Disastrous Obamacare Roll Out Photo Going Viral…

Pretty much sums up the entire Obama government since day one.  Incompetent, expensive, and devoid of beneficial results.  Spread the word…

 

Disaster.

Remember, it was everyone but the Obamabots who repeated over and over again the program was far from ready, and a delay would be in the best interests of the American people…

205 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

12 Comments to Disastrous Obamacare Roll Out Photo Going Viral…
    • VTX
    • Ever see this bumper sticker?
      “Keep your laws off my body.”

      May be a slogan pro-abortion types use, but it more readily applies here, to Obimbocare. Mr. President, keep your damned laws off my body!

      It would be a good bumper sticker: “Obama: Keep Your Healthcare Laws Off My Body.”

    • truthandjustice
    • While some Republican members of the U.S. House are standing firm in the spending negotiations (or lack thereof) with Democrats, there are reportedly at least 12 GOP House members who are ready to fully fund Obamacare to end the partial government shutdown.

      In order for Senate Democrats to get their way and get a “clean” continuing resolution passed by the House, only five other Republicans would have to defect, or a total of 17. A clean CR would leave Obamacare in tact and fund the rest of the government in full.

      The Huffington Post is keeping count and provides a current list of GOP congressmen ready to fully fund Obamacare and give up the spending fight that resulted in the first partial government shutdown in 17 years [emphasis added]:

      Rep. Pat Meehan (R-Pa.): “At this point, I believe it’s time for the House to vote for a clean, short-term funding bill to bring the Senate to the table and negotiate a responsible compromise.” [Press Release, 10/1/13]

      Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.): “Time for a clean [continuing resolution].” [Official Twitter, 10/1/13]

      Rep. Jon Runyan (R-N.J.): “Enough is enough. Put a clean [continuing resolution] on the floor and let’s get on with the business we were sent to do.” [Burlington County Times, 10/1/13]

      Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.): A Fitzpatrick aide tells the Philadelphia Inquirer the congressman would support a clean funding bill if it came up for a vote. [Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/1/13]

      Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.): Barletta said he would “absolutely” vote for a clean bill in order to avert a shut down of the government. [Bethlehem Morning Call, 10/1/13]

      Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.): King thinks House Republicans would prefer to avoid a shutdown and said he will only vote for a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, according to the National Review Online. [NRO, 9/30/13]

      Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.): The California Republican told The Huffington Post he would ultimately support a clean continuing resolution. [Tweet by The Huffington Post's Sabrina Siddiqui, 9/30/13]

      Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.): “I’m prepared to vote for a clean [continuing resolution].” [The Huffington Post, 9/29/13]

      Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.): A Wolf aide told The Hill that he agrees with fellow Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell (R) that it’s time for a clean continuing resolution. [The Hill, 10/1/13]

      Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.): A Grimm aide told The Huffington Post that the congressman supports a clean continuing resolution. [10/1/13].

      Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.): A local news anchor in Minnesota tweeted that Paulsen told him he would vote for a clean resolution if given the chance. [Blake McCoy Tweet, 10/1/13]

      Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.): A constituent of Wittman’s sent The Huffington Post an email she got from the congressman indicating he would vote for a clean funding bill but hasn’t had “an opportunity to do so at this point.” [10/1/13]

    • ebysan
    • Valerie Jarrett sent out 2 messages yesterday stating essentially….. No Compromise with Republicans. No Compromise with American people

      *****ObamaCare Now & ObamaCare forever*****

      ***1979 Article by Valerie Jarrett’s Father in-Law reveals” Start of Arab Purchase of US Presidency”***

      http://patdollard.com/2012/09/obama-vetting-1979-newspaper-article-by-valerie-jarrett-father-in-law-reveals-start-of-arab-purchase-of-u-s-presidency/

      Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question:

      1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America.

      The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939:“The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.

      Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here).

      And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

      Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard

      Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.

      Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.

      Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.

      The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)

      So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”

      Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

      Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)

      You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.

      Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.

      That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)

      This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3) [My Comment Percy Sutton was in 80's ; but, he suddenly died after making comment/Marilyn]

      Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

      Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”

      Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.

      It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.

      It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)

      And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)

      It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)

      The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)

      In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:

      “His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)

      What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:

      “The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)

      He was, of course, right.

      As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

    • VTX
    • Ebysan,
      “it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18.”

      You might say that; the word-choice is interesting – comparatively to what many (such as Larry Sinclair) might say. Generally speaking, homosexuals are made, not born.

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • Obamacare Criminalizes Medicine

      Dec 24, 2010 1:37 PM EST

      The president’s health-care plan is one big entrapment scheme, argues Shikha Dalmia of Reason Foundation—one that will turn both patients and providers into criminals, pushing some families to fudge their tax reports to receive better care.

      There are a great many things wrong with Obamacare, but the biggest is perhaps one that neither party is paying any attention to: It is one huge entrapment scheme that will turn patients and providers into criminals. The most blatant example of this is in the “doc fix” that Congress passed with major bipartisan support earlier this month, saving doctors from a nearly 23 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement that they would have otherwise faced this year. Congress has been passing this fix every year since 1997, but this time, in an effort to offset its $20 billion price tag, it has included a little twist to squeeze working families called “exchange recapture subsidy.” Under this provision, the government will go after low-wage families to return any excess subsidies they get under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

      When the government hands out subsidies, it will use a household’s income in the previous year as the basis for guessing what the household is qualified to get in the current year. But if the household’s income grows midyear, the subsidy recapture provision will require it to repay anywhere from $600 to $3,500, compared to the $450 that the law originally called for.

      This will make it very hazardous for poor working families to get ahead. In the original law, the loss of subsidy with rising income already meant absurdly high effective marginal tax rates—the implicit tax on every additional dollar of income earned. How high? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon puts them at 229 percent for families of four who increase their earnings by an amount equal to 5 percent of the federal poverty level or $1,100. In other words, a family that added this amount to an income of $44,700 would actually see its total income fall by $1,419 due to the loss of subsidies.

      The subsidy recapture provision—essentially a tax collection scheme—means that low-wage, cash-strapped families will have no escape from these perverse tax rates. Many of them will find themselves owing the government thousands of dollars in back taxes. Since it is unlikely that they will have this kind of money sitting around, they will face a massive incentive to either fudge their returns or work for cash to avoid reporting additional income. Either way, Uncle Sam will come after them, just as it does with recipients of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the negative income tax scheme that is the inspiration behind Obamacare’s subsidies. In 2004, EITC recipients were 1.76 times more likely to be audited than others, no doubt because it is easier for the government to recover unpaid taxes from poor people than “lawyered up” rich people. In other words, Obamacare will first create the temptation for low-income families to commit fraud, and then penalize them when they do.

      Many of them will find themselves owing the government thousands of dollars in back taxes.

      But just because Obamacare sticks it to families doesn’t mean that physicians will have it good. They’ll face their own—even more draconian—crackdown. Indeed, just as Obamacare goes after working-class families to pay doctors, it goes after doctors to pay working-class families, putting everyone at war with everyone else.

      The government loses about 10 percent of its total health-care spending— or about $60 billion—to “fraud” annually. Some of this is genuine fraud involving physicians—or people posing as physicians—submitting claims for services or equipment never delivered and indefensible therapies that have nothing to do with patient care. But the most common fraud allegedly involves “overbilling” by providers. Medicare’s billing codes are a complicated, convoluted mess and deciphering them can sometimes be more art than science. Naturally, doctors try and interpret them to extract the best possible payment from Uncle Sam. Both Republicans and Democrats huff and puff against “waste, fraud and abuse” in Medicare. And they have already enacted Stasi-style laws such as the False Claims Act offering nurses, patients and other whistleblowers 15 percent to 30 percent of any money recovered if they report improper billing practices by providers. But the Obama administration has attacked the matter with renewed zeal because it is a key element in funding Obamacare’s generous new entitlements.

      It has created a new interagency task force called HEAT (Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team) under which health-care officials will collaborate with the FBI to go after Medicare fraud. In addition, it has expanded to several cities the Medicaid Fraud Strike Force that authorizes FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency agents to jointly analyze Medicare claims data in real time to detect and investigate irregularities by area doctors.

    • VTX
    • ATB,
      Thanks for posting this; it’s the article from the link I posted yesterday – and it needed to be printed out. Again, thanks!

      I sent my Senators faxes – asking them if they support the criminalization of healthcare. “It is, in face, what the healthcare bill does: it criminalizes it.” Since both are Dems, I doubt they’ll ever see a word of it.

      But the criminalization isn’t just as the author stated: one day, the inability to pay the fines will result in either land/property confiscation or worse: imprisonment.

      Mandated healthcare is on the way, too: they don’t like your opinions, they put you in a mental institution. Re-institutionalization is one of their goals, and while some people need to be kept in places where they can be treated, this will have a different, Soviet-style flavor.

      In essence, they’re trying to dampen the American Spirit, by criminalizing (and politicizing) healthcare and keeping us trapped in their financial morass. They’re merely fitting us for shackles at present.

    • truthandjustice
    • Boehner Secretly Defended A Special Obamacare ‘Exemption’ He Has Publicly Derided

      “..But new, leaked emails paint a different picture of how Boehner fought privately to maintain certain health insurance subsidies for federal employees under the Affordable Care Act.

      The emails were first reported by Politico, which detailed how Boehner worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) to preserve these subsidies that have become a source of controversy in Congress over the past few months.

      A brief history: The perception that some lawmakers and Congressional staff are “exempted from Obamacare” began when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed an amendment to the Affordable Care Act designed to embarrass Democrats. It required that members of the legislative branch and their staff purchase health insurance through the exchanges.

      Democrats agreed to a similar provision, but there was a problem with the legislative language: It didn’t offer a clear way for Congress to continue paying a part of its employees’ health premiums, as most public and private employers do.

      The Office of Personnel Management has since interpreted the Grassley amendment to mean that the federal government may offer tax-free subsidies to help members of Congress and their staff buy exchange health plans. Many Republicans contest that legal interpretation, saying it has set up a “special exemption” for Congress not contemplated by the law.

      The proposal that House Republicans voted on Monday night would have ended those subsidies. This has caused angst among both Republican and Democratic staffers, who correctly fear that it would significantly hit their pockets.

      Boehner railed against the so-called “exemption” for Congress, but the politics of the ploy were better than the practicality. In July, Mike Sommers, Boehner’s chief of staff, went through David Krone, Reid’s chief of staff, to try to set up a meeting with President Barack Obama to find a way to maintain the subsidies.

      Business Insider obtained the email exchange (which you can see below) in which Krone requests that they come up with a different cover story than Obamacare for the meeting.

      “People will know we are going down there,” Sommers wrote. “We can’t let it get out there that this is for the [Speaker] and [Leader] to ask the President to carve us out of the requirements of Obamacare. … I am even ok if it is the President hauling us down to talk about the next steps on immigration.”

      Krone responded that the White House would love to say the meeting would be about immigration.

      “I really don’t care what it is about — it just can’t be about what we know it is about,” Sommers wrote back.

      The meeting never happened. But it appears that Boehner’s public reversal on this position made Reid and Democrats reach their breaking points.

      Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, accused Reid’s staff of selectively leaking emails. And he said there is not a disparity between Boehner’s public and private positions.

      “The Speaker’s position is clear: He voted against ObamaCare, and he wants to repeal ObamaCare,” Steel told Business Insider.

      “If the Senate Democrats and the White House wanted to make a ‘fix’ to the law, it would be their fix. The Speaker’s ‘fix’ is repeal. This is just a desperate act by Harry Reid’s staff to protect their own subsidy.”

      A GOP leadership source accused Krone of pulling this kind of “sleazy stunt” — selectively leaking emails — before, pointing to a September 2012 story in The Las Vegas Sun after frustration with Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) about an online poker bill.

      Nevertheless, the revelations put Boehner in a tricky position. And the leaks are sure to increase distrust among the two sides, with no immediate end to the government shutdown in sight. Politico also reported that, at one point, Boehner “wondered aloud at one point whether he and the Nevada Democrat could quietly slip some language into a bill to end the problem without it receiving any public attention.”

      The emails between Krone and Sommers are below:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies-boehner-exempt-2013-10#ixzz2gZfL8PG3

      • truthandjustice
      • Leaked by Reid’s Chief of Staff David Krone:

        “… series of leaked emails from House Speaker John Boehner’s chief of staff Mike Sommers shows Boehner may have coordinated with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt Congress from Obamacare.
        The emails were leaked Tuesday by Reid chief of staff David Krone

        The leaks, which are a major taboo in Washington, show Boehner (R-Ohio) worked behind the scenes earlier this year to address confusion over a provision in the Affordable Care Act that would force members of Congress and their aides into the exchanges. In fact, if one were to go by the leaks, which were first published by Politico, it appears that the offices of Boehner and Reid regularly coordinated to exempt Congress from the health care law.

        But given that Boehner is now apparently against congressional Obamacare exemptions, the emails make him look inconsistent and hypocritical – which may have been the point of their leaking.”

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/02/harry-reids-office-leaks-boehner-office-emails-and-it-could-ruin-any-faith-you-have-in-washington/

Leave A Response

* Required

-->