Obama White House CYA Move to Reduce impact of ObamaCare: McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers

Remember how Nancy Pelosi said this?



And remember Obama said this?



He said if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, right?

I had a simple question that I emailed to the White House 5 times without a response.

Question: What is to prevent an employer from unilaterally dropping an employee from a health care plan?

Well, I didn’t get an answer.

What a surprise?

My suspicion has always been that there was absolutely nothing preventing an employer from dropping all health care benefits even if it meant paying a fine under “ObamaCare” which would be cheaper than paying the expected increase in cost.

So technically Obama can claim he wasn’t lying like a dog for over a year and a half while he was trying to sell his healthcare debacle if everybody liked their plan, but got dropped anyway.

But, Obama got caught with his pants down in the final anbalysis when employers were threatening to go the “the drop coverage” route and to save the embarrassment of being called a liar after all, he gives out waivers to companies to avoid the true blowback by voters.

Maybe he’ll give out so many waivers to render Obamacare null and void in the process?

USA Today reports that mearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people.

San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

More details here

Memeorandum

Tell two friends about this blog

ObamaCare Slaps New Yorker (Doug Gowland) with 25% Rate Hike says “ObamaCare has just made me $icker!”

"Seven hundred dollars a month for insurance is a lot of money. My choice is to find cheaper insurance or none. Can't wait until Election Day."
Doug Gowland, New Yorker

It was widely reported that certain aspects of the new healthcare reform law went into effect on Thursday. Here in New York, a Greenwich Village resident got the shock of his life when he received a letter from his health insurance provider.

The New York Post reports ObamaCare’s a painful shot in the wallet.

A Greenwich Village resident was socked with an eye-popping 25 percent increase in health premiums -- and his insurance company is slapping part of the blame on President Obama's health-care overhaul that took effect yesterday.

Doug Gowland's monthly bill will jump $140 -- from $565 to $705 -- under the hike, according to a letter he received from insurer EmblemHealth.

And the annual cost for the self-insured 62-year-old man's mostly bare-bones plan will increase $1,680 -- from $6,780 to $8,460.

In the notice, EmblemHealth told Gowland, who is healthy, "The proposed rate increase includes two components: a basic increase on your type plan and an increase due to the cost of enhanced benefits required by the new federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

A steamed Gowland, who works in real estate, said: "Seven hundred dollars a month for insurance is a lot of money. My choice is to find cheaper insurance or none. Can't wait until Election Day."

More details here

This story is being replicated ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! Folks are really mad because Obama and the Democrats said this:



Is ObamaCare really affordable? Costs are skyrocketing BECAUSE of ObamaCare.

Tell two friends about this blog

NHS Waiting Lists Rise after Doctors' Hours Cut

America, if you want to know what ObmaaCare will be like, look no further than across the pond in England at their national health care system.

Patients there have to wait weeks for surgeries and its only getting worse.

Can you say, “We’re screwed!”



UK Telegraph

Hospital waiting times have begun to rise again after years of decline following the introduction of European rules on junior doctors' working hours

Waiting times in the NHS had been dropping since the 1990s but the rules limiting junior doctors to a 48-hour week, which were implemented last August, had reversed the trend. Thousands more patients were now waiting longer than 18 weeks for surgery.

Ministers were seeking to renegotiate Britain’s position on the European Working Time Directive, including a possible opt-out for NHS staff.

The Royal College of Surgeons carried out the first comprehensive analysis of how the directive had affected waiting times.

According to the research, the proportion of NHS patients having to wait longer than the 18-week target for non-emergency surgery such as hip replacements had almost doubled from 1.5 per cent 18 months ago to nearly three per cent in March this year.

Waiting times reached an all-time low at the end of 2008, with patients waiting just a few weeks for surgery on average.
However, since the EU directive cut junior doctors’ hours from 56 to 48 per week, these gains had been wiped out, the Royal College said.

According to data from the Department of Health, the number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks — from GP referral to being treated as an inpatient — fell steadily from April 2007, when almost 34,000 people were waiting, to 8,674 in December 2008.

The figure remained stable at about 10,000 until June 2009, just before the new rules came in, when the rise began.

In March this year, it had risen to 17,515, a level last seen in September 2007.

John Black, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said the increase was predictable.

“If you have the same number of patients, no more doctors and ask them to work less then it is inevitable that the time available for elective procedures will reduce and waiting lists grow,” he said.

Almost two thirds of consultants now frequently operated without assistants because departments were so stretched.

Mr Black said most European countries had bypassed the legislation by either not monitoring compliance or, as in Germany and Holland, finding ways around the directive.

“We look forward to this happening in the UK,” he said.
Sir Richard Thompson, the new president of the Royal College of Physicians, said the directive had been a “complete disaster” for both patient care and the quality of training for doctors.

“We are not providing the service or the training that we require,” he said.

“I cannot overemphasise the damage to service provision and to training.”
Full story

Don't Leave Without Clicking Other Great Stories in The Last Tradition. Tell two friends about this blog

On Our Independence Day July 4, 2010: A Call to Freedom Against President Barack Hussein Obama

On the 234th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, take a moment to realize that America is again living in dangerous times.

With the help of an en-slaved news media which spewed out lies and misinformation faster than the oil gushing out from beneath the Golf of Mexico , Barack Obama deceitfully ran as a Conservative centrist who promised to reach across the aisle and bring both Republicans and Democrats together to do the peoples business.

However, he and the Democrats had no such intention. Once in power, Obama has nationalized the car industry, he has spent trillions of borrowed money on a so-called “stimulus package” that was never intended to produce jobs, but rather used as a pay off to his union buddies and other government workers.

He has nationalized the health care industrythat will cause millions of Americans to either pay higher premiums or lose their coverage entirely and be forced onto a government approved plan.

He has purposefully responded slowly to the oil spill in the Gulf to use “the crisis” as yet another pretense to take over the energy industry.

President Barack Obama is not a lover of freedom or free markets.

He is exactly what Conservatives, Fox News, Sean Hannity and this blog says he is, a committed Far Left Radical Socialist Ideologue who believes in government by the government, instead of government by the people.

Thankfully, since day one of his regime, Obama has been exposed for the fraud that he’s always been.

This country survived the tyranny under King George lll and will once again rise up again as true Ameicas who love their freedom and overcome Obama l.

Click to Read Other Important Stories in The Last Tradition

Obama Names Rationing Czar to Run Medicare

Here’s more cold water in your face Mr. and Mrs America.

President Obama lied through his teeth about the benefits of ObamaCare. He knew all along of the reality of his health care plan always involved rationing care the same way its done in Canada and Great Britain.

If you have a sickness but don’t fall into arbitrary treatment protocols a government administrator sets, then you won’t receive treatment under ObamaCare.

Welcome again to Bamazuela.


From CNS News:

Dr. Donald Berwick of the Harvard Medical School does not like free enterprise, but he does like rationing. Two years ago, in England, he delivered a talk celebrating the 60th birthday of Great Britain’s National Health Service, the bureaucracy that runs that nation’s socialized

medical system. He apparently entertained some fear that day that the Brits might turn back to free enterprise. So, in his address (as reprinted in the July 26, 2008, edition of the British Medical Journal), and as reported this week by Matt Cover of CNSNews.com, he offered British socialists some words of advice.

“Please,” he told them, “don’t put your faith in market forces—it’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need.

In the U.S., competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system.” To Berwick, America’s health care system is not the model for the world. Great Britain’s is. In his view, it is vital for the Brits to hold high the flame of socialized medicine so the world can follow its lead.

“I hope you will never, ever give up what you have begun,” said Berwick. “I hope you realize and affirm how badly you need—how badly the world needs—an example at scale of a health system that is universal, accessible, excellent and free at the point of care—a health system that, at its core is like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just. “Happy birthday,” the ebullient doctor told the British health care socialists. If you have not noticed already, this man has a crush on collectivism.

“Cynics beware,” he said. “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” This love extends to approbation for rationing health care and using the health care system to redistribute wealth.

“You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach,” Berwick told the Brits.

“You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.” And they get to play Robin Hood in lab coats. “You could have protected the wealthy and the well,” he said, “instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just must redistribute wealth.”

Last June, after President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus law that included funding for a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, thus pre-positioning the federal infrastructure that would be needed to guide federal health care rationing decisions under a new national health care system, Berwick gave an interview to Biotechnology Healthcare that was brought to light this week in a report by Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

Berwick explained that there are three steps to “comparative effectiveness research.” The first is to determine whether a therapy works or not. The second is to determine how well the therapy works compared to other therapies. The third is to do a cost-benefit analysis.
“If a new drug or procedure is effective, and has some advantage over existing alternatives,” Berwick said, “then does the incremental benefit justify the likely additional cost?”

Now, in a free country where people freely chose to pay for their own health care with their own money, this is a good question for any prudent consumer. It is exactly that “free market force” that Berwick implored the British socialists not to put their faith in.

But in a country where the government has taken regulatory and fiscal control of the health care system—where the state is subsidizing most people’s care—and where government bureaucrats make the decisions about who gets what treatment, this question is not the animating moving force behind the invisible hand of the market, it is the dark materialistic spirit behind the iron hand of a life-and-death tyranny.
Full story

Via CNS News


The Last Tradition

10 Inconvenient Truths About ObamaCare

Why is Obama out there selling a plan that is already the law?

Answer-Because ObamaCare is built on a house of lies and the sooner you get hip to it, well, the sooner you’ll realized you’ve been played for a fool.

TPM

From Health RefornScams.com:

1. You Can’t Keep Your Plan Even if You Like It: The president promises you can keep your plan and doctor if you like them—polls show the overwhelming majority of Americans do—but independent analysts found Obamacare would cause a change of plan or doctor for as many as 56 percent of currently covered employees. Additionally, your doctor may not want to keep you. (See Point No. 8.)

2. Your Insurance Premiums Will Go Up:The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found Obamacare will increase the average family’s premiums by as much as 13 percent by 2016, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers found an increase of $4,000 by 2019.

3. You May Be Among the Hundreds of Thousands Who Lose Their Jobs: The nonpartisan Lewin Group predicts the massive new employer mandates would cause as many as 600,000 workers to lose their jobs under Obamacare. Other sources predict even more.

4. Your Tax Burden Will Increase: The Senate bill contains as many as 19 new taxes. The entire proposal functions as a massive regressive tax falling on the young and lowerincome workers, making them beholden to subsidies and punishing success.

5. You Will Be Forced to Pay for Abortions: The president promised no taxpayer dollars would go toward funding abortions. But the Senate bill specifically allows for such funding, and House leaders acknowledge they will not attempt to restrict abortion funding in the final bill.

6. Your Health Care Will Cost More: Obamacare’s attempt to “bend the cost curve” and slow the pace of rising health care costs is a sham. In reality, the only reductions in cost come through reduced government reimbursements to hospitals and doctors, who will be forced to lower the quality of care and pass more costs on to the taxpayers.

7. Your Employer Will Have to Pay More to the Government: Forget that raise you were hoping for. It makes economic sense for small employers facing burdensome new requirements to stay small, and for large businesses to fire permanent employees and hire contractors.

8. Your Doctor May Quit: A survey by Investor’s Business Daily found 45 percent of doctors said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Obamacare passes. Seventy-two percent of doctors oppose Obama’s health care plan.

9. You Will Be Forced to Purchase Insurance Approved by Bureaucrats: Do you like Medicare Advantage? Gone. Like your high-deductible HSA plan? Forget it. The bureaucrats in Washington will tell you what you can buy, and you will be required to buy something.

10. You and Your Children Will Pay for Trillions in Added Debt: Democrat Sen. Max Baucus admits the cost of Obamacare is more than $2.5 trillion over 10 years. Claims that the bill is deficit-neutral are based on budgetary gimmicks. We will pay the tab for generations to come.
The Last Tradition

Mitch McConnell Wants to Repeal and Replace Health Reform Law

Democrats may have won this battle simply because they ignored the will of the American people. Now, they’re complaining about threats and violence upon their members.

There’s a saying from “the hood” which by the way votes 95% Democrat, “Don’t start none, wom’t be none!”

It’s the Democrats who brought this blowback on themselves by proceeding to drag this country to the Left.

Now, I’m advocating violence in any way shape or fashion. However, don’t start crying or getting scared now about passing Obama Care. You weren’t scared enough to vote “No” on this legislation.

So, don’t be scared now and lay down in the bed which you have made.

The Politico reports:

Refusing to concede permanent defeat on health reform, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell wants to “repeal the whole bill” and replace it with insurance reforms and other measures that could get bipartisan agreement.

“They got health care,” McConnell told POLITICO with a mischievous glint in his eye. “We’ll see whether that’s a gift worth receiving.”

McConnell said that if Republicans were to win back the Senate majority in November, “at the top of our list would be to repeal and replace this health care bill.”

It’s a far-fetched promise, because McConnell would need 67 votes in order to override President Barack Obama’s certain veto. But Republicans in the House and Senate are saying “repeal and replace” might be a GOP battle cry in this fall’s midterm races.

“This is what’s on the minds of the American people,” McConnell said in an interview for the POLITICO video series “Health Care Diagnosis.” “They’ve been riveted on it like a laser for the last year, and they would like to see us make significant changes. We’d repeal the Medicare cuts; we’d repeal the tax increases.”

The veteran Kentucky legislator even made the bold claim that at the beginning of next year, “a number of Democrats may be interested in revisiting this health care monstrosity as well.”

“If the Democrats end up having a bad election this November, I think they may well want to join us in revisiting some of the more unpleasant aspects of this bill which will be on full display during the fall campaign,” he said.

McConnell also said the state attorneys general who have challenged the new law’s constitutionality have “a legitimate concern.”

“State governments have a lot of grievances,” he said. “They’re going to get stuck with significant Medicaid costs down the road, which is why you have so many governors upset on a bipartisan basis. And they’re worried about the individual health insurance mandate, and I think it’s a legitimate lawsuit.”

During the interview in his Capitol suite, McConnell was celebrating a centennial: his 100th floor speech on health reform since June 1 — a steady-as-she-goes opposition that certainly delayed the president’s plan, even though it didn’t ultimately derail it.

“I think we came close to preventing this 2,700-page monstrosity from being perpetrated,” McConnell said. “It got 60 votes in the Senate, which was the bare minimum.”

Asked if he regretted not working more with the White House and Democratic leadership so that more Republican ideas were included, McConnell said: “It was pretty clear from early on ... [that] the only thing they were inclined to do was to throw a few bones in our direction and get us to swallow a major reorganization of one-sixth of our economy
Full story

Via Politico

Via Memeorandum

The Last Tradition

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Now let’s examine how your life will be different living in Bamazuela. For those of you who have read my blog before, Bamazuela is the new name for this country since the passage of health care reform.

If you don’t get it, what’s written below will kick you in the teeth eventually.

From Investor’s Business Daily:

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care.

We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

This is only the beginning if we continue to stay asleep as a nation.

Via Investor’s Business Daily

Via Memeorandum

The Last Tradition

States Poised to File Suit Against Health Care Reform

MUST READ
Welcome to Obamazuela

THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER!

Despite the public celebrations by President Obama and the Democrats, as many as 33 states are ready to file suit against the constitutionality of Obama Care.

Free Republic.com reports:

In late breaking news this evening after the historic passage of Obamacare through the House of Representatives by Democrats over bipartisan opposition, many state attorneys general held a conference call in which it was decided that they would file a multi-state suit alleging the newly-passed Obamacare is unconstitutional immediately after President Barack Obama signs the act, which is expected on early next week. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott broke the news on his Facebook page:

Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights.

While the entire roster of claims regarding unconstitutionality is obviously unknown at this time, it appears that a central focus of the initial immediate filing (which will undoubtedly be amended several times) will be whether the individual mandate, which requires American citizens to purchase health insurance from private insurers, is a constitutional exercise of the federal government’s proscribed powers. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced late Sunday night after the conference call that Virginia planned on joining the multi-state litigation against Obamacare:

Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office confirmed last night.

Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week.

“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” Cuccinelli said in a statement last night.

Finally, Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum announced Florida would join the suit:

ORLANDO, FL — Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama’s health care legislation, Florida’s Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.

Bill McCollum will join Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota to file a lawsuit against the federal government.

“The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,” McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.

“If the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens.”

As noted above, many other states are also expected to join the multi-state litigation set to be filed this week as soon as President Obama signs the bill, originally passed on Christmas Eve 2009 by the Senate and today passed by the House. This matter will present the largest challenge in decades to the present jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause, which presently allows essentially unlimited federal government regulation of any economic activity. One key factor for the Court is state activism to oppose federal encroachment in any given area, and a total of 37 states may pass specific legislation to battle the Obamacare provision requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance:

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

This litigation will open a new chapter in the Obamacare battle in federal district court, where political fireworks are sure to ensue and a momentous decision is set to be made by the trial court and then, in all likelihood, the Supreme Court of the United States. President Obama may yet regret the recent public fights between him and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (who Obama filibustered as a Senator), as the existing acrimony between the branches cannot be helpful for the President’s chances of avoiding a damaging Supreme Court ruling that his signature initiative is unconstitutional.

This war for American Liberty and Digmity is not over yet!

Via Free Republic.com

The Last Tradition

President Obama’s Obots VS Us

Yesterday, President Obama went on the campaign trail to convince the American people that he knows best about health care reform.

Trouble is, the majority of the American people are rejecting the message. But, Obama relies on the “un-informed” crowd that’s too busy with living their day to day lives than to really examine what this whole debate is all about.

You know who these people are.

They’re not stupid, but rather are willingly ignorant because they want Obama to do well as president.

The president knows exactly that these are the people that would call their congressman on the president's behalf and accuse Joe Shmo representative of being a racists because he’s not supporting the president.

Sounds silly?

It’s happening right now in the halls of congress.

It doesn't matter to these people, or should I say Obots, because many of them are already on the public dime in one way or another.

They are the entitlement society personified and they are the president’s base, or what’s left of it.

But, there are many more of us in this country than there are of them.

Fight on, Conservatives!

The Last Tradition

Paul Ryan Pummels President Obama with Facts on ObamaCara

KNOCK PUNCH by Rep Paul Ryan and down goes President Obama!

I guess its never a good idea to let some facts about what’s actually written in this massive take over of health care by the U.S. government.


From the Weekly Standard:

Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, just launched a full-bore assault on the faulty assumptions behind the claim that the Obama health care plan will reduce the deficit. Obama didn't even bother questioning Ryan's presentation. He changed the subject to Medicare Advantage. The expression on the president's face as Ryan made his case was absolutely priceless. Simply put, he looked like someone who realizes he's met his match.



Did you how angry the President looked while he was getting his clock cleaned?

Via The Weekly Standad

The Last Tradition

OBAMA & DEMS IN ‘05: 51 VOTE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ IS ‘ARROGANT’ POWER GRAB AGAINST THE FOUNDERS’ INTENT

REMEMBER WHEN THE DEMOCRATS SQUEALED LIKE STUCK PIGS IN 2005 WHEN REPUBLICANS WANTED TO USE RECONCILIATION TO APPROVE BUSH’S SELECTIONS FOR THE COURT?

BACK THEN THEY CALLED IT THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

TODAY THESE SAME DEMS WANT TO PASS OBAMACARE USING THE SAME TACTIC THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT IN 2005.

HYPERCRITICS, THY NAME ARE DEMOCRATS.




Via You Tube

The Last Tradition

Democrats Go Nuclear in 60 Days to Pass ObamaCare

Those pesky Democrats in the senate, at least the ones who haven’t announced their retirement, are choosing to pass ObamaCare by using the Nuclear Option, also known as reconciliation whereby only a simple majority of 51 votes gets the bill passed.

This is a very audacious move by the Dems who insist on passing a healthcare reform plan that will lead to inadequate care at the hands of an administration that loves to spend your money.

The Hill reports:

The move would allow Democrats to essentially go it alone on health reform, especially after losing their filibuter-proof majority in the Senate after Sen. Scott Brown's (R) special election victory in Massachusetts.

Republicans have protested the maneuver as a hyperpartisan tactic to ram through a health bill, and have said that plans to use the reconciliation process make moot a bipartisan summit at the White House this week, where both GOP and Democratic leaders are supposed to present their ideas on healthcare.
Full story

As has been the case for the past year, Democrats don’t want to listen to Republican ideas or anything dealing with free market solutions.

Their true God is government now, government tomorrow, government forever!

Via The Hill

Via Memeorandum

From The Last Tradition

A Review of Barack Obama’s First 365 Days in Office

Today is the one year anniversary of Barack Obama taking the oath of office for the presidency of the United States. Since it’s impossible to get an honest assessment from the Left wing media that has been in the tank for president, lets get some candor from our friend at Saturday Night Live.



Then look how the Obama-suck ups at CNN for the first time in television history actually do a "fact check" on a comedy show.



It’s been a very tough year, Barry, when you think you deserve a B+ for your performance as president.

Via You Tube

From The Last Tradition

Mr. Brown is Going to Washinton

It wasn’t suppose to happen!

In a stunning upset in the Blue state of Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley and sent shock waves across the across the country and most certainly rocked the offices of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and most definitely President Barack Obama.

In one year after Barack Obama’s historic inauguration where Democrats salivated over the prospect of “changing America” into a Liberal Utopian Paradise at the people’s expense, Independent voters in Massachusetts voted in droves to repudiate President Obama’s obscenely expensive Health Care bill.

Scott Brown ran on a simple message that he delivered across the land of John Adams in his pick up truck, “I will be the 41st vote to stop this health care plan and cut your taxes too.”

They came, they voted, he won.

"I voted for Obama because I wanted change. ... I thought he'd bring it to us, but I just don't like the direction that he's heading," said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

Whispers are already making the rounds in Democrat circles in D.C. that despite Brown’s election, the Dems will seek a nuclear option to precede with ObamaCare.

Yes, these guys never learn.

However, some prominent Democrats like Evan Bayh have responded to these rumors with a stern and possibly prophetic warning to his fellow colleagues that such a move can have “catastrophic” consequences in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections in November.

Don’t underestimate the foolishness of the Democrat party.

The wave that started in Virginia with the election of Republican Bob McDonnell picked up enough steam to usher fellow GOPer Chris Christie in New Jersey and continued to tidal wave Scott Brown into Ted Kennedy’s old seat thanks to the ghosts of the Boston Tea party making their presences felt once again.

Scott Brown is going to Washington!

Oh Happy Day!




Via Yahoo News

Via ABC News

Via Fox News

From The Last Tradition

Joe Lieberman Close to Endorsing Conservative Scott Brown for Senate

It seems that Democrat Joe Lieberman is sticking his finger in the air and noticing the winds of discontent are blowing strong in Massachusetts.

In the bluest of blue states where disgruntled colonists threw boxes of tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 in protest of outrageous taxes imposed by the King of England, that same spirit of patriotism and dissent is welling up in the 2010 special election between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown.




What makes this choice so stunning is that Massachusetts is a Democrat stronghold where registered Democrats out number Republicans 3 to 1. The fact that this race is so close and in one poll Brown has a lead over Coakley tells you one thing.

President Barack Obama’s push to pass a Health Care reform bill that a majority of Americans don’t want has caused the people of Massachusetts to recoil.

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell recently said that Health Care reform will be a toxic issue for Democrats not only in 2010, but also 2012 as the Democrat party continues to push for a European-style socialized medical care system that has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

As we enter the last 48 hours of the campaign, the people of Massachusetts are getting ready to relive their ancestral past and send a very clear message to Washington and the rest of the world.

Enough is enough!

Via InsideMedford.com

Via The Hill

Via Video at Before Its News.com

From The Last Tradition

Scott Brown Getting Support From SEIU Members

American Spectator

WORCESTER, Mass. - Supporters of Republican Scott Brown lined the sides of a street here outside a Democratic rally at Worcester Polytechnic Institute where former President Bill Clinton came to campaign for Martha Coakley.

More than 75 boosters of the GOP candidate turned out for the counter-rally, standing the sub-freezing weather to wave Brown signs and loudly sing (to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic"), "Glory, Hallelujah . . . Send Scott Brown to D.C.!"

Among the Brown supporters were - believe it or not - rank-and-file members of the Service Employees International Union.

"We're Americans - we have our free choice," said one of the SEIU members, who identified herself only as Michelle and said she drove more than 60 miles from Western Massachusetts - "The stepchild of this state" - to show her support for Brown in Worcester.

Not only is Michelle a Brown supporter, but she's also a Tea Party activist who rode 10 hours on a bus to attend last year's 9/12 March on D.C. "I didn't like the slide into socialism," she explained.

Michelle is aware of the importance of Tuesday's election.
"I feel like we're here . . . not just voting for us," she said. "We are casting our vote for the rest of America."

GO SCOTT GO!!!

Opps SEIU ad against Scott Brown that makes the case why voters SHOULD vote for him!


From The Last Tradition

Proof that President Obama is a Damn Liar: Lets put it all on CSPAN

Can you really trust whatever he says about anything?



From The Last Tradition

America’s New Paul Revere: Sem James Risch on ObamaCare

I don’t need to say a word. Listen to man America and wake the hell up!



From The Last Tradition

Rachel Maddow Sinks to a New Low: Ridiculing Christians at Prayer

You know I think it’s disgusting that Rachel Maddow (The Karate Kid) used footage of Christians engaged in prayer to base her political commentary.

They (Liberals) really have no limit to the depths that they are willing to sink to inform the mindless dolts who follow them in the first place.

However, on further reflection, I cannot totally put blame on Leftist like Maddow, or Chris Matthews or even Keith Olberman for they do not know what they do.

Several years ago, Ann Coulter wrote a terrific book entitled, Godless, in which the Left went ballistic over a single chapter dealing with the so-called 911 widows.

However, the overall premises of the book, namely that Liberals are ungodly folks who pay only lip service to a belief in one true God. And when they do, its really for appearance sake so they can continue living lives of moral relativism which actually means by no morality except for standards they make up as they go along.

You know, things like climate change or closing Gitmo.

They didn’t give a hoot that Coulter was labeling them as “Godless” because she had them pegged for what they truly are.

And they didn’t care enough or knew enough to be offended. Ironically, this from a people that never miss an opportunity to be offended by anything.

So, on a certain level, I can’t hold the ignorant responsible for something that they’re totally ignorant about, such as the power of prayer.

However, I will say that Maddow has surpassed even Harry Reid’s slavery comments by offering a critique of prayers to score cheap and loathsome political points.

Nonetheless, ridicule is the only method Maddow employs on a regular basis which would explain her miniscule ratings.

But, if by some strange miracle, Rachel Maddow comes across this blog, let me say this.

Prayer is how we Christians have a conversation with God. We believe in a Creator God with all our hearts. We are not ashamed of this despite that amount of times you may show footage on MSNBC of Christians praying in Jesus name. In fact, we’ll even pray for you, Rachel Maddow, because no one is beyond Christ's redemptive power—not even godless Liberals.

From The Last Tradition