MoeIssuesoftheDay.blogspot.com

Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com

Friday, November 21, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day


How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%2




Think Obamacare's Affordable? You're Stupid


Before he became the Obama administration's least favorite overpaid expert, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber was its darling. He appeared in an Obama campaign ad saying, "I helped (Massachusetts) Gov. (Mitt) Romney develop his health care reform, or Romneycare, before going down to Washington to help President Obama develop his national version of that law." The false portrayal of Romneycare and Obamacare as practically identical fueled the Democratic delusion that Congress had drafted the Affordable Care Act to appeal to rascally Republicans.
Now Gruber is in the doghouse because he was captured on video being brutally honest. In 2010, Gruber told a panel, "Barack Obama's not a stupid man, OK?" Obama knew the public doesn't care about the uninsured, Gruber said. "What the American public cares about is costs. And that's why even though the bill that they made is 90 percent health insurance coverage and 10 percent about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control."
Ergo, candidate Obama's 2008 promise that his universal health plan would "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family."
What happened to those savings? Josh Archambault, senior fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, a free market think tank, answered, "We have not seen them yet."
Even in 2008, it was clear that pledge was bogus. The New York Times reported in July, "The health policy advisers who formulated the figure say it actually represents the average family's share of savings not only in premiums paid by individuals, but also in premiums paid by employers and in tax-supported health programs like Medicare and Medicaid." Economist David Cutler admitted to "occasional misstatements" made in service to a desire to "find a way to talk to people in a way they understand."
(Three Harvard professors made a "best guess" as to how much the government, employers and consumers might save when Obama's proposals are fully implemented -- $200 billion annually -- divided by the number of Americans and multiplied by four. Then they let Obamaland talk as if all the savings would go to premium reductions.)
At a different venue, Gruber alluded to the "stupidity of the American voter" for falling for the administration's claim that Obamacare's Cadillac tax on employer-paid health plans would be "a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans."
Obama whisperer David Axelrod tweeted, "If you looked up 'stupid' in dictionary, you'd find Gruber's picture." For a stupid guy, Gruber sure cashed in. According to Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, the federal government paid Gruber almost $400,000 to consult on the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and another $2 million over seven years to assess Medicare choices.
In 2012, Gruber was a key figure in the making of a myth -- that is, that Democrats drafted Obamacare to attract Republicans, who perversely would not vote for the law, thus forcing Democrats to enact a measure they didn't really want. Chalk that up to the stupidity of the consulting class -- which pays very well.

Opportunity Knocks -- Again

Paul Greenberg


Once more it's back to the drawing board for Obamacare -- or maybe just the ouija board that the Supreme Court of the United States has been using to determine its fate. With this court, you never know. Yes, it has a thinker or two who may go to the crux of a case (Mr. Justice Alito comes to mind), but in the main it is mediocrity times nine. And an ever shifting mediocrity at that, depending on where Mr. Justice Anthony Kennedy's seesawing stops that day.
All is uncertain at the moment because the circuits on this elaborate gizmo ironically styled the Affordable Care Act (talk about an oxymoron!) seem broken. They keep shooting sparks at each other. A panel of judges on one circuit court of appeals, the Fourth, has let Obamacare stand, if by only the narrowest of margins, 2 to 1. While another panel of judges, this one on the D.C. circuit, ruled against Obamacare by the same 2-to-1 vote -- only to have its decision vacated while the entire circuit court gets a crack at this president's Signature Accomplishment and general headache. But that may never happen because, in the meantime, the Supremes have decided to hear the case, King v. Burwell, that is to determine Obamacare's fate. Again.
Obamacare just keeps coming back like a bad penny, or rather a bad trillion dollars, since this administration's take-over, shake-up, or just continual meddlin' with the country's health-care system affects a sixth or so of the whole American economy. Which makes it a matter of some importance to determine whether Obamacare is sound law or just an unreasonable facsimile thereof.
For now another "settled question" at law doesn't seem to have been settled at all. And may never be. For nothing is settled till it's settled right. And whatever Obamacare is, the greatest innovation in medicine since penicillin or the greatest step backward since bloodletting, the one thing sure is that its legal fate is still unsettled. And unsettling.
This time the Supreme Court's deliberations will have to revolve around the words of the statute establishing Obamacare's subsidized insurance exchanges, the key to financing the whole, big Rube Goldberg-style contraption, and whether those words mean what they plainly say. For the statute limits subsidies under the program to those who have signed up for them through "an exchange established by the state." Which would seem clear enough to those acquainted with the English language. But the administration's lawheads explain that the words actually mean that government subsidies may be obtained through an exchange not established by the state but by the federal government.
Maybe you have to have a fine legal education to understand that argument, because to us naifs who still believe words mean what they say -- a belief that clearly disqualifies us for the federal bench -- the words are clear enough. But not for government work.
..
The ever cooperative Internal Revenue Service has already issued a decision supporting the Obama administration's strange (mis)interpretation of the law. Just as the IRS hastened to do the administration's bidding by selectively enforcing the law about tax exemptions. Result: Left-wing outfits got theirs without much trouble; right-wing ones (think Tea Party or pro-Israel groups) didn't. Only when Congress started asking troublesome questions did Lois Lerner, the central figure in that scandal, resign and disappear for a welcome while. Surely she'll be her old, stubborn, defiant, Fifth Amendment-pleading self once the spotlight has moved on.
..
The legal spotlight now is on Obamacare, and not for the first time. For the country's Supreme Court has considered it, and upheld it, once before. Also by the narrowest of margins: 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the decisive vote. He must have a fine legal mind, too, because he did so by deciding that the fee Obamacare makes mandatory in order for the system to function isn't a fee at all but a tax. No matter what Obamacare's sponsors claimed when it was being debated in Congress. But what do they know? They only wrote the law.
..
Or as the redoubtable Nancy Pelosi, the happily former speaker of the House, explained at the time, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." Call it the pig-in-a-poke theory of jurisprudence, or Buy Now, Pay Whatever We Say Later.
But that fog of controversy Ms. Pelosi mentioned has never lifted, and probably never will so long as Obamacare itself is generating questions. Which explains why it's become the legal equivalent of a fog machine. This time one of those questions has reached the country's highest court -- once again. That happens when great questions aren't really decided but just put off. Which is pretty much what the current chief justice succeeded in doing when he let Obamacare survive this far.
..
Chief Justice John Roberts might have gone down as one of the great figures in American law history if he had led the Supreme Court it in declaring Obamacare unconstitutional, and taken his place in history alongside Charles Evans Hughes and Louis D. Brandeis, the justices who led a unanimous court in declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional back in 1935. On the grounds that it undertook to trample on the rights of states and generally regiment the whole economy of a free country. As it did.
Furious at first, FDR threatened to pack the court, enact his "signature accomplishment" all by himself, and generally rule by executive order. But once all the dust had settled, an accommodation was reached: The best parts of the old act -- like its protections for the rights of organized labor -- were passed separately, and the worst, like the gigantic public-private trust it created to run the economy, was allowed to die. And freedom to ring.
All of which sounds like the kind of compromise this current Democratic administration and this welcome new, Republican-led Congress need to work out where Obamacare is concerned: Keep its more desirable features, like letting young people stay on their parents' health insurance much longer, and let its worst expire -- like turning American health care into one big trust dominated by the country's health and insurance industries.
The country's chief justice missed an historic opportunity when he saved Obamacare once before, but that opportunity is knocking again. Thanks to the chief justice's decisive decision last time it came up, Obamacare has managed to survive. So far. But stay tuned. Because the only thing sure about the great unraveling of Obamacare is that it is To Be Continued.


President Obama hosts 'ConnectED to the Future' conference

$weet dreams: Obama billed taxpayers $295,227 to fly home to 'sleep in his own bed'


In what a taxpayer watchdog group called an unusual abuse, President Obama’s decision over Labor Day to fly home from New York to sleep in his own bed instead of overnighting and then attending the New York wedding of his chef cost Americans $295,227.
It was just one expensive leg of a Labor Day work and fun trip with an overall price tag of $1,539,402.10 in flight expenses alone — not including security costs, food, housing or those associated with his staff.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “This Labor Day back-and-forth shows President Obama seems to confuse Air Force One with Uber. President Obama abuses not only taxpayers with this unnecessary travel — he strains an already overstretched military and a Secret Service that is in crisis and can’t even guard the front door of the White House.”
According to the newly released records obtained by Judicial Watch:
— Flights for Obama’s 2014 Labor Day weekend fundraising trips to Westchester, N.Y., and Providence, R.I., cost taxpayers $527,192.50
— Transportation for Obama’s round-trip flight from D.C. to Westchester to attend a wedding cost taxpayers $358,490.90
— The flight for Obama’s trip to Milwaukee to speak at “Laborfest 2014” cost taxpayers $653,718.70
The trip began with fundraisers in the the Northeast. He started in Westchester on Aug. 29. He attended two fundraisers in New York, then one in Rhode Island.
He was supposed to fly back to nearby Westchester, spend the night, then wake to attend the wedding of Sam Kass and liberal MSNBC commentator Alex Wagner on Saturday.
At the last minute, he flew to Washington, where, his press secretary said, he could “sleep in his own bed, do a little work tomorrow, spend some time with his family, and then travel back to New York.”
Said Judicial watch, “The difference between flying to Washington, D.C., instead of New York created an additional 1.4 hours spent in Air Force One, which adds up to $295,227.80 more in taxpayer dollars.”
He ended his Labor day travels in Milwaukee on Monday, where he made a campaign speech at Laborfest 2014.
Fitton, whose group has charted presidential travel costs for years, said Congress should look into Obama’s use of Air Force One for fun and fundraising. “The new Congress could do worse than to reform presidential travel so taxpayers aren’t gouged by candidates and campaigns benefitting from the political use of Air Force One,” he said.


The Keystone Pipeline Is Not About Oil—It’s About Milk

The Keystone Pipeline Is Not About Oil—It’s About Milk


The ceaseless debate over the Keystone XL pipeline has nothing to do with affordable energy and everything to do with enriching the political class.
On Tuesday evening, the U.S. Senate finished the latest performance in one of its oldest pastimes: political theater. Facing a December runoff that she is widely predicted to lose, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu attempted to, er, re-energize her campaign by spearheading Senate passage of a bill approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
Yet despite passing easily in the House earlier this month, the Keystone billfell just short of the 60 votes necessary for Senate passage. While that made for some high drama, two facts made the final vote a bit of an anti-climax: Even if Landrieu had produced the necessary 60 votes, President Obama would likely have carried through on threats to veto the bill; and come January, a new Republican Senate should be able to pass the measure regardless.
If all of this seems somehow drearily familiar, there’s a reason for that. Like the plot of a cliffhanger-laden soap opera, approval of the Keystone pipeline has repeatedly appeared imminent, only to be pushed off to some later date. Keystone looked headed for State Department approval in 2010, when the Environmental Protection Agency raised objections over environmental concerns. In 2011, the hold-up was the route through Nebraska. TransCanada ultimately proposed a different route, and Congress passed legislation requiring the Obama administration to rule on Keystone within 60 days. Still, in January of 2012 Obama rejected TransCanada’s application, saying that the matter required more study. Subsequent reviews undercut concerns that Keystone would have significant environmental harms. Nevertheless, in April of 2014, the State Department announced that it was again delaying a decision on Keystone.
Keystone is overwhelmingly popular. The State Department estimates that the project would create 42,000 jobs and contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the U.S. economy. Because pipelines are safer and less-emissions intensive than other forms of oil transport, the State Department has also concluded that the project will have minimal environmental impacts. Given all this, the continued inability of the federal government to resolve this issue after years of deliberation may seem mystifying. Particularly noteworthy has been the Hamlet-like pose the administration has adopted, never quite coming out explicitly against the project, but never willing to approve it, either.

Keystone Politics: A Renewable Resource

What’s going on? In my view, the key to understand the politics of Keystone is that the controversy is fundamentally not about oil, but about milk. In his recent book, “Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets,” Peter Schweizer describes what he calls a “milker bill”:
Politicians from some parts of the country refer to ‘milker bills,’ which are intended to ‘milk’ companies and individuals to pass or stop legislation that will benefit or hurt them… [P]oliticians often don’t want these bills to pass because if they do, the opportunity for future extortion is removed. A good milker bill can be introduced repeatedly, milking donors year after year.
Keystone is what you might call a “milker executive action.” In fact, when it comes to Democrats, the Keystone pipeline is what Schweizer describes as the coveted “double-milker,” which “is designed to play two deep-pocketed industries against each other, setting off a lucrative arms race.”
In this case, Keystone pits two traditionally Democratic allies each other. In one corner are well-heeled environmentalists, who have spent big fighting Keystone in the court of public opinion. In the other corner is organized labor, which largely favors approval as a source of jobs, and even some energy companies (which have contributed to Landrieu’s campaign). Any final decision on Keystone would risk alienating a key Democratic constituent (and would threaten to cut off the pipeline of campaign donations). By keeping the issue in everlasting limbo, however, Democrats can continually use the prospect of Keystone approval as a renewable resource both financially and electorally.
The political dynamics surrounding Keystone may shift somewhat next year when the new Congress comes to Washington. Keystone opponents, however, will probably urge vetoes or even lawsuits to keep the project from going forward. So we may have to wait a few more seasons still before the great Keystone saga is finally resolved.


THE SHOCKING WAY OBAMA IS SENTENCING BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO DEATH

Ever since Operation Fast and Furious came to light several years ago Obama’s handling of the border has come into question.
Fast and Furious exposed not only the ineptitude of the Department of Justice, but also how deadly the border can be for agents.
An NBC affiliate (KVOA) has been reporting on a new way that Obama is contributing to the dangerous situation on the border.
Agents’ M-4 carbines are being inspected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Offices of Border Patrol and Training and Development. When a carbine is discovered to be in need of repair, the weapon is taken from the agent in order to be repaired.
This has left agents weaponless, and has even made it so they have to share weapons.
This has understandably made many border patrol agents fearful and aggravated.
Art del Cueto, who’s president of the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector union said, “There’s a lot of agents that are pretty upset over it…We know it’s a dangerous job. We know what we signed on for, but we want to have as much of the equipment as we need to perform the job.”
Who could blame them?
The border patrol is tasked with going up against heavily armed Mexican militias, drug cartels and even corrupt Mexican soldiers.
They need all the firepower they can get.
And when they don’t have an option of defending themselves they might as well be sitting on death row.
So why might this be happening?
Jeff Prather, a former DEA agent, and the manager of Warrior School in Tuscon, AZ, says many of the agents are concerned, and that he doesn’t believe the weapons are being taken from agents just for maintenance.
As reported by KVOA:
‘Cartels have always been better equipped, the paramilitary forces, the corrupt Mexican soldiers and federales at times.’ Prather said.
He says agents have contacted him and told him about their concerns about sharing the weapons.
‘And now they’re seriously concerned. Because if they’re concerned enough to reach out and contact me and reach out so we get this message out, they are not only frustrated but they are in fear for their lives.’
Prather believes removing some of the rifles maybe politically motivated. He says he was told that many of these guns are being removed for issues that are easily repaired like the firing pin and bolt.
He broke down a M4 as he spoke.
‘This weapon is designed to be able to be in a battle situation, changed out rather quickly even so fast that modern weapons have areas to hold spare bolts.’
Ultimately, Prather believes the border patrol are being disarmed by the Obama administration. Neither he nor Art del Cueto can offer any other explanation for the guns being taken away.
And just think… If the government can take away weapons from those who need them most, what might happen when they come for yours?
Don’t let that happen to you….
Remember: They can’t take away what they don’t know you have.

THE SHOCKING WAY OBAMA IS SENTENCING BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO DEATH

Ever since Operation Fast and Furious came to light several years ago Obama’s handling of the border has come into question.
Fast and Furious exposed not only the ineptitude of the Department of Justice, but also how deadly the border can be for agents.
An NBC affiliate (KVOA) has been reporting on a new way that Obama is contributing to the dangerous situation on the border.
Agents’ M-4 carbines are being inspected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Offices of Border Patrol and Training and Development. When a carbine is discovered to be in need of repair, the weapon is taken from the agent in order to be repaired.
This has left agents weaponless, and has even made it so they have to share weapons.
This has understandably made many border patrol agents fearful and aggravated.
Art del Cueto, who’s president of the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector union said, “There’s a lot of agents that are pretty upset over it…We know it’s a dangerous job. We know what we signed on for, but we want to have as much of the equipment as we need to perform the job.”
Who could blame them?
The border patrol is tasked with going up against heavily armed Mexican militias, drug cartels and even corrupt Mexican soldiers.
They need all the firepower they can get.
And when they don’t have an option of defending themselves they might as well be sitting on death row.
So why might this be happening?
Jeff Prather, a former DEA agent, and the manager of Warrior School in Tuscon, AZ, says many of the agents are concerned, and that he doesn’t believe the weapons are being taken from agents just for maintenance.
As reported by KVOA:
‘Cartels have always been better equipped, the paramilitary forces, the corrupt Mexican soldiers and federales at times.’ Prather said.
He says agents have contacted him and told him about their concerns about sharing the weapons.
‘And now they’re seriously concerned. Because if they’re concerned enough to reach out and contact me and reach out so we get this message out, they are not only frustrated but they are in fear for their lives.’
Prather believes removing some of the rifles maybe politically motivated. He says he was told that many of these guns are being removed for issues that are easily repaired like the firing pin and bolt.
He broke down a M4 as he spoke.
‘This weapon is designed to be able to be in a battle situation, changed out rather quickly even so fast that modern weapons have areas to hold spare bolts.’
Ultimately, Prather believes the border patrol are being disarmed by the Obama administration. Neither he nor Art del Cueto can offer any other explanation for the guns being taken away.
And just think… If the government can take away weapons from those who need them most, what might happen when they come for yours?
Don’t let that happen to you….
Jonathan Gruber

BOEHNER’S QUEST TO REPEAL OBAMACARE JUST GOT A BIG BOOST FROM THE UNLIKELIEST OF ALLIES


Speaker of the House John Boehner’s campaign to get rid of the Affordable Healthcare Act just got a big boost from a very unexpected Washington insider. Remarks made by Jonathan Gruber (shown above), a healthcare analyst and one of the original architects of the Obama legislation, have just come to light, and they are inflammatory. Gruber participated in a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania for the 2013 Annual Health Economics Conference, and he said:

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.
After last year’s AHEC video surfaced a few days ago, Gruber hurried to defuse the situation. The Washington Post reports:

Gruber apologized for his incendiary remarks in an on-air interview with MSNBC Tuesday afternoon, calling his comments inappropriate and saying he was speaking “off the cuff.” On Tuesday evening, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly aired a second video, of Gruber calling voters stupid, also from 2013.
Conservatives are outraged at the remarks, which reinforce what most Republican lawmakers already suspected. Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told the Washington Post:

We may want to have hearings on this. We shouldn’t be surprised they were misleading us.
Speaker Boehner has remained steadfast in his commitment to kill Obamacare. He has brought the matter to a vote in the House of Representative approximately 40 times, but his efforts have been impeded by Democratic control of the Senate. Now that Republicans have regained control of that body, it appears possible the entire Congress may come together in 2015 to repeal the hated bill once and for all. Of course, Obama would veto such a bill, and Congress would need a solid two-thirds majority in both houses to override the veto.
Obamacare is hurting our economy. It’s hurting middle-class families, and it’s hurting the ability of employers to create more jobs. And so the House I’m sure at some point next year will move to repeal Obamacare. It should be repealed and it should be replaced with common sense reforms that respect the doctor-patient relationship. Now, whether that can pass the Senate, I don’t know. But I know in the House it will pass.



By Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
I started investigating Loretta Lynch, Obama’s pick for Attorney General and immediately could see an interesting connection. I read an article stating that when Loretta Lynch started Harvard, she co-founded an African-American sorority. There was only one other girl in this sorority, Sharon Malone. The name rang a bell.
The name of the wife of AG Holder is Sharon Malone, she is the sister of a known civil rights leader Vivien Malone -Jones (one of 2 black students who enrolled in all white University of Alabama).
I checked the age: both were born in 1959 and both went to Harvard at the same time. There were very few African American students in Harvard in 1977-1981, so I am rather certain that Loretta Lynch is an old college friend of Sharon Malone, the wife of the current AG Eric Holder.
Why this connection is important? Holder will be investigated by Congress for totally lawless gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, VA scandal, DOJ, NSA, EPA, FEC and other scandals. Most importantly, Holder covered up Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number of Harrison J. Bounel 042-68-4425 and Obama’s use of bogus IDs. It seems that  a long time college friend of Holder’s wife was picked up as a gatekeeper to continue all of the cover up by Holder and shield Holder and Obama from criminal prosecution.


1jeff

Who Just Became Obama’s Amnesty Agenda’s Worst Nightmare? THIS SENATOR!


Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has had enough of the political elites in President Barack Obama’s White House. And now, with Republicans taking over the Senate, Sessions is ready to go to war to stop Obama’s plan to illegally grant amnesty to nearly 5 million illegal immigrants using executive orders.

Exit polls show that 3 out of 4 voters had immigration on their mind when they elected Republicans in a massive landslide victory this month. This threat to constitutional order grants photo IDs and social security numbers to these border criminals, even if the American people are overwhelmingly against it.

Sessions is an important leader in the Senate, and fired the first shot in this critical battle for America’s future by writing this op-ed in The Politico. And he doesn’t hold back his disdain for Obama’s deliberately-manufactured border crisis:
The President will arrogate to himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can work in the U.S., who can live in the U.S., and who can claim benefits in the U.S.—by the millions. His actions will wipe out the immigration protections to which every single American citizen is lawfully entitled. And his actions will ensure—as law enforcement officers have cried out in repeated warnings—a “tidal wave” of new illegal immigration.

He must be stopped. And the American people have sent Washington a Republican congressional majority to do exactly that. Here’s how we can stop him:

President Obama’s executive amnesty will not be easy to execute. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have to be ordered to redirect funds and personnel away from its statutorily mandated enforcement duties and towards processing applications, amnesty benefits, and employment authorizations for illegal immigrants and illegal overstays. It is a massive and expensive operation.

And it cannot be implemented if Congress simply includes routine language on any government funding bill prohibiting the expenditure of funds for this unlawful purpose. This is the same way we prevented the President from closing Guantanamo Bay. Such application of congressional power is ordinary, unexceptional, and used thousands of times.
And
We cannot yield to open borders. We cannot let one executive edict erase the immigration laws of an entire nation. If we believe America is a sovereign country, with enforceable boundaries, and a duty to protect its own people, then we have no choice but to fight and to win.
It is clear Congress is willing to use its power of the purse to take back this authority Obama has wrongfully usurped. Obama is acting like a king or tyrant, and is willing to use his final two years to remake America according to his warped, leftist ideology.

America has tough immigration laws on the books, and it’s time for America to start enforcing them!

Do you agree it is time to secure the border? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.

Gruber: 'Evil' GOP Resistance to Obamacare Provision Rooted in Racism, Hatred of Poor

Jonathan Gruber strikes again. NRO's Jim Geragthy digs up yet another video of the increasingly infamous MIT economist sounding off on the law he helped design, and assassinating the character of its critics. In this episode, recorded in April 2014, Gruber rips into Republican opponents of Medicaid expansion, calling some governors' and legislators' efforts to reject the federal strings "almost awesome in its evilness." Note how the interview subject grins as he's introduced as "the architect" of Obamacare -- a reality some people are rather eager to deny these days:
"There’s larger principles at stake here. When these states are turning – not just turning down covering the poor people – but turning down the federal stimulus that would come with that. So the price they are willing … They are not just not interested in covering poor people, they are willing to sacrifice billions of dollars of injections into their economy in order to punish poor people. It really is just almost awesome in its evilness."
Here's a guy who has proudly boasted on camera of repeatedly misleading the "stupid" American people in order to achieve his ideological ends -- which also just so happened to personally enrich him to the tune of millions of dollars -- calling other people "evil" and spiteful for disagreeing with his grand project.  In addition to "punishing poor people" (more on that in a moment), Gruber later follows his party's all-purpose script by playing the race card:
"I really believe that if we could politically help explain the costs to society of cutting provider rates, of cutting back Medicaid, I think we’d get the majority of people to support strengthening that program. I think it’s just because of racial reasons and other things, we just haven’t managed to get through with that message."
Remember, in its original form, Medicaid expansion at the state level was mandatory.  After that provision was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on a 7-2 vote, a number of Republican-led states have declined to take the federal government up on its "generous" offer.  The feds' supposed largesse comes with strings attached, as phased-in pay-fors require the states to start picking up a portion of the higher tab in future years.  Beyond that objection, many conservatives' opposition to expanding Medicaid is that the existing program is already a mind-blowingly expensive failure.  Last year, a gold-plated, comprehensive study on Oregon's Medicaid program (widely considered to be one of the the best in the country) dropped like a policy bomb on healthcare wonks.  It concluded that low-income Oregonians enrolled in Medicaid do not experience any measurably better health outcomes than their uninsured counterparts. In short, gobs of taxpayer money has been, and is being, spent on a program whose 'beneficiaries' are faring just as badly as people without any coverage at all.  Medicaid data out of Oregon also showed that despite Medicaid expanders' rationale, covering more people on the program actuallyincreased the "uncompensated care" of costly ER visits, as opposed to reducing those expenses.  The co-author of this study?  One Jonathan Gruber.  Think about that.
Medicaid also represents the pinnacle of the healthcare adage that 'coverage does not equal care.'  Even prior to its sweeping expansion under Obamacare, huge numbers of the program's enrollees were already suffering from access shock, unable to find doctors who accept Medicaid patients, due to prohibitively low government reimbursement rates.  A lasting, well-publicized issue.  Obamacare (very much including its Medicaid elements) has significantly worsenedthis problem.  Many conservatives, therefore, look at the optional Medicaid expansion and see an already-failing, strained program fraught with federal strings and obligations.  They conclude that doubling down on that program by flooding it with millions of additional Americans would be madness, and would actually harm Medicaid's truly indigent pre-Obamacare recipients by applying even more pressure to a rickety, dysfunctional system. (Might this qualify as "punishing the poor"?)  Yet the man whose own study exposed Medicaid's fatal flaws to the world has denounced these judgments as borne out of evil bigotry and vindictiveness, rather than an entirely rational response to the available data -- including important data supplied by himself.



G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Blog Archive

issues