This humiliation to the Obama administration was a devastating setback
to legislation already disfavored by a 59-40 percent margin among the
public, according to the latest CNN poll. Twice as many Americans say
they are being hurt rather than helped by Obamacare.
Officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare is neither affordable nor protective of patients. It promised subsidies for millions of Americans to buy new health insurance and to pay costly premiums that have driven insurance company stock values to record highs.
People in households making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line (between $11,670 and $46,680 per year for one-person households) have been getting subsidies to buy insurance on health insurance exchanges. A staggering 90 percent of those who signed up for this Obamacare insurance did so in reliance on these subsidies, which the court just ruled are illegal.
These health insurance exchanges are much more than marketplaces, like Travelocity or Expedia, to make it easier to shop for and buy health insurance. They are also the vehicle for dispensing subsidies and imposing penalties, while also building big brother-like databases about Americans.
The liberal central planners inside the D.C. Beltway thought the 50 States would comply with President Barack Obama's demand that they set up these health insurance exchanges at costs estimated to be as much as $100 million per exchange. As an incentive for states to set up these exchanges, the law provided substantial subsides to people who sign up for a state-established exchange.
The central government planners thought the subsidies would coerce states to establish their own health insurance exchanges, similar to how the federal government coerces states to obey D.C. commands in other fields such as education. But states balked after they saw how much control they would be giving to the federal government by establishing a state exchange and how expensive they would end up being.
Nearly two years ago, noted patient advocate and registered nurse Twila Brase explained why "a state-established exchange is a federal takeover center." State exchanges would be required to obey federal regulations, report annually to the federal secretary of Health and Human Services, and comply with a list of federally mandated Essential Health Benefits as dictated by the HHS secretary.
Her conclusion: "Just say no," because "refusing to build the state exchanges is key to stopping Obamacare." More than two-thirds of the states -- 36 of them -- have done just that.
States do not work for Obama, which he has been slow to figure out. Democrats were crushed in the landslide midterm elections after the passage of Obamacare in 2010, and a repeat performance looms large with the next midterm elections barely three months away.
Back in 2010, Obama was riding high and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded passage of Obamacare by declaring, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it!" But now Democrats are angry at what the D.C. Circuit told them is really in the bill.
Perhaps Obama and his lieutenants should have read the bill before railroading it through Congress.
The text of Obamacare expressly states that the subsidies for the purchase of health insurance on an exchange are available only for an "Exchange established by the State," and the Obama administration broke the law by subsidizing the purchase of health insurance over federal rather than state exchanges.
The D.C. Circuit admirably upheld the law as it was passed and properly rejected attempts by the Obama administration to rewrite it now. The Court admitted that "our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly," but confined its ruling to interpreting the law rather than rewriting it as Obama seeks now.
Adding to the chaos, on the very same day as this defeat of Obamacare in the D.C. Circuit, another federal appellate court upheld it. That is like one umpire calling a pitch as a "ball" after another umpire had declared it a "strike."
Chief Justice John Roberts testified during his confirmation hearings that a judge should limit himself to the role of an umpire, calling the balls and strikes without changing the rules of the game. It is refreshing that a panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit did exactly that in applying the law as it was written, not rewriting it as Obama now wishes he had written it.
Officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare is neither affordable nor protective of patients. It promised subsidies for millions of Americans to buy new health insurance and to pay costly premiums that have driven insurance company stock values to record highs.
People in households making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line (between $11,670 and $46,680 per year for one-person households) have been getting subsidies to buy insurance on health insurance exchanges. A staggering 90 percent of those who signed up for this Obamacare insurance did so in reliance on these subsidies, which the court just ruled are illegal.
These health insurance exchanges are much more than marketplaces, like Travelocity or Expedia, to make it easier to shop for and buy health insurance. They are also the vehicle for dispensing subsidies and imposing penalties, while also building big brother-like databases about Americans.
The liberal central planners inside the D.C. Beltway thought the 50 States would comply with President Barack Obama's demand that they set up these health insurance exchanges at costs estimated to be as much as $100 million per exchange. As an incentive for states to set up these exchanges, the law provided substantial subsides to people who sign up for a state-established exchange.
The central government planners thought the subsidies would coerce states to establish their own health insurance exchanges, similar to how the federal government coerces states to obey D.C. commands in other fields such as education. But states balked after they saw how much control they would be giving to the federal government by establishing a state exchange and how expensive they would end up being.
Nearly two years ago, noted patient advocate and registered nurse Twila Brase explained why "a state-established exchange is a federal takeover center." State exchanges would be required to obey federal regulations, report annually to the federal secretary of Health and Human Services, and comply with a list of federally mandated Essential Health Benefits as dictated by the HHS secretary.
Her conclusion: "Just say no," because "refusing to build the state exchanges is key to stopping Obamacare." More than two-thirds of the states -- 36 of them -- have done just that.
States do not work for Obama, which he has been slow to figure out. Democrats were crushed in the landslide midterm elections after the passage of Obamacare in 2010, and a repeat performance looms large with the next midterm elections barely three months away.
Back in 2010, Obama was riding high and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded passage of Obamacare by declaring, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it!" But now Democrats are angry at what the D.C. Circuit told them is really in the bill.
Perhaps Obama and his lieutenants should have read the bill before railroading it through Congress.
The text of Obamacare expressly states that the subsidies for the purchase of health insurance on an exchange are available only for an "Exchange established by the State," and the Obama administration broke the law by subsidizing the purchase of health insurance over federal rather than state exchanges.
The D.C. Circuit admirably upheld the law as it was passed and properly rejected attempts by the Obama administration to rewrite it now. The Court admitted that "our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly," but confined its ruling to interpreting the law rather than rewriting it as Obama seeks now.
Adding to the chaos, on the very same day as this defeat of Obamacare in the D.C. Circuit, another federal appellate court upheld it. That is like one umpire calling a pitch as a "ball" after another umpire had declared it a "strike."
Chief Justice John Roberts testified during his confirmation hearings that a judge should limit himself to the role of an umpire, calling the balls and strikes without changing the rules of the game. It is refreshing that a panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit did exactly that in applying the law as it was written, not rewriting it as Obama now wishes he had written it.
MH-17...Searching for the Truth
By: Diane Sori and Craig Andresen
While early reports have everyone blaming Vladimir Putin or Russia for this take down there are a few things that just do NOT add up.
First, Putin was the one who told Obama that a plane was down and that in and of itself seems an odd thing for someone supposedly involved to have done. What's even odder is that Obama was fast to accuse Putin of downing the plane before the debris of the plane even had a chance for its fires to die down.
The actual flight path as compared to what should have been the flight path was changed. According to Malaysian air officials, the common route for these planes traveling to Asia would have been about 200 miles south of the flight path this plane was on. Malaysian Air is saying that air traffic control out of Kiev moved MH-17 to a flight path 200 miles north of the one normally used which sent MH-17 directly over the war zone, an alteration probably done while the plane was still in Polish airspace.
Another part of the problem is that air traffic control knew damn well this was a civilian airliner and NOT a military plane yet they diverted it over rebel held territory, which raises the question of why would Ukrainian officials send a civilian plane over enemy territory?
One possibility is that this was a deliberate set-up done specifically to create collateral damage which would then be used to defame Putin. And worse yet, could Obama have been part of NOT the take down itself but in setting the blame game stage, especially since he has been 'neutered' so to speak on the international stage by Putin. Remember, Obama rushed to judgment, blaming Putin based on supposed 'classified intel’ before any official investigation had begun. And then there was something he said, something that even at the time seemed to be a preemptive strike should the truth start to leak out.
“Our immediate focus will be on recovering those who were lost, investigating exactly what happened and putting forward the facts. And I want to point out there will likely be misinformation as well. I think it’s very important for folks to sift through what is factually based and what is simply speculation,” Obama said.
Recovering those lost was Obama's primary goal NOT getting to the truth...more like silencing the truth if you ask us.
That's what's making us think that there's a better likelihood that this was an air-to-air missile and NOT a ground-to-air missile.
But what of the SAM...the SA-11 that was reportedly fired? We know for a fact that Ukraine has had several military aircraft, both fighters and cargo aircraft, shot down in that very area so somebody is most definitely firing missiles but...what if this was an attempt to shoot down yet another ‘military aircraft’ and MH-17 was a case of mistaken identity. Could the separatists have mistaken a Ukrainian fighter jet tailing a civilian aircraft for a Ukrainian fighter escorting a Ukrainian cargo jet...that is indeed a likely possibility...and a heat-seeking SA-11 would have targeted the greatest heat source...the exploding MH-17.
Seen so briefly on the overcast day, separatists could very well have taken a shot as the fighter jet fired at MH-17, and as the SA-11 surface-to-air missiles are heat seekers, the SAM would naturally be drawn to the exploding jet leaving the initial impression with the separatists that they had successfully hit their target.
The R-60 air-to-air missile, while updated now, is still available in its original form and as the older version would be less expensive for a struggling nation to purchase. We believe those to be the missiles that are being used by Ukraine. The R-60 is equipped with a fragmentation warhead and a proximity fuse NOT at all unlike the warhead and fuse system used in the SA-11 and either would account for the reported shrapnel damage to MH-17.
Gee...we wonder why...sarcastically said of course.
However, either scenario...surface-to-air or air-to-air...could have resulted in the destruction of MH-17 at 33,000 feet and left telltale signs of shrapnel penetration of the aircraft.
But why would a Ukrainian fighter jet do this...why would Ukraine do this? Simply because Ukraine is losing against Russian forces...and losing big...and desperation could well be setting in is why. What better way to turn the world’s public opinion their way than to place the blame for civilian deaths in such a horrific fashion on Russia...on Putin.
Now that we've presented two possibilities let's look at one quite different from the others but still something that must be considered in this day and age of muslim terrorists....could MH-17 been brought down by an internal explosion that just happened to occur at the same time the rebels were firing their rockets...could this be Lockerbie revisited?
Remember, at this time we've been told a missile was fired but NO one to date has yet seen the 'classified intel.' Could a bomb have been in the cargo hold and been on a timer or detonated by someone on board...just something to think about. And while with Lockerbie terrorists did immediately take credit for the downing, with MH-17 NO terrorists have yet piped in, but could...and we only say could...the terrorists actually be the Ukrainians themselves...again solely to discredit Putin and the Russians.
And remember, NO terrorist group...NO islamic terrorist group...has yet taken credit for MH-370 which is still missing. Now think of this very scary thought...isn't it more effective NOT to take credit for a plane's downing and keep people on edge as it is to run and scream 'we did it.' The unknown is always more frightening than the known and this would serve terrorists... jihadis...well...as in keep them guessing...keep them scared.
But when all is said and done the take down of MH-17 could very well be as we are being told (but we doubt it)...as in the separatists shot a surface-to-air missile and brought this plane down. We are just offering some alternative scenarios to think about, because when Obama rushes to judgment, and when the media blindly falls in lockstep with him, our antennas need to be at full alert. Remember, the last time Obama rushed to judgment was over a YouTube video and we all know how that turned out now don't we.