ObamaCare to ObamaTax

From ObamaCare to ObamaTax. Here are the taxes being imposed by the Democrat's healthcare law. Only Democrats passed this, and the American people have been against it since the start; polls show at least 57% against as of this posting. The lowest has been 51% against. Some polls show as high as 67%. There's a lot in the law that has absolutely nothing to do with health or medicine. There's twenty or twenty one new taxes, some listed below. Full article here.

Health and Human Services (HHS)  taxes (this is already in effect) charitable hospitals $50,000 if they don't meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules. Don't know the number, but my bet is most charitable hospitals are Christian institutions, and we know Obama is an anti-Christian bigot. Obama is against charity; remember one of the first things he did was reduce deductions for charitable giving.

There's a tax increase of $4.5 billion for a specific type of bio fuel. This has what do to with health care?

This was one of the first to be noticed by the public: a 10% tax on tanning bed usage.

If you have a flex account through work to purchase medical stuff, that's off the table now. You can only use it for the purchase of prescription meds, not over the counter except for insulin. For cryin' out loud, prescription meds you get through your health insurance.

Your employer starting this year will be reporting your insurance on the W2. How long before that's used to tax your health benefits? Right now those are pre tax. This is the set up to take that away.

There's a 3.8% surtax on investments. What's this have to do with health insurance?

"Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens."

Medical devices will be taxed. Need a wheelchair or prosthetic device? Taxed.

Have a special needs child? Before there was an open ended flexible spending account for them. Now it's capped. It was unlimited.

Then, most famously, the mandate. If you decide not to participate in ObamaTax, you'll pay a penalty, er, tax, on something you don't use. Same for employers, but for them it may be cheaper to pay the tax than carry employee insurance. Look to lose your private health insurance. The ultimate goal of ObamaTax is to force everyone onto a single payer system. Obama stated this several times, it's on vid, that he wanted this; he just stopped saying it when he started to campaign for president.

If you have a health plan with lots of bell and whistles, a "Cadillac" plan, there will be an 40% tax increase on that. Congress has a "Cadillac" plan. They are exempt. Of course, they are exempt from all of this.

This really really really must be repealed. It's the death knell of our constitutional republic if left in place. If the government can manage your health needs, and take even more of your money if you don't comply, you have no freedom.

In the early 1960's Reagan spoke against the very thing that's happening to us now. If you haven't heard this yet, please, listen up.

http://youtu.be/fRdLpem-AAs

Nope, Didn't Happen

Before lying to scare seasoned citizens that they wouldn't get their Social Security checks if the debt limit wasn't raised (they will get their checks) he lied about health care in America when promoting Obamacare.

http://www.mrctv.org/video/103791

Dems, The Party of Denial

Democrat's New Party Symbol?

Obama and his Dems are the party of denial. Not that they deny anything of themselves, they deny what is good from others.

They have denied new oil drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, throwing thousands of people out of work; an estimated 5,000 jobs. They used the oil rig explosion there as justification. They don’t allow drilling off either coast. They don’t allow drilling on Alaska’s North Shore. They don’t allow squeezing oil out of shale.

Mining here in Nevada, a really big contributor to our economic well being is severely limited. Mining nation wide is under attack. Using environmental protection laws like they have for shutting down oil production in this country, they have changed existing environmental laws regarding the water quality of nearby streams. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, part of the Interior Department, admits that this will cost an estimated 7,000 jobs.

Obama and his Dems say no to building refineries (through time and cost prohibitive regulations), and no to nuclear plants.

They attempt to limit the right to bear arms through gun control legislation.

Limit freedom of religion thorough court rulings (the Cross in the Mohave, the Cross on Mt Soledad in San Diego [both war memorials]) and convincing a large number of people that the separation of church and state is in the Constitution and the establishment clause means the State can enforce freedom from religion. It just says the State can’t establish a Federal religion. The irony here is that Secularism and Socialism have become the State religion, and is being forced on us through legislation passed in the dead of night and regulation by bureaucracy.

Limit the freedom of press by trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, Obama’s internet “kill switch”, in internet “neutrality”.

They say no to health care by nationalizing it. Government makes all resources scarce; it’s how they control people. Making health care a national, centrally controlled bureaucracy of a government that's $trillions in debt will necessarily limit those resources. They have effectively put the kibosh on the pharmaceutical industry, so now the Feds in HHS are going to do research and development to fill the vacuum. Really? How productive is that going to be?

Then there’s S510, the food control legislation that controls food production from seed to table. Where that’s going has already happened in San Francisco and New York City, where they tell private companies what they can serve in restaurants and put in vending machines.

Democrats. No to mining. No to domestic oil production . No to guns. No to religion. No to a free press. No to personal health decisions and care. No to refineries. No to food they disapprove of.

And they made fun of Nancy Reagan’s, “Just say no”.   

Healthcare Bill by Section and Paragraph

“Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must – must -- redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.” -Dr. Donald Berwick, Director of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He was appointed when Congress was out of session, avoiding Senate confirmation hearings. Berwick is a full blown Communist and would not have gotten approved; not even all Dems could sanction this guy. Berwick is an advocate of rationed health care, saying several times it’s a good thing. Health and Human Services Secretary Sibelius has agreed with him several times, and endorsed him.

This vid is a break down by line and section of what’s in the anti-health care bill so you can look up the paragraph and section and read for yourself what’s in there. My Liberal friends say this intervention of government into our health lives is a good thing. Liberalism used to mean restricting government’s intervention into our lives. That’s now known as “classical liberalism”.

For reading about what’s in ObamaCare, read Sally Pipes’ “The Truth About Obamacare”. I regard her as the leading expert on the subject. Don’t believe any of the politicians that say what’s in it is good for you; they never read the Bill, by their own admission. Plus, they have an opt out, they don’t have to participate in the legislation, they have their own Cadillac program (no insult to Cadillac intended) that they are keeping.

    

Put the Burger Down and Step Away

Michelle Obama, after lecturing people about eating healthy food during her address to the NAACP a couple days ago, went to an ice cream parlor and had a large chocolate "Hurricane Swirl". Her husband is way too often popping into greasy burger joints and woofing down beefy mush burgers with all the fixin's.

While doing that, they have visited upon us an electronic tracking system of your health records, that will be open to every government bureaucrat in Amerika. This will be in place by 2014, by law of ObamaCare, and you will be required to have your BMI in your electronic records. “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”

These will be know as electronic health records (EHRs). If health care providers do not comply with putting their patients BMI in the EHR, and forwarding it to the Federal government, then there will be penalties.

Section 301 of the law:

"Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: "The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.‘‘(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."

The BMI, Body Mass Index, for those of you not up on health lingo, is used to determine if you're fat or not (height to weight ratio). With this law, your BMI info will be sent to any federal or state government health agency.

Here's another quote from the law: “Electronically record, retrieve, and transmit syndrome based public health surveillance information to public health agencies.”

The ultimate goal of ObamaCare is that everyone will be on a single payer government health care program, except of course the wealthy Obama's and other wealthy people, politicians, union members, and federal employees. Once the law is in effect, if you change your health care policy, or changing jobs changes your health care policy, then you must, under penalty of law, buy a policy sanctioned by the government. Corporations will shed their employee policies because it's cheaper to pay fines for not providing employee coverage than maintaining their policies.

Plus, if the government, once you're forced onto their program, thinks your BMI too high, you will of course have to pay a higher fee or tax toward the health care program. Of course all those greasy burger joints will be taxed extra for selling food not approved by the government, which means the patrons will have to pay more because business taxes are passed to the consumer, and burgers drive up fat. Already afoot in several Statist controlled states are extra taxes on 'sugary drinks'. The Statist government in NYC tells chefs how much salt they can use (I think this is a pending law). Are you more that ten pounds over on your BMI? Better loose it by 2014 and keep it off.

All the men will look like the cover models on "Men's Health" magazine and all the women will look like super models. We will all use our gorgeous bodies to bow down to the State.

Governing Against the Will of the People (vid)

Congressional calls against this bill got up to about 100,000 per hour this past week. There have been large protests nationwide. There was a large protest in D C. If millions of people were against, and protesting against Republican legislation, it would lead every news program and be above the fold on every paper. Seen much from the Jurassic Press? Other than support for it that is...

I read and heard in several places that Republicans pulled this kind of reconciliation maneuver several times; problem is they haven't been able to provide any examples. The reason is the reconciliation meetings were for budget reasons, according to law.

Obeying the law isn't something the Dems approve of:

"There Are No Rules Here ... We Make Them Up As We Go Along"

I usually avoid politics on the weekends, but today the Dems are calling for a vote so they can force their Statist vision on Amerika.

The Seven Faces of Dr. Obama (vid)

Now he, Pelosi, Reid, Dems using this senate budget rule to ram legislation down the citizens' throat. 56% to 60% of the American people are against this.

In the Begining Were the Words

Let's start with the premise that words mean something. In the context of Statists' firming up the foundation for their new oppressive vision of Amerika, on November 7 we were presented with the 2000 page, 450,000 word Rules for Obedience to the State.

The word regulation appears 181 times.
The word tax appears 214 times.
The word fee 103 times.
The word shall over 3,000 times.

The Dems, the Statists, are going to take more of our money in the form of taxes and fees, and we shall submit to their vision of how we take care of our bodies, and ultimately how we live every aspect of our lives.

No American Should Have to Choose Between Health Insurance and Getting Drunk (vid)

ObamaCare, Bishops and Abortion

Even though the Statists pushing for ObamaCare deny it, federally funded abortion is part of it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent the Whitehouse a letter saying they will oppose this healthcare reform until that is taken out. Whitehouse spokesperson Gibbs was asked about it, and said it wasn't in there, there was an existing law excuding it. There is an amendment, and apparently he was referring to the Hyde amendment. That amendment is in the Health and Human Services Appropriation, which is renewed yearly, and is specific to that year. Gibbs is such a knucklehead. I never thought someone worse than Scott McClellan would be in that position, but here we are.

There was an amendment to ObamaCare that excluded State funded abortion, but the Dems voted it down.

Another thing Obama and the Dems are lying about (which caused the "you lie!" outburst) is that illegal aliens will not get free healthcare under ObamaCare. They will, because of the equal protection clause. That law, as the Supreme Court has ruled, means that regardless of legal status (illegally in the country), the laws of the US apply. ObamaCare applies. To everyone. To illegals. Obama, as a constitutional law professor knows this, so he is lying. Or he doesn't know this, so how did he become a law professor? If you or I had such a glaring gap in the knowledge of our job, we'd get fired.

MSNBC Discussion-Healthcare...ummmmm

If you're against ObamaCare you hate sick people. Anyway, given the drubbing ObamaCare got this summer, and the trouble it's facing now (with the Senate Finance Committee refusing to release it 72 hrs before the vote), I find the idea fascinating these two knuckheads think they're winning the health care debate; that the argument against is irrelevant.The Dems control Congress and Executive, so they can still pass it even if the debate is lost and the polls show Americans overwhelmingly against it.

Senate Finance Committee Votes Not To Post HealthCare Bill 72 Hours Before Voting On It

Wasn't this going to be the most open and transparent administration and congress ever?

Does the Constitution Allow the Gov't to Force Everyone to Have Health Insurance?

When you're in your twenties, ten foot tall and bullet proof, immortal, do you want to spend your money on health insurance? The government demands, with ObamaCare, that you to do just that. Of course you're probably not going to need it. You're young, you're healthy. Gov't mandated health insurance money will go to mostly the elderly and illegals. You would be subsidizing, and impoverishing yourself. Most of the uninsured are the young that don't want health insurance, and illegals.

Does the Constitution allow this? The Constitution gives the gov't specific and enumerated powers. Specific. Enumerated. Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. Nothing there saying it can force individuals to buy insurance. It says the federal gov't can regulate foreign and interstate commerce. Nothing there saying it can force individuals to buy insurance.

Sen. Max Baucus(D., Mont.), who is trying to hammer out a compromise, still has a tax of up to $1,500 per year to impose if you don't submit to having insurance. It was $3,800. Once again the gov't is using taxation to change and enforce behavior. If I were a twenty-something, I'd be ticked if the gov't confiscated an additional $1500 a year for something I'll probably not be using. When I was that age, I was a liberal, but then liberalism meant 'stay out of my f****'n life'. (I swore a lot in those days...soldier, sailor, student.) I believe the same now, but now I'm a teabagging, terrorist, racist (new labels for Conservatives).

Do any of the enumerated powers give the right to the gov't to tax an individual who doesn't obey a law?

Supporters of ObamaCare say it does nothing to infringe on the rights of individuals. Right.

Harry Reid Concerned About High ObamaCare Costs?

Reid is indeed concerned about the costs of this inefficient money sucking colossus of ObamaScare, ObamaCare, KennedyCare. But only for Nevada. This liberty sucking monstrosity requires a 5% increase in state Medicaid spending, and Nevada has shot way past broke and can't afford it. That's the beginning point, and it'll skyrocket, like every gov't program. ummmmmm Thought our Dear Leader said his bill would reduce costs, insure more people and improve health care. (How do you insure more people and spend less money?) If it's going to cost Nevada more, is it possible that it'll cost other states more? If it costs states more, aren't the tax paying citizens going to get yet more more of their hard earned money confiscated to cover the additional costs? Just asking. Of course if I wonder about this, I'm a teabagging Nazi racist.

'Dusty' Harry Reid: “While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada." "During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding."

Of course fellow Statist Sen. Max Baucus of (D, MT) said he'd fix it for Dusty Harry. Favors already. Dusty: "I spoke to the Chair of the Finance Committee and he assured me that this bill will be improved for Nevada." What about the other states that can't afford it? They get a break too? Dusty has said that he'll use budget reconciliation rules to ram this legislation through without any Republicans. That being the case, it looks like this will be, amongst the Dems, their own ObamaCare cap and tax. Of course, the states that aren't financially stressed, like Texas and Indiana (run by Conservatives), will be told to pick up the difference.

"Let me be very clear, I will not bring a health insurance reform bill to the Senate floor that is not good for Nevada.”

Let me be very clear too. People that like their health care and their liberty will see to it ObamaCare will not be brought to the American people. Then next year, we'll see to it that Dusty Harry will no longer be able to take it to the American people.

Observations from Camile Paglia

For those of you who don't know of her, she's a leading feminist in the true sense (what it was before it became a leftist lobby) and a liberal, but of the '60's nonviolent radical sort. She's an amazing intellectual, always questioning everything. I've read two of her books and have been reading articles and essays by her since the early '90's. This article I highly recommend. It's her analysis of the Dems, Obama, Republicans and the healthcare debate. It takes a few minutes, but is well worth it. Article here.

Health Care Debate/A Unique Perspective

What Lies Beneath
Cal Thomas
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Townhall.com

The debate -- OK, the shouting match -- we are having over "health-care reform" is about many things, including cost, who gets help and who does not and who, or what, gets to make that determination. Underlying it all is a larger question: Is human life something special? Is it to be valued more highly than, say, plants and pets? When someone is in a "persistent vegetative state" do we mean to say that person is equal in value to a carrot?

Are we now assigning worth to human life, or does it arrive with its own pre-determined value, irrespective of race, class, IQ, or disability?

The bottom line is not the bottom line. It is something far more profound. Our decisions regarding who will get help and who won't are about more than bean-counting bureaucrats deciding if your drugs or operation will cost more than you are contributing to the U.S. Treasury.


The secular left claims we are evolutionary accidents who managed to crawl out of the slime and by "natural selection" stand erect and over millions of years outsmart our ancestors, the apes. If that is your belief, then you probably think health care should be rationed. Why spend lots of money to improve -- or save -- the life of someone who evolved from slime and has no special significance other than the "accident" of becoming human? Policies flow from such a philosophy, though the average secularist probably wouldn't put it in such stark terms. Stark, or not, isn't this the inevitable progression of seeing humanity as maybe complex, but nothing special?

The opposing view sees human beings as unique creations. Even Thomas Jefferson, identified by historians as a Deist who doubted the existence of a personal God, understood that if certain rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not come from a source beyond the reach of the state, then the state could take those rights away. Those who believe that God made us and also makes the rules about our existence and our behavior will have a completely different understanding of life's value and our approach to affirming it until natural death.

It is between these two distinctly different worldview goalposts that the battle is taking place. Few from the "endowed rights" side are saying that a 100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor should be given extraordinary and expensive care to keep the heart pumping, even after brain waves have gone flat. But there is a big difference between "letting go" and "snuffing out." The unnatural progression for many on the secular left is to see such a person as a "burden." In an age when we think we should be free of burdens -- a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse -- getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible. But by doing so, we assume an even greater burden: the role of God in deciding who gets to live and who must die. Anyone who has seen the film "Bruce Almighty" senses how difficult it is to play God.

We are now witnessing some of the consequences of attempting to ban people with a God perspective from the public square. If there are no rules and no one to whom one might appeal when those rules are violated, we are on our own to set whatever rules we wish and to change them in a moment in response to opinion polls. Any appeals to a higher authority stop at the Supreme Court.

The explosive town hall meetings are indications that Americans are trusting government less and less. So where should we go? The answer is in your wallet or purse. It's on the money. Right now it is little more than a slogan, but what if it became true: in God We Trust.

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Get Stimulus Money to Stimulate

Ah yes, the stimulus package, Porkulas I. Supposed to stimulate the economy, which it hasn't; but part of the money is going to stimulate something. It's going to support "Thundercrack! "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla." Of course the "gay and lesbian film house," which showed "Thundercrack!" will get some stimulus bucks. Gotta support the "arts" don't ya know.

There is money going to support museums, orchestras, and the like; but tell me again how even this gins up the American Economic Engine? They are producing what, or providing what service?

Let's see, how else can we jump start the economy (six months later with no results so far)? Ah, here you go; San Francisco's CounterPULSE, has a "long-running pansexual performance series", and they invite you to "join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun." The name of this rollicking fun time, supported by printed or borrowed tax money, is called "Perverts Put Out".

NEA spokeswoman Victoria Hutter: "Our review process is very comprehensive — we take great care with applicants and with grantees." "It's a thorough, rigorous process that they all go through, and we're proud of the projects that we've been able to support."

So lets all take our kids to see the government supported "The Symmetry Project", which apparently Ms Hutter approves of, of a dance piece by choreographer Jess Curtis. The show depicts "the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience." I even have a hard time reading that!

I guess in the name of consistency this would be a parenting suggestion from a “well-trained and competent staff” member visiting your home under Section 440 of the ObamaCare bill. Maybe the competent staff member can get you a free pass to "The Symmetry Project"! It's government sponsored, just like the government visitors to your home to ensure you are using the latest cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains…modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices; [and] skills to raise your child.