Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

138086Fwd: ]World-Wide_Politics[ Hehehehehehehehehe - The Step-N-Fetch-It-President Fails Again ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Expand Messages
  • Paul Dunk
    Jul 24, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      From: bobworn@...




      Federals Appeals Court Delivers Serious Setback To Obama Health Care Law


      AP/The Huffington Post


      Posted: 07/22/2014 10:25 am EDT Updated: 39 minutes ago


      (
      http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/federal-appeals-court-del_n_5609440.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Ch
      tmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D505271&media=htt
      p://
      i0.huffpost.com/gen/1923637/thumbs/n-OBAMA-large570.jpg&description=OBAMA)
      President Barack Obama speaks about the about My Brother's Keeper
      initiative at the Walker Jones Education Campus on July 21, 2014 in
      Washington, DC.
      Obama spoke to area youth during a town hall meeting about the initiaive
      that is intended to help young men and boys of color. (Photo by Mark
      Wilson/Getty Images) | Mark Wilson via Getty Images


      WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court delivered a serious setback to
      President Barack Obama's health care law Tuesday, potentially derailing

      billions of dollars in subsidies for many low- and middle-income people who
      bought policies.
      In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
      Circuit, a group of small business owners argued that the law authorizes
      subsidies only for people who buy insurance through markets established by
      the
      states — not by the federal government.
      A divided court agreed, in a 2-1 decision that could mean premium increases
      for more than half the 8 million Americans who have purchased
      taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the law. The ruling affects consumers
      who bought
      coverage in the 36 states served by the federal insurance marketplace, or
      exchange.
      The majority opinion concluded that the law, as written, "unambiguously"
      restricts subsides to consumers in exchanges established by a state. That
      would invalidate an Internal Revenue Service regulation that tried to sort
      out
      confusing wording in the law by concluding that Congress intended for
      consumers in all 50 states to have subsidized coverage.
      The administration is expected to appeal the ruling.
      The issue is crucial to the success of the health law because most states


      have been unable or unwilling to set up their own exchanges. The inaction


      stems in many instances from opposition by Republican governors to the
      Affordable Care Act.
      The small business owners filing the lawsuit say the tax credits enacted by
      Congress were intended to encourage states to set up their own health
      benefit exchanges and that the penalty for not doing so was withdrawal of
      tax
      credits for lower-income residents.
      Supporters of the act say the purpose of the tax credit was not to promote
      the establishment of state exchanges, but rather to achieve Congress's
      fundamental purpose of making insurance affordable for all Americans.
      The case revolves around four words in the Affordable Care Act, which says
      the tax credits are available to people who enroll through an exchange
      "established by the state."
      The challengers to the law say a literal reading of that language
      invalidates the IRS subsidy to people in the federal exchanges. The
      opponents say
      that people who would otherwise qualify for the tax credits should be
      denied
      that benefit if they buy insurance on a federally facilitated exchange.
      "It is implausible to believe that Congress gave the IRS discretion to
      authorize $150 billion per year in federal spending, particularly when
      Congress
      had directly spoken to this issue," the challengers to the IRS subsidy
      said in a court filing. "Major economic decisions like these — indeed, any
      decisions granting tax credits — must be made unambiguously by Congress
      itself."
      The Obama administration and congressional and state legislative supporters
      of the Affordable Care Act say the challengers are failing to consider the
      words of the statute in its entirety.
      "Congress did not provide that the tax credits would only be available to
      citizens whose states set up their own exchanges," says an appeals court
      filing by congressional and state legislative supporters of the Affordable
      Care Act. Congressional lawmakers and state legislators supporting the act
      said that limiting the subsidies to state exchanges could destabilize
      important aspects of the law, such as the individual mandate requiring most
      people
      to buy insurance.
      The judges on the case were Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President
      George W. Bush; A. Raymond Randolph, an appointee of Bush's father; and
      Harry
      Edwards, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, who dissented.
      A lower court had ruled that the law's text, structure, purpose, and
      legislative history make "clear that Congress intended to make premium tax
      credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges."
      But the appeals court concluded the opposite — that the letter of the law
      "unambiguously restricts" the law's subsidies to policies sold through
      exchanges established by the state.
      "We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance," Judge Thomas Griffith
      said Tuesday. "At least until states that wish to can set up exchanges,
      our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions
      of
      individuals receiving tax credits through federal exchanges and for health
      insurance markets more broadly."
      In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards called the ruling "a not-so-veiled
      attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and warned
      that
      the panel's ruling "portends disastrous consequences."
      Also on HuffPost:












      Lies And Distortions Of The Health Care Debate
      _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/republican-judges-obamacare-ruling
      -gutted_n_5609795.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%2
      6pLid%3D505327_
      (
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/republican-judges-obamacare-ruling-gutted_n_5609795.html?icid=maing-grid7|htmlws-main-bb|dl2|s
      ec1_lnk3&pLid=505327)




      One of the more positive sounding admonitions from health care reform
      opponents was that the United States had "the best health care in the
      world,"
      so why would you mess with it? Well, it's true that if you want the
      experience the pinnacle of medical care, you come to the United States. And
      if you
      want the pinnacle of haute cuisine, you go to Per Se. If you want the
      pinnacle of commercial air travel, you get a first class seat on British
      Airways. Now, naturally, you wouldn't let just anyone mess with someone's
      tasting
      menu or state-of-the-art air-beds. But like anything that's "the best," the
      best health care in the world isn't for everybody. The costs are
      prohibitively high, the access is prohibitively exclusive, and the
      resources are
      prohibitively scarce. What do the people in America who "fly coach" in the
      health care system get? Well, at the time of the health care reform debate,
      they were participating in a system that was, by all objective
      measurements,
      overpriced and underperforming -- if you were lucky enough to be
      participating in it. As anyone who's fortunate enough to have employer
      based health
      care or unfortunate enough to have a pre-existing condition can tell you,
      health care for ordinary people already involved all of those things that
      we
      were told would be a feature of the Affordable Care Act -- long waits,
      limited choice, and rationing. When the Commonwealth Fund rated health care
      systems by nation, the top marks in the surveyed categories went to the
      United
      Kingdom, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Ezra Klein examined the study,
      and observed: "The issue isn't just that we don't have universal health
      care.
      Our delivery system underperforms, too. 'Even when access and equity
      measures are not considered, the U.S. ranks behind most of the other
      countries
      on most measures. With the inclusion of primary care physician survey data
      in the analysis, it is apparent that the U.S. is lagging in adoption of
      national policies that promote primary care, quality improvement, and
      information technology.'"


      The only thing that perhaps matched the vastness of the spread or the
      depth of the traction of the "death panel" lie was the predictability that
      such
      a lie would come to be told in the first place. After all, this was a
      Democratic president trying to sell a new health care reform plan with the
      intention of opening access and reducing cost to millions of Americans who
      had
      gone without for so long. What's the best way to counter it? Tell everyone
      that millions of Americans would have increased access ... to Death! The
      best account of how the "death panel" myth was born into this world and
      spread like garbage across the landscape has been penned by Brendan Nyhan,
      who
      in 2010 wrote "Why the "Death Panel" Myth Wouldn't Die: Misinformation in
      the Health Care Reform Debate." You should go read the whole thing. But to
      summarize, the lie began where many lies about health care reform begin --
      with serial liar Betsy McCaughey, who in 1994 polluted the pages of the New
      Republic with a staggering pile of deception in an effort to scuttle
      President Bill Clinton's health care reform. As Nyhan documents, she
      re-emerged in
      2009 when "she invented the false claim that the health care legislation in
      Congress would result in seniors being directed to 'end their life
      sooner.'" Nyhan: "McCaughey's statement was a reference to a provision in
      the
      Democratic health care bill that would have provided funding for an
      advanced
      care planning for Medicare recipients once every five years or more
      frequently if they become seriously ill. As independent fact-checkers
      showed
      (PolitiFact.com 2009b; FactCheck.org 2009a), her statement that these
      consultations would be mandatory was simply false--they would be entirely
      voluntary.
      Similarly, there is no evidence that Medicare patients would be pressured
      during these consultations to "do what's in society's best interest...and
      cut
      your life short." But the match that lit the death panel flame was not
      McCaughey, it was Sarah Palin, who repeated McCaughey's claims in a
      Facebook
      posting and invented the term "death panel." As Nyhan reports, Palin's
      claims
      were met with condemnation from independent observers and factcheckers,
      but the virality of the term "death panel" far outstripped its own
      debunking.
      To this day, the shorthand for this outrageous falsehood remains more
      firmly planted in the discourse than the truth. One thing worth pointing
      out is
      that Palin, in creating the term "death panel," intended to deceive people
      with it. In an interview with the National Review, Palin admitted: "The
      term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be
      taken
      literally." Rather, it was "a lot like when President Reagan used to refer
      to the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire.' He got his point across." Of
      course, while Reagan was exaggerating for effect, he wasn't trying to prey
      on
      the goodwill of those who were listening to him.
      Slug Comment #1
      Naturally, the GOP greeted anything that the Obama White House did -- from
      regulating pollution to flossing after meals -- as something that would
      "kill jobs." The Affordable Care Act was no different. As you might recall,
      Republicans' first attempt at repeal came in the form of an inartfully
      named
      law called the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." But did the
      health reform plan threaten jobs? Not by any honest measure. Per McClatchy


      Newspapers: "The claim has no justification," said Micah Weinberg, a
      senior research fellow at the centrist New America Foundation's Health
      Policy
      Program. Since the law contains dual mandates that most individuals must


      obtain health insurance coverage and most employers must offer it by 2014,
      "the
      effect on employment is probably zero or close to it," said Amitabh
      Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard University. As McClatchy
      reported, the "job-killing" claim creatively used the "lie of omission" --
      relying
      on "out of date" data or omitting "offsetting information that would weaken
      the argument." The Congressional Budget Office, playing it straight,
      deemed it essentially too premature to measure what the effect the bill
      would
      have on the labor market. At the time, Speaker John Boehner dismissed the
      CBO, saying, "CBO is entitled to their opinion." Perhaps, but lately, job
      growth in the health care industry has bucked the economic downturn and
      health
      care has remained a robust sector of employment. And it stands to reason
      that enrolling another 30 million Americans into health insurance will
      increase the demand for health care services and products, which in turn
      should
      trigger the creation of more jobs. Is there a downside? Sure. More demand,
      and greater labor costs, could push health care prices upward even as other
      effects of health reform push them down. But it's more likely that
      repealing the bill will have a negative impact on jobs than retaining it.


      Slug Comment #2


      The only thing more important than painting the Affordable Care Act as a
      certain killer of jobs was to paint it as a certain murderer of America's
      fiscal future. Surely this big government program was going to push
      indebtedness to such a height that our servitude to our future Chinese
      overlords was
      a fait accompli. As Ryan Grim reported in May of 2010, the CBO disagreed:
      Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal government $940
      billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut other
      costs
      by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $138 billion in the federal
      deficit over the same period, according to an analysis by the Congressional
      Budget Office, a Democratic source tells HuffPost. It will cut the deficit
      by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period. The source said it also
      extends Medicare's solvency by at least nine years and reduces the rate of
      its growth by 1.4 percent, while closing the doughnut hole for seniors,
      meaning there will no longer be a gap in coverage of medication. Recently,
      the


      CBO updated its ten-year estimate by dropping off the first two years of
      the
      law (where there was little to no implementation) and adding two years at
      the back end (during which time there would be full implementation). As you
      might imagine, replacing two years of low numbers with two years of higher
      numbers increased the ten-year estimate. But opponents of the bill
      immediately freaked out and declared the costs to have skyrocketed. As
      Jonathan
      Chait reported: The outcry was so widespread that the CBO took the unusual
      step of releasing a second update to explain to outraged conservatives that
      they were completely misreading the whole thing: "Some of the commentary on
      those reports has suggested that CBO and JCT have changed their estimates
      of the effects of the ACA to a significant degree. That's not our
      perspective. ... Although the latest projections extend the original ones
      by three
      years (corresponding to the shift in the regular ten-year projection period
      since the ACA was first being developed), the projections for each given
      year have changed little, on net, since March 2010." That is CBO-speak for:
      "Go home. You people are all crazy." As Chait goes on to note, the CBO now
      projects that "the law would reduce the deficit by slightly more than it
      had
      originally forecast."


      Slug Comment #3


      Normally, if you tell Republicans that you're going to cut $500 billion
      from Medicare, they will respond by saying, "Hooray, but could we make it
      $700 billion?" But the moment they got it into their heads that the
      Affordable
      Care Act would make that cut from Medicare, suddenly everyone from the
      party of ending Medicare As We Know It, Forever got all hot with concern
      about
      what would happen to these longstanding recipients of government health
      care. In fairness, as Factcheck pointed out, the GOP opponents of Obama's
      plan were simply picking up a cudgel that had recently been wielded by the
      president himself: Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings"
      depends
      on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen.
      John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to
      pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the
      Republican for cutting benefits. Nevertheless! Whatever you want to call
      them, it's
      a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years,
      not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It's true that
      those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage's private plans
      (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits;
      the
      bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare
      Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The New
      England Journal of Medicine concurred: A phased elimination of the
      substantial
      overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, which now enroll nearly 25% of
      Medicare beneficiaries, will produce an estimated $132 billion in savings
      over 10 years. [...] The ACA also produces nearly $200 billion in savings
      by
      assuming that providers can improve their productivity as firms in other
      industries have done. On the basis of this presumed improvement, the law
      reduces Medicare's annual "market basket" updates for most types of
      providers -
      a provision that has generated controversy. The law doesn't cut any
      customer benefits, just the amount that providers get paid. Hospitals and
      drug
      companies agreed to these cuts based on the calculation that more people
      with
      insurance meant more people consuming what they sell and, more importantly
      for the hospitals, fewer people getting treated and simply not paying for
      it.


      Slug Comment #4


      This lie was launched to prominence with the help of a false accuser,
      South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, who famously heckled President Barack Obama
      during an address to a Joint Session of Congress by yelling "You lie!"
      after
      the president had mentioned that undocumented immigrants would not be
      eligible for the credits for the bill's proposed health care exchanges. As
      Time's
      Michael Scherer pointed out, this was not much of a challenge for
      factcheckers: In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a
      health
      plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No
      illegal
      immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits." Similarly, the
      major health-care-reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R.
      3200, contains Section 246, which is called "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR
      UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS." In fact, as Ezra Klein pointed out, the Affordable
      Care Act
      "goes out of its way to exclude" undocumented immigrants: As the AP points
      out...there are about 7 million unauthorized immigrants who will be
      prohibited from buying insurance on the newly created exchanges, even if
      they pay
      out of their own pocket. And the exclusion of this group from health reform
      -- along with other restrictions that affect fully legal immigrants as well
      -- could create a massive coverage gap that puts a strain on the rest of
      the health system as well. Klein goes on to add that "immigrants-rights
      advocates tried to prevent this scenario from happening," but they ended up
      losing to the politics of the day. The concession they won was a promise
      from
      the president that he would shepherd a comprehensive immigration reform
      package through the legislature. They lost that round, too.



      Slug Comment #5


      Were health care policies dear to Republicans left out of the health care
      reform bill? Totally! Unless we're counting the following:
      --Deficit-neutral bill --Longterm cost reduction --Interstate competition

      that allows
      consumers to purchase insurance across state lines --Medical malpractice
      reform
      --High-risk pools --An extension of the time young people were allowed to
      remain on their parents' policies --No public money for abortion --Small
      business exemptions/tax credits --Job wellness programs --Delivery system
      reform In fact, the Democrats were eager to get GOP input and enthusiastic
      about including many of their desired components in the bill. Oh, and did
      we
      mention that the Affordable Care Act was modeled on a reform designed and
      implemented by a former Republican governor and presidential candidate,
      whose
      innovation was widely celebrated by the GOP while said former governor was
      running for president? And did we mention that the individual mandate that
      was used in Romneycare to ensure "no free riders" was originally dreamed up
      by the Heritage Foundation? And did we add that additional DNA of the
      Affordable Care Act was borrowed from the Senate GOP alternative to the
      Clinton
      plan in the 1990s and the 2009 Bipartisan Policy Committee plan, which was
      endorsed by Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole? As for the process,
      you might recall that the White House very patiently waited for the
      bipartisan Gang Of Six to weigh in with its own solution, and openly
      courted one
      Republican gang member, Sen. Chuck Grassley, long after it was clear to
      every
      reporter inside the Beltway that Grassley was intentionally acting in bad
      faith. And perhaps you don't recall the bipartisan health care summit that
      was held in March of 2009? if so, don't feel bad about it -- RNC Chairman
      Michael Steele couldn't remember it either, when he yelled at the president
      for not having one.


      Slug Comment #6


      So, here's a fun little story about obscure parliamentary procedures. In
      May of 2010, as the health care reform michegas was steaming toward its
      endgame, it looked like the measure might fall. The Senate had passed a
      bill,
      but the House was stuck in a bit of a jam. It had no other choice but to
      take a vote on the Senate's bill, because if the House bill ended up in a


      conference committee to be reconciled with the Senate's, the whole
      resulting
      she-bang was assured of a filibuster, as the Democrats had, in the
      intervening period, lost their Senate supermajority. But the House had a
      problem. As
      I wrote at the time: House members are averse to doing anything that looks
      like they approve of the various side-deals that were made in the Senate --
      like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." The House intends to remove those
      unpopular features in budget reconciliation, but if they pursue budget
      reconciliation on a standard legislative timeline -- where they pass the
      Senate bill outright first and then go back to pass a reconciliation
      package of
      fixes -- they'd still appear to be endorsing the sketchy side deals, and
      then the GOP would jump up and down on their heads. Enter "deem and pass."
      Under this process, the House will simply skip to approving the
      reconciliation fixes, and "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. By doing it
      this way, the
      Democrats get the Senate bill passed while simultaneously coming out
      against the unpopular features of the same. "Deem and pass" is the
      aforementioned obscure parliamentary procedure. And here's the thing about
      obscure
      parliamentary procedures -- everyone loves them when their side is doing
      them,
      but when they're being done to you, then they are basically evil schemes
      from the blasted plains of Hell. So if you're guessing that the Republicans
      declared the Democrats' use of "deem and pass" -- which also carried the
      moniker "the Slaughter Rule," after Rep. Louise Slaughter, who proposed its
      use
      in this instance -- to be a monstrous and unprecedented abuse of power,
      then give yourself a prize! And give yourself a bonus if you guessed that
      in
      reality, the GOP had used "deem and pass" lots of times. As Ryan Grim
      reported, "deeming resolutions" had been in use dating back to 1933, and in
      2005
      and 2006, Republicans employed them 36 times. Other Republicans complained
      that Slaughter was supporting a tactic that she once vigorously opposed.
      That's true! She fought the "deem and pass" during the Bush administration
      and lost. Which is precisely when she learned how effective it could be!


      Slug Comment #7


      Lots of people wouldn't mind having better access to more affordable
      health care. But what if it came with thousands of IRS agents, picking
      through
      your stool sample? That sounds pretty bad. It also sounds pretty
      implausible! But that was no impediment to multiple health care reform
      opponents
      making claims that the tax man was COMMINAGETCHA! In this case, the
      individual
      mandate -- which requires people to purchase insurance or incur a tax
      penalty -- provided the fertile soil for this deception to spread. A March
      2010
      floor speech from a panicked Sen. John Ensign was typical of the genre: My
      amendment goes to the heart of one of the problems with this bill. There is
      an individual mandate that puts fines on people that can also attach civil
      penalties. And 16,500 new IRS agents are going to be required to be hired
      because of the health care reform bill. March of 2010 was a pretty great
      time
      for this particular lie. In one five day period, Ensign was joined by
      Reps. Paul Ryan ("There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals
      purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be
      collected by
      the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS agents to
      police and enforce this mandate."), Pete Sessions ("16,000 new IRS agents
      will be hired simply to make sure that this health care bill is enforced.")
      and Cliff Stearns ("There is $10 billion to hire about 16,000 new IRS
      agents to enforce the individual mandate on every American"). All wrong!
      Per
      Factcheck: This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan
      assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the
      new
      law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican
      lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron
      Paul of
      Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be
      carrying guns. None of those claims is true. The IRS' main job under the
      new law
      isn't to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business
      owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them -- starting this
      year -- which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer's contribution
      toward
      their workers' health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be
      administering additional subsidies -- in the form of refundable tax credits
      -- to
      help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.
      The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they
      fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas
      Shulman
      testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25
      that the IRS won't be auditing individuals to certify that they have
      obtained health insurance. As Factcheck goes on to note, on page 131 of the
      bill


      that was passed, the IRS is explicitly prohibited from "from using the
      liens
      and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers,
      and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the
      tax or those who don't obtain coverage."


      Slug Comment #8


      Oh, Congresscritters, the poor dears! So many bills to read and so little
      time -- between raising campaign cash at lush fundraisers and receiving
      marching orders from powerful corporate interests -- to actually read them
      all. And this Affordable Care Act was a real humdinger of a long bill. And
      long bills are bad because length implies complication and complication
      requires study and study implies some form of "work." So the proper thing
      to do
      is to mulch the entire print run of the bill and use it to power the boiler
      that heats the "sex dungeon" in the Longworth Office Building, the end!
      Actually, reading the bill is not that hard, despite the complaints. As the
      folks at Computational Legal Studies were able to divine: Those versed in
      the
      typesetting practices of the United States Congress know that the printed
      version of a bill contains a significant amount of whitespace including
      non-trivial space between lines, large headers and margins, an embedded
      table
      of contents, and large font. For example, consider page 12 of the printed
      version of H.R. 3962. This page contains fewer than 150 substantive words.
      We
      believe a simple page count vastly overstates the actual length of bill.
      Rather than use page counts, we counted the number of words contained in
      the
      bill and compared these counts to the number of words in the existing
      United States Code. In addition, we consider the number of text blocks in
      the
      bill -- where a text block is a unit of text under a section, subsection,
      clause, or sub-clause. As HuffPost noted in March of 2010, "the total
      number
      of words in the House Health Reform Bill are 363,086," and when you throw
      out the words in the titles and tables of contents and whatnot, leaving
      only
      words that "impact substantive law," the word count drops to 234,812.
      "Harry Potter And the Order Of The Phoenix," a popular book read by small
      children, is 257,000 words long. (Although in fairness to Congress, the
      Affordable Care Act contains very few exciting accounts of Quidditch
      matches.)


      Slug Comment #9


      We couldn't have a list of Affordable Care Act distortions without noting
      the ways some of your 2012ers have added to the canon. Herman Cain said
      that if the ACA had been implemented, he'd be dead. Not likely! The new law
      expands coverage so that uninsured individuals who face what Cain faced
      (cancer) have a better chance of getting coverage, and it restricts
      insurers
      from tossing cancer patients off the rolls based on their "pre-existing
      condition." But more to the point, Cain would have always been the wealthy
      guy
      who could afford to choose his doctor and pick the care he wanted. The
      Affordable Care Act doesn't prohibit wealthy people from spending money.
      Rick
      Santorum says that his daughter, who is diagnosed with a genetic disorder
      called trisomy 18 and who required special needs care, would be "denied
      care"
      under the Affordable Care Act. Nope! Again, the law restricts insurers from
      throwing people with pre-existing conditions off their rolls. And for
      individuals under 19, that went into effect in September of 2010. Michele
      Bachmann believes that the Affordable Care Act would open "sex clinics" in
      public
      schools. This is Michele Bachmann we're talking about. Do you even need to
      ask? And finally, Mitt Romney has said, as recently as March 5, that he
      never intended his CommonwealthCare reform to serve as a "model for the
      nation." "Very early on," he insisted, "we were asked -- is what you've
      done in
      Massachusetts something you would have the entire government do, the
      federal
      government do? I said no, from the very beginning." Unless "very early on"
      and "from the very beginning" mean something different from the
      conventional definition of those phrases, Romney should augment his daily
      pharmaceutical intake with some memory-enhancing gingko biloba.


      Slug Comment #10


      Obviously, we did what we could to include as many of these lies and
      distortions as possible, but there's no way to include them all. If you're
      a
      completist, however, be sure to check out the Impossible Tale Of The
      One-Dollar Abortion, the Story of the State-Based Inflexibility That
      Wasn't, The
      Curious Case of the Politically Connected Waivers and Nancy Drew And The
      Hidden $105 Billion Expenditure.










      More:
      _Obamacare_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obamacare/) _Affordable
      Care Act_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/affordable-care-act/)
      _Halbig_
      (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/halbig/) _AP_
      (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ap/) _Barack Obama _
      (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/barack-obama/)




      FOR SALE - CHEAP


      FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER
      Will Sub-Divide To Suit Foreign Interests


      The Owners Are incompetent And
      Incapable Of Its Proper Maintenance


      New Ones Added 24 April 2014


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0&feature=player_detailpage


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=50cB5yhKR98


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkauG6qE8k


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzmUuKd6ucMonversations, Photos and Files
      in the membership settings page.
      ------------------------------


      .







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic