”

In January, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida issued a sweeping ruling tossing out the entire law. If the federal government could mandate a health-insurance purchase because it somehow affects interstate commerce, he asked, what purchase couldn’t it require? Vinson said by that logic the federal government could require citizens to purchase broccoli -- a point widely mocked by the left but one the administration has yet to overcome legally.

McCaughey said the 11th Circuit ruling could have major implications for the looming Congressional “supercommittee” debate over deficits and entitlements. Obamacare drastically expanded Medicaid to cover an estimated 85 million people by 2018, and counted on billions in projected revenue from individual-mandate penalties to help defray that cost, she said.

“And now the question is, what is the administration going to do about that? They’ve been ardently, vocally calling for entitlement reform and cuts in entitlements. But they’re only talking about Medicare,” said McCaughey.

“The new deal that was passed on Aug. 2nd bars this supercommittee from cutting Medicaid,” she said. “But Medicaid is the big elephant in the room. Medicaid is the huge entitlement just created.

“So it’s going to be very interesting to see how the Obama administration handles this,” she said, adding: “The best way to reform entitlements is not to put newly created ones into effect.”

McCaughey said the economically viable portions of the new law many consumers find desirable, such as allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, and altering the lifetime caps on reimbursements to patients, “could be retained in a 20-page bill in plain English, if consumers want these features.”

Alt predicted that if the Supreme Court invalidates the individual mandate but leaves intact other provisions of the bill such as the stipulation that consumers must be covered for pre-existing conditions, Congress would have no choice but to act to keep insurance firms in business.

“The Obama administration has argued that if you strike down the mandate and require everything else, it will lead to what they call ‘the ineluctable failure’ of the healthcare market in the United States,” he said.

“Essentially, the health insurers couldn’t continue to operate like that. That’s an example of why Judge Vinson got it right in the lower court. … The statute just doesn’t operate without the mandate. You can’t really carve that out and make it work.”

Alt predicted a mixed Supreme Court verdict along the lines of the 11th Circuit ruling would lead to “pretty heavy lifting right away by Congress. Otherwise the insurance industry would get gutted by this.”


© Newsmax. All rights reserved.