Jon Stewart slams Obamacare rollout: Democrats can’t ‘spin this turd’

Jon Stewart slams Obamacare rollout: Democrats can’t ‘spin this turd’


 

On his Monday night program, Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” anchor Jon Stewart gave a scathing critique of the rollout of Obamacare, saying “Democrats can’t spin this turd.”

Stewart noted that following the government shutdown, which some circles have blamed on the GOP, the United States was poised to turn “bluer than a Smurf’s balls after dry humping a bottle of Windex,” but following the roll out of Obamacare, those possibilities have been hurt. Noting the number of people that have visited the site and their success ratio, the host unloaded:

“Oh my God, less than 10 percent?” Stewart said. “How bad is that? Twenty percent is the number of dentists who recommend sugared gum. How low is it? According to a recent poll, more of this country believes Obamacare has been repealed than have been able to sign up for Obamacare. The whole point of web sites is to design them so that it is nearly impossible to not sign up for something. Every time I go on Amazon there’s a 40 percent chance I’ll mistakenly overnight myself six seasons of ‘Night Court.’ It’s just the way it’s designed. ‘Are you sure you want to leave this page?’ Yes I am — oops, turns out I ordered something. So how are the Democrats going to spin this turd?”

Stewart played a clip from New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer from NBC’s “Meet the Press” over the weekend, who spun it as “huge” since 19 million people had visited the site.

“That’s huge,” Stewart said. “You’ve angered a lot of people.”

Source:  

This video contains content from Viacom, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

Obama Administration Proposes 2,300-Page ‘New Constitution’ (Parody)

Obama Administration Proposes 2,300-Page ‘New Constitution’

by CHARLES HUGH SMITH

The U.S. Constitution leaves too many areas open to interpretation; a New Constituion of 2,300 pages (+ 200 redacted secret pages) is the solution.

The Obama Administration has proposed replacing the current U.S. Constitution (4,543 words, including the signatures) with a 2,300-page "new Constitution" that in the words of an administration spokesperson, "clears up the gray areas in the current Constitution."

The proposal was launched after the success of two recent 1,000+ page pieces of legislation, the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform act.

An additional 200+ pages of the "new Constitution" are redacted due to the sensitive nature of the National Security-related amendments.

Lobbyists from key industries were invited to contribute amendments to the new Constitution;" constitutional legal experts were also invited to submit improvements to the current law of the land.

Some critics who have reviewed the 2,300 pages of the proposed "new Constitution" have stated that the document is impenetrable even to those with law degrees. Average citizens "will be unable to understand the laws that govern their lives."

Other observers note that the complexity and length of legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform act are already beyond the comprehension of all but a handful of experts.

An administration spokesperson defended the proposed re-write on the grounds that "the new Constitution will provide the clarity that people want in their Constitution."

source:  http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct13/constitution-parody10-13.html

Obamacare: the 2,300-page monstrosity

The most important six hours of recent American history will start to unfold on Monday. That day, the Supreme Court begins three days of oral argument on the legal challenge to President Barack Obama's health care reform law ("Obamacare").

The Court's decision will have a profound impact on the quality of American health care. The political repercussions will be equally strong: The decision will either reinvigorate an Obama campaign looking to make good on its signature legislative initiative or fuel a united Republican counterattack along the lines of, "We told you so."

Casual observers may not realize there are 26 states and one business organization (The National Federation of Independent Business) acting as plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Separate suits (representing constitutional challenges to the law's requirement that individuals purchase insurance) have been filed by the state of Virginia, Liberty University, and the Thomas Mann Center. Numerous other court challenges have been dismissed, mostly on procedural grounds.

The political stakes are high and trending Republican: Obamacare's myriad complexities and federal overreach was the rallying cry of a midterm election cycle that saw Democrats lose their House majority and six net Senate seats. More recent polling reflects equally ominous news for the president. A February USA Today/Gallup Poll showed 53 percent of voters in swing states viewed Obamacare as a "bad thing." Only 38 percent of respondents approved. Among independents, the news was even worse: 35 percent said the law makes them less likely to support the president's re-election, as opposed to 16 percent who said it makes them more likely. Recall that substantial GOP gains among independents fueled the 2010 midterms.

My next 50 columns could be taken up with political analysis surrounding this 2,300-page monstrosity. Recall then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plea "to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"? The good news: I will not devote my remaining 2012 columns to such a task. The bad news: You may not be so pleased to read what the president and congressional leadership blithely did to the health care consumer in the name of "reform."

With regard to process, let me assure you the average member of Congress did not follow the daily drafting process in great detail. The consumption and interpretation of 2,300 pages of constantly changing, arcane policy language is indeed a Herculean task. Most relied on "talking points memos" issued by the respective caucus staffs or bill writing committees. Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi's inartful comment failed to convey a sense of order and competence rightfully expected by the general public.

Another bit of procedural news: The law's more than 700 pages of individual directives have already spawned 2,163,744 words (Fox News describes the volume as 21/2 times the size of the Bible) of regulatory interpretation (as of May) from federal agencies, mostly the Department of Health and Human Services. In other words, Obamacare is bureaucratic heaven on Earth; its regulations will be issued (and become the subject of countless lawsuits) for decades to come. This, of course, is one of the primary attractions for Obamacare's advocates, as federal health care policy gradually becomes more a function of government dictate than market-generated demand.

Alas, Obamacare dictates are not meant for all, especially those labor unions that were candidate Obama's most vociferous supporters in 2008. Indeed, the Obama administration had granted 1,231 waivers of participation as of January, when political pressure finally ground the waiver mill to a halt. Labor unions received fully 50 percent of the administration's largesse, a revealing fact in light of organized labor's enthusiasm for the bill. Two further anomalies: Nearly 20 percent of the waivers approved in April, 2011, emanated from former Speaker Pelosi's district, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured a waiver for all insurers operating in the individual market in the entire state of Nevada.

Source: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-25/news/bs-ed-ehrlich-obamacare-20120325_1_obamacare-health-care-midterm-election-cycle

Indeed, it would be the ultimate “fundamental transformation” Obama promised at the beginning of his presidency.

Related: 

• Liberal Daily Kos diarist calls for 'benevolent' Obama dictatorship
• The case against re-electing Barack Hussein Obama, part 2
• More liberal Democrats call on Obama to rule like a dictator on the debt ceiling
• Sheila Jackson Lee urges Pres. Obama to rule like a dictator on debt ceiling
• Obama's Park Service kicks owners out of private Lake Mead homes over shutdown
• Park Ranger admits being told to make life as difficult for people as possible
• Democrat votes to arrest military chaplains who minister to troops during shutdown
• Obama Closes Down the Atlantic Ocean?
• House to Chuck Hagel: Don't arrest military chaplains during shutdown
• Obama supporters threaten to kill protesters at Overpasses for Obama Impeachment
• The left’s shutdown battle cry: Kill them all!
• Deranged: Cher suggests killing Tea Party Republicans on Twitter
• Newsweek cover depicts President Obama as 'god of all things'

Executive Order Accelerates Mandatory HIV Testing For All Citizens

Executive Order Accelerates Mandatory HIV Testing For All Citizens

President Barak Obama posted an executive order yesterday which appears to mandate HIV testing for “all individuals ages 15 to 65 years.”

The HIV Care Continuum Initiative claims responsibility for recent successes in the study of HIV but says “further Federal action is appropriate in response to these new developments.”

That federal action appears to be in the form of mandated HIV testing, and Obama seems to suggest that HIV testing will be free under the Affordable Care Act.

The Administration says mandatory testing is warranted because early detection is helpful to fighting HIV and, according to the executive order, twenty percent of people with HIV remain undiagnosed.

It doesn’t directly say that all citizens will be rounded up and forced to get HIV tests, rather that clinics will be required to test for HIV as part of routine testing.

Read the full Executive Order HIV Care Continuum Initiative below:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- – - – - – -

ACCELERATING IMPROVEMENTS IN HIV PREVENTION AND CARE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE HIV CARE CONTINUUM INITIATIVE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government to effectively respond to the ongoing domestic HIV epidemic, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Addressing the domestic HIV epidemic is a priority of my Administration. In 2010, the White House released the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy (Strategy), setting quantitative goals for reducing new HIV infections, improving health outcomes for people living with HIV, and reducing HIV-related health disparities. The Strategy will continue to serve as the blueprint for our national response to the domestic epidemic. It has increased coordination, collaboration, and accountability across executive departments and agencies (agencies) with regard to addressing the epidemic. It has also focused our Nation’s collective efforts on increasing the use of evidence-based approaches to prevention and care among populations and in regions where HIV is most concentrated.

Since the release of the Strategy, additional scientific discoveries have greatly enhanced our understanding of how to prevent and treat HIV. Accordingly, further Federal action is appropriate in response to these new developments. For example, a breakthrough research trial supported by the National Institutes of Health showed that initiating HIV treatment when the immune system was relatively healthy reduced HIV transmission by 96 percent. In addition, evidence suggests that early treatment may reduce HIV-related complications. These findings highlight the importance of prompt HIV diagnosis, and because of recent advances in HIV testing technology, HIV can be detected sooner and more rapidly than ever before.

Based on these and other data, recommendations for HIV testing and treatment have changed. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that clinicians screen all individuals ages 15 to 65 years for HIV, and the Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines for Use of Antiretroviral Agents now recommends offering treatment to all adolescents and adults diagnosed with HIV.

Furthermore, ongoing implementation of the Affordable Care Act provides a historic opportunity for Americans to access affordable, quality health care. The Act is expanding access to recommendedpreventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, including HIV testing, and, beginning in 2014,insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including HIV. Starting October 1, 2013, Americans can select the coverage that best suits them through the new Health Insurance Marketplace, and coverage will begin January 1, 2014.

Despite progress in combating HIV, important work remains. Since the publication of the Strategy, data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there are significant gaps along the HIV care continuum — the sequential stages of care from being diagnosed to receiving optimal treatment.Nearly one-fifth of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States are undiagnosed; one-third are not linked to medical care; nearly two-thirds are not engaged in ongoing care; and only one-quarter have the virus effectively controlled, which is necessary to maintain long-term health and reduce risk of transmission to others.

In light of these data, we must further clarify and focus our national efforts to prevent and treat HIV infection. It is the policy of my Administration that agencies implementing the Strategy prioritize addressing the continuum of HIV care, including by accelerating efforts to increase HIV testing, services, and treatmentalong the continuum. This acceleration will enable us to meet the goals of the Strategy and move closer to an AIDS-free generation.

Sec. 2. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Initiative. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Initiative (Initiative), to be overseen by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. The Initiative will mobilize and coordinate Federal efforts in response to recent advances regarding how to prevent and treat HIV infection. The Initiative will support further integration of HIV prevention and care efforts; promote expansion of successful HIV testing and service delivery models; encourage innovative approaches to addressing barriers to accessing testing and treatment; and ensure that Federal resources are appropriately focused on implementing evidence-based interventions that improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 3. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Working Group. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Working Group (Working Group) to support the Initiative. The Working Group shall coordinate Federal efforts to improve outcomes nationally across the HIV care continuum.

(a) Membership. The Working Group shall be co-chaired by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy and the Secretary of Health and Human Services or designee (Co-Chairs). In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Working Group shall consist of representatives from:

(i) the Department of Justice;

(ii) the Department of Labor;

(iii) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iv) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(v) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(vi) the Office of Management and Budget; and

(vii) other agencies and offices, as designated by the Co-Chairs.

(b) Consultation. The Working Group shall consult with the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, as appropriate.

(c) Functions. As part of the Initiative, the Working Group shall:

(i) request and review information from agencies describing efforts to improve testing, care, and treatmentoutcomes, and determine if there is appropriate emphasis on addressing the HIV care continuum in relation to other work concerning the domestic epidemic;

(ii) review research on improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(iii) obtain input from Federal grantees, affected communities, and other stakeholders to inform strategies to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(iv) identify potential impediments to improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum, including for populations at greatest risk for HIV infection, based on the efforts undertaken pursuant to paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subsection;

(v) identify opportunities to address issues identified pursuant to paragraph (iv) of this subsection, and thereby improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(vi) recommend ways to integrate efforts to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum with other evidence-based strategies to combat HIV; and

(vii) specify how to better align and coordinate Federal efforts, both within and across agencies, to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

(d) Reporting.

(i) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall provide recommendations to the President on actions that agencies can take to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

(ii) Thereafter, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy shall include, as part of the annual report to the President pursuant to section 1(b) of my memorandum of July 13, 2010 (Implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy), a report prepared by the Working Group on

Government-wide progress in implementing this order. This report shall include a quantification of progress made in improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/15/executive-order-hiv-care-continuum-initiative

IRS: Parents Must Pay Federal Fine for Uninsured Kids

January 31, 2013

---

By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – In new, final regulations issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said that parents must pay a federal fine under Obamacare if their children or dependent spouses are uninsured for any part of the year.

The regulations clarify provisions of Obamacare that seem to say that a parent will be held liable for Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty if they don’t have insurance coverage for their children.

In its final regulations, the IRS states that parents will be made to pay the penalty (called a "shared responsibility payment") if they can claim an uninsured child or spouse as a dependent, regardless of whether they actually claim them or not.

“The proposed regulations clarify that a taxpayer is liable for the shared responsibility payment imposed with respect to any individual for a month in a taxable year for which the taxpayer may claim a personal exemption deduction for the individual (that is, the dependent) for that taxable year,” the regulations state.

“Whether the taxpayer actually claims the individual as a dependent for the taxable year does not affect the taxpayer's liability for the shared responsibility payment for the individual.”

In other words, if a child goes without government-defined health insurance coverage for any month of the year, their parent must pay a fine to the government, regardless of whether they claim the child as a dependent or not.

The only thing that matters to the IRS is whether the parent could claim the uninsured child as a dependent.

The same rule applies to an uninsured spouse if the couple files a single tax return. If they file a joint return, both parents are liable for the fine.

The IRS calls this arrangement a “shared responsibility family,” and it includes adopted children.

Parents who give their children up for adoption or place them in foster care are not liable for the penalty once they give up their children. However, they are still liable for the penalty for the months before they gave up their children.

The regulations also state that even if the parent is exempt from the Obamacare penalty, they can still be fined for not having insurance for their children. Under the law, people who are on Medicaid or who have income below the federal poverty line are exempt from the individual mandate, for example.

Broadly, Obamacare says that the penalty for not having insurance is the lesser of the cheapest government-approved health insurance plan premium or the alternative, calculated penalty. The IRS regulations lay out how families can calculate this alternative penalty amount.

Uninsured adult family members use the full per-person cost of $695 per person when calculating their penalty, while uninsured children are penalized half of the adult cost – $347.50 per child. The amount of penalty parents may face will change every year after 2016, the IRS said, and parents will face a phased-in penalty between 2014 and 2016.

For 2014, parents could face a penalty of either $47.50 per child – under 18 – up to $285 total.

For 2015, the per-child penalty is $162.50 per child up to $975 total.

For 2016, the per-child penalty is $347.50 per child up to $2,085 total.

The per-person penalty is capped at $2,085 for 2016, but that cap will rise with inflation every year thereafter.

While the per-person penalty is capped each year, families can still owe more if their income is high enough because the law states that families must pay the greater of either the per-person penalty of 2.5 percent of their taxable income.

In the regulations, the IRS gives an example of just such a family. This family has five members – two parents and three children – and has a pre-tax income of $120,000. The IRS assumes that the minimum insurance premium for this family will be $20,000 per year in 2016, meaning that they will either pay the per-person cap of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of their taxable income.

In its example, the IRS assumes the family’s taxable income will be $96,000 -- $120,000 minus the filing threshold of $24,000 – meaning that their tax penalty will be $2,400 under Obamacare.

Because the $2,400 tax penalty is greater than the per-person cap of $2,085, the IRS says that this example family must pay $2,400 for not being able to afford the $20,000 yearly minimum insurance premium.

For families, this means that they will be faced with paying either a per-person penalty for not having government-approved health insurance or a penalty based on their income, whichever is higher.

The way the government’s formula works is that smaller-wealthier families will likely pay based on income – because their tax-based penalty will be higher than their per-person penalty, while larger, poorer families will likely pay the per-person penalty, because 2.5 percent of their taxable income will be lower than the $2,085 per-person cap in 2016.

This dichotomy means that there will effectively be one standard for wealthier families – the tax-based penalty – and another for poorer families – the per-person penalty.

For instance, a similar family of five making only $80,000 per year in 2016 will end up paying the per-person maximum of $2,085, because their tax-based penalty would only be $1,400, assuming the same filing threshold of $24,000 and the $20,000 insurance premium the IRS gives in its example.

Source:

Catholics vs. health care law

Catholics vs. health care law **

Holy war over health care law? Obama angers Catholic leaders

By Ed Henry

Published January 31, 2012 | FoxNews.com

While President Obama will deliver another speech on the economy Wednesday in Northern Virginia to keep the focus on jobs, Catholic leaders across the country are warning another issue may blow up in his face come November.

Catholics are fired up over new rules implementing Obama's health care reform law forcing Catholic universities, hospitals, and charities to provide insurance for their employees covering contraception -- even though that violates church teachings.

"When you push people of faith and you tell them the government is going to knock down the wall of separation of church and state and overreach like the Obama administration, you've got a war on your hands," Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told Fox News.

In an extraordinary move this past weekend, New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan and other archbishops throughout the nation had their priests read letters denouncing the Obama administration policy from the pulpit at Sunday Mass.

"Never before has the government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience," Dolan said in a web video that takes the battle online. "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights. How about letting our elected leaders know that we want religious liberty and rights of consciences restored and the administration's mandate rescinded? We can't afford to strike out on this one."

Pressed on the matter at his daily briefing Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated several times the administration believes it struck an "appropriate balance" in crafting the policy.

"The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services," said Carney. "We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns."

Even some Catholic Democrats are not buying that claim, however, with liberal columnist E.J. Dionne ripping the policy in a Washington Post column. Dionne charged Monday that the president "utterly botched" the issue and "threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus."