Show notes::What's the big deal: repeal and replace (Pt 1)

Just an FYI, this is sorta, kinda a "work in progress".  While it includes information discussed during BTTP, there is information we didn't get to (as mentioned).  As I do more reading, I will be adding such to each part (tentatively 3 - Mini History Lesson, Some Common Arguments Against ACA, General Flaws of What's Been Offered So Far).  So in essence, this blurp is not complete, and may never be so as the discussion concerning healthcare insurance is never ending.  Part 1 is a basic transcript of the episode in question.   Parts 2 & 3 are forthcoming as I convert the content to HTML and tidy some loose ends.
 
While my overall intention was to show that the ACA is a Republican plan at it's root, I also wanted to provide good external commentary and resources concerning the whole debate of "Repeal & Replace".  Why it may sound like a good idea but isn't.  I do realize that my bias, liberal/progressive mixed with democratic socialism, is going to taint what I present (something I hope to counter in the near future by offering commentary from the "other side") but I believe it is good, solid information in favor of "fixing" the perceived problems; instead of scraping the ACA leaving people vulnerable.

That is the real issue.  IF the ACA is repealed, with no replacement set, people are going to be dangerously vulnerable. (A vulnerability some within the GOTP don't care about,,, read the Bloomberg articles and you will understand why I say that.)  We cannot go back to pre-ACA days, and looking at the history as a whole, the intention of universal coverage was at one time a GOTP goal - WTF happened?

Also note that this does not address concerns of small and large businesses.  From precursory reading, that would add a whole other dimension to this conversation that I personally am not versed in. 


1] Why this episode?
I had been doing some FB postings, as well as general comments and IRL discussions, concerning the issue of "Repeal and Replace". While I have no issue in the idea of R&R, IF the Repugs had something comparable to replace it with, but the loss of insurance is too real an issue for me personally as well as many others.

I am 56 years of age, a former marathon runner and physical therapist by profession. Four years ago I became plagued by chronic health conditions that have rendered me to the side-lines: Severe intestinal perforation with sepsis + ileostomy; Addison's disease; Complete pituitary failure; Avascular necrosis of both hips and jaws. I am on Palliative Care. I receive no government assistance, as my finances are healthy. But I do purchase medical insurance through the ACA. I receive no federal subsidy and pay and full premium due.

I am eternally grateful to the ACA and its provisions. Without its protections for pre-existing conditions and no lifetime cap I would be "in a pickle." I am a high consumer of health care.

With fear of the repeal of the ACA, I am in a worse "pickle." I fear that I will be without comprehensive coverage and that my savings will be on course for fast-track depletion. I will honestly consider suicide.  

When people hear my "story" the reaction is WTF. Sadly what the Repugs are offering is junk and it will kill me and many others. I am not being hyperbolic in that assumption. IF I lose my insurance, I lose access to my medication (medication I cannot afford otherwise). Without my medication, I'm dead or really fucked up. End of story.

There is a lot of information and misinformation and what I have found is many do not understand what the Repugs are offering instead of the ACA. Instead of straight forward language, what the GOTP offers is couched in very vague language (ie. "access" vs "guaranteed" which we will touch on later).

Before we delve into the nitty-gritty,,,

2] Mini History Lesson
The reasoning, will become obvious, but it comes down to this argument being an old issue. Unless you have been hibernating in a cave far from civilization the past 6 yrs or so, we have what is called the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or better known as Obamacare (and yes peoples, they are the exact same thing. The ACA is not some replacement spun together as a quick fix for Obamacare.)




I know I am not the only one, but this is what I face on almost a daily basis,,,

Along the same line of thinking, how stupid are people, Kentucky counties with highest Medicaid rates backed Matt Bevin, who plans to cut Medicaid The 66 percent of Owsley County that gets health coverage through Medicaid now must reconcile itself with the 70 percent that voted for Republican Governor-elect Matt Bevin, who pledged to cut the state's Medicaid program and close the state-run Kynect health insurance exchange.

This is a pre-election story concerning KY, Bevin, and Kynect. The gist,

From the earliest days, Kentucky’s efforts to implement Obamacare have earned national acclaim. As the troubled roll out of the national health care exchange website was ruthlessly mocked by late night television, Fortune praised “one health exchange success story”: Kentucky’s new state-level marketplace.

During the past 6 yrs or so, the GOTP has attempted to repeal the ACA some 60+ times (at a total cost of $40+ mill) and failed, as they did not have the votes to override the pending veto of President Obama. Recently, due to the election results that has changed, and the orange man in charge has stated he will sign the repeal.

So we have a quagmire,,,

But first some caveats.

• There is no solid time table as to how things will proceed could be 3 months it could be 3 years. While I have seen some GOTP estimates of end of Feb 2017, TBH I have no fucking clue exactly what they mean. IOWs do they plan on having a "replacement" set and ready to go on March 1 and how exactly will it be "rolled-out". Implementation, as far as I can tell, has not been discussed in any detail. (That alone should be a marker of how serious the GOTP are concerning replacement. IMO, all they want to do is get rid of Obamacare, fuck everything else!!)
• There are 3 6 possible replacement plans that have been put forth so far, none with much detail other than from a fiscal standpoint, they will all crash and burn and they do not offer the same coverage as the ACA. In order to lessen cost they have cheapened the benefits.
• We are presenting worse case scenarios, my situation the example of choice. There are too many "ifs" involved to look at it otherwise

With that said, some have ask me why I am making such a big deal out of something I cannot control and don't have all the facts. This is why,,,

• You see people need to be prepared. Even if the worst doesn't come about. Like myself, many individuals can not be scrambling at the last minute to secure their medications or treatments. They will cut you mid-stream, and you will be left in the lurch.
• People have to be informed of what is transpiring (and trust me, some people I know have no fecking clue as to what has been going down) so that maybe, some how,,, we can push things till 2018 and hopefully make corrections. It's not just healthcare either,,, SNAP, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, Social Security, and many other social safety net programs are on the chopping block as well as drastic changes in how, many programs are going to work. (Case in pt: Carson hates HUD, DeVos hates public Education, dude slated to be in charge of FDA hates the FDA)

FYI the Post-Gazette article, below, is enough for the gist concerning history and all you would need to read. These are just other sources I read,,,

• http://bangordailynews.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-ruling-caps-a-century-of-american-debate-over-how-to-get-medical-care-for-all/ (nice little timeline)
• http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

A. The earliest of attempts at healthcare began with the 1854 Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane and in 1865-1872 the Freedmen's Bureau. While the BBII passed both the House and Senate, at the time, it was eventually vetoed setting precedent for 70 years concerning federal non-participation in social welfare. The FB was part of early reconstruction of the South and faced a similar backlash that is still prevalent today, it "would prevent freed slaves from becoming independent by offering too much assistance."

B. It wasn't until the 1910s that a push for compulsory gov't run insurance began although it was in constant battle with the industrial sickness insurance available through employers. What is important to take from this period, (The Post-Gazzette link is being quirky, this is the title of the article: BUILDING A HEALTHIER PITTSBURGH: Rethinking the way we pay for care -- How did America end up with this health care system?)

Like much else about our nation, employer-based health insurance has roots in our industrial past. In the decades after the Civil War, those who worked in the most dangerous jobs — mining, steel, railroads, riverboats, lumber — had access to company doctors, on the company’s tab, often in “industrial clinics” or in union-operated infirmaries. As insurers grew more sophisticated, they began selling “accident” policies that included disability, death and burial benefits to employers. The policies didn’t resemble the health coverage we know today, but the precedent of businesses having a stake in the well-being of their employees was established.

As unions grew more powerful in the late 1800s, they began taking out their own sickness protections, having realized that “employed persons needed economic protection against the unforeseeable losses” created by illness and accidents,,, 

It was the latter that took precedent with Montgomery Ward soliciting what is now considered the nation’s first multi-employee health insurance policy, through the London Guarantee and Accident Co. of New York. As the Post-Gazette notes, the

The country was years away from a health plan that would directly pay for the actual hospitalization and medical care of workers. That no such plan existed was partly because there was no cohesive health care “system” to speak of in the early 1900s, and most health care — even primitive surgery — often still happened in the home, not a clinical setting. Of the care that was available, mostly for infectious diseases and traumatic injuries, much of it was unscientific by today’s standards. With some exceptions, hospitals were mental wards and homes for the indigent, operated by nurses and nuns, treating only specific ethnic or religious groups.

Even so, the science of medical care was progressing rapidly, and debate over who ought to pay for such care — and whether it was a right, or a privilege — was fomenting. Workplace reformers such as I.M. Rubinow — a doctor, the head of the American Association for Labor Legislation, a Russian emigre and a socialist — wanted “compulsory” sickness coverage that would pay for medical costs and disease prevention for all workers, modeled after similar plans taking hold in Europe. Economist Irving Fisher believed health insurance was necessary “to tide workers over the grave emergencies [and to] reduce illness itself.”

So this whole notion had a really nice start in the early 1900s, a net savings for society, but “the situation suddenly turned very, very negative.”

Modeled after what was occurring in Europe at the time, costs were deemed too high and gasp,,, "a system of universal medical coverage would be identical to 'German socialist insurance,' a grave insult in the late 1910s, now that America was at war with Kaiser Wilhelm II." According to the Post-Gazette,

Insurance companies and physicians weren’t on board, either. Doctors worried then, as now, that health insurers would have too much control over prices and practice methods; insurers worried that a system of “compulsory” health insurance would interfere with their lucrative life insurance business.

C. In the end, national compulsory insurance was dead. That didn't change until, like
everything else in this country, the Depression. By 1939, the precursor to Blue Cross and Blue Shield was formed.

,,,a group of 1,500 Dallas-area teachers offered to prepay premiums to the Baylor Hospital in exchange for up to 21 days of future care, and the forerunner to Blue Cross was born.

Soon plans would involve multiple sets of employees, covering multiple hospitals. By 1935, 19
prototype Blue Cross plans existed in 13 states. By 1939, prepayment plans were being created for physicians, too — forerunners to the modern Blue Shield. In the West, dam workers for the Kaiser Construction Co. were among the first to have voluntary premiums deducted from their paychecks. Those premiums then were steered to an insurer, which then sent money to an on-site Kaiser doctor who treated those who were injured while working on the dams. In short, everyone — insurers as well as doctors — was paid in advance, and the program was replicated at construction sites up and down the West Coast.

D. Enter WWII and the 1942 Stabilization Act, a work of Congress designed to limit wage increases during wartime. The result, businesses can’t attract workers with higher pay so they compete through added benefits, including health insurance, which grows into a workplace perk. "[T]he era of third-party health insurance was fully underway. Insurers began adding new types of coverage — “major medical” evolved in the 1950s, vision care in 1957 and dental benefits in 1959."

But tying health care to employment naturally left out two vulnerable groups — those who are unable to work or worked in low-paying jobs without health benefits, and those who were beyond working age. And at that point is where the creation of Medicare and Medicaid come into play (1965), but not something we will cover today. We may at a future date as both are slated for drastic cut-backs and/or elimination. Just to give a bit of foreshadow, over 100 million individuals are covered by these 2 programs alone

The 1970s and 80s in regards to healthcare access was actually a quite busy time with various proposals going back and forth. While important in the over-all scheme of things, we're going to skip over that part and get right to the meat of the matter.

Blame Watergate!! (Seriously)

E. 1993/94: HRC and the Heritage Foundation

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
• http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/guide-the-clinton-health-plan (a look from the other side)
• http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/27/us/health-care-debate-overview-national-health-programpresident-s-greatest-goal.html?pagewanted=all
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Background

So like I said, the issue is not new, and sadly in 70 aught years we hadn't progressed much if at all. It wasn't until the 90s that another attempt was made. "Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings." That according to Bill Clinton in a speech given September of 1993.

Needless to say, HRC's efforts were for naught, as the Health Security Act was basically dead before it even reached Congress thanks to an extensive lobby effort that convinced some legislators, there really wasn't a health care crisis (insurance). What is bizarre about this rejection, the mandate included in her plan, was a Heritage Foundation idea. In fact it has roots in 1986 piece of legislation known as Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA); signed by none other than St. Ronald Reagan.

While EMTALA was and still is a good piece of legislation it created, according to some, the problem of "free-riders" (people who would intentionally go without health insurance, knowing that federal law required hospitals to care for them anyway) which led to debate concerning individual mandates vs employer mandates in regards to required insurance policy.  This then led to a 1989, Heritage Foundation proposed plan called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans”. This plan according to source, is the "first published proposal of an individual mandate in the context of private-sector-managed health systems." (This article offers some nice backing material, well worth the read.)

So this debate surrounding Hillarycare is arduous. What it did lead to was further discussion and 2 more notable proposals that we'll just mention briefly.

• The 1993 "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act" which did include a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'
• In 1994 the "Consumer Choice Health Security Act", again contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision; however, the mandate was eventually removed from the bill

What is very important to take out of this Hilliarycare debate, at the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate. As noted by many sources, Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate, remarked, “The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively,as a tax,,, So I’ve been surprised by that argument."

• http://www.npr.org/2012/03/31/149767150/in-1993-republicans-proposed-a-mandate-first
• http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/19/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-republicans-embraced-individual/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/gop-and-health-mandate.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1333652503-360xnkv/rpzNURZGZh5Vdw

Now this discussion concerning Heritage, is for those of us who are nerds, quite interesting and gets a bit convoluted. Heritage can deny the origins of the individual mandate all they want, but the fact remains, they did put out in 1989's "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans". In 1993, it was embraced by Repugs as a alternative to some of the liberal health care approaches. As Newt Gingrich has been quoted as saying, “In 1993, in fighting ‘Hillarycare,’ virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do.”

What's important to take away from this era, HRC - even though she failed - set the stage for what we have now and are soon to lose (maybe).

F. 2006: Mitt Romney a 'model for the nation"
Although Romneycare was nothing like what Heritage proposed in 93, that didn't prevent giving
credit where it was do,

Hence, when Mitt Romney designed his health plan in Massachusetts, he did so in large part with the assistance of the Heritage Foundation, especially Bob Moffit and Ed Haislmaier. “I want to begin by saying thank you to Bob Moffit and Ed Haislmaier,” said Romney at a Heritage event in 2006. “Bob and Ed worked very extensively with our team as we were developing our plan for health care.” Replied Moffit, “We’ve been honored by your request—myself and my colleague Ed Haislmaier, who’s done a lot of the work on this bill—to participate in giving our best advice and our technical assistance in designing a new and different kind of health insurance market.”

In 2006, an insurance bill was enacted in Massachusetts. The bill contained both an individual mandate and an insurance exchange. Mitt Romney's implementation of the "Health Connector" exchange and individual mandate was Heritage on steroids.

Romney had accomplished a longstanding Democratic goal—universal health insurance—by combining conservative policies. Massachusetts would help the uninsured buy private insurance; it would create a deregulated online marketplace; and it would require that everyone carry insurance. Uninsured citizens no longer would use the emergency room as a primary-care facility and then fail to pay their bills. “It’s a Republican way of reforming the market,” Romney said later that day. “Because, let me tell you, having thirty million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick, and expect someone else to pay, that’s a Democratic approach. That’s the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, ‘You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free ride.’ 

And make no mistake, Romneycare was a grand hit among Repugs.

Even in his first Presidential campaign, Romney’s health-care plan was an asset. South Carolina Senator James DeMint, the Senate’s most conservative Republican, cited it, in January, 2007, as a principal reason for endorsing Romney. “He has demonstrated, when he stepped into government in a very difficult state, that he could work in a difficult partisan environment, take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured,” DeMint said. The following month, during a speech in Baltimore, Romney boasted, “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”

So again I will say, if someone tells you the ACA is not rooted in republican thought, they are lying to you.

While important for an overall discussion of the healthcare debate, there was discussion in 2007.  Not quite germane to our discussion here

F. 2008/2009/10 the ACA or Obamacare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_health_care_plan_of_2009

Enter the ACA (HR 3590) together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HR 4872) . Together they represents the most significant overhaul of the U.S. healthcare since Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Again for our purpose the fine details are not important as we will hit some of those as we go through the GOTP talking points.

What one has to realize, there was a lot of debate going into the 2008 election season, as both Obama and McCain had "competing" ideas for reform. As well as the prior debate between HRC vs Obama.  Our conversation is going to be very limited, but centered on this question: How do you feel knowing that, at its root, the ACA is a republican plan?

Most arguments that we hear today are base in one thing, and one thing only - as much as I hate to say it:  "Let's put the white, back in the White House."  That was a meme going around in the 2012 election season and summed up ALL the arguments against Obamacare.  How else could one explain a rejection of this point from Slate in 2007, "the United States pays roughly twice as much per capita for health care as Canada, France, and the United Kingdom yet experiences slightly lower life expectancy than those countries and significantly higher infant mortality. The problems inherent in the U.S. system of health care are literally killing people."  Those statistics have not changed much in 10 years BTW.  (And just a bit of foreshadow.  The talk now is basically "Trumpcare", the ACA stripped of its language and replaced with suitable GOTP talking points.)

The repair language was discussed by Republicans during their closed-door policy retreat in Philadelphia last week as a better way to brand their strategy. Some of that discussion flowed from views that Republicans may not be headed toward a total replacement, said one conservative House lawmaker who didn’t want to be identified.

Using the word repair “captures exactly what the large majority of the American people want,” said Frank Luntz, a prominent Republican consultant and pollster who addressed GOP lawmakers at their retreat.

As a caveat, to the above, I will toss out that while the GOTP says, via Tom Price, it "wants to build on what works and find ways to drive down costs overall so you can incentivize people to purchase health care coverage on their own.”  I personally do not see that, as their replacement ideas (HSAs, HRPs, tax rebates, etc) are not practical.  I see a total dismantling of the ACA out of spite only.

What's worse, I have yet seen what specifically needs "repair".  They talk of cost, but as you will see, premiums have been rising even before the ACA was implemented as well as not comparing apples to apples. And, as Bernie Sanders aptly points out, the solution would be to "scrap the for-profit system altogether." It does not help the GOTP's cause that they still cant agree on exactly what it is they are trying to accomplish, R&R or scrapping Ocare altogether.

As the Hiltzik notes,

Before we get into the details, such as they are, we should recognize that if one takes as the goal of healthcare policy to provide universal coverage in which everyone is “beautifully covered,” as Trump promised, then a few limitations immediately appear. Health coverage is the product of three factors: How many people are covered; the benefits provided; and the cost of those benefits. Since the 1940s, U.S. politicians and policymakers have tried to find a balance among these factors. Every effort has been confounded by the immutable facts that treating the sick costs money and treating more people costs more money. One can save money by treating fewer people, or giving the same number of people less treatment. So any politician who says he can do more for less money is almost certainly blowing smoke.

I have yet to see a proposed plan by Trump or the GOTP that takes that point into consideration.

So as you can see providing healthcare insurance has not be an easy task.  The same ole ugly arguments have been in existence since the debate began some 160 years ago.  Whether that is a good point, or sad commentary of our country remains to be seen.  But, the fact that others have overcome those issues makes me think it's a bad thing.  
The fact remains, though, the ACA of any plan enacted has been the best forward step in insuring the millions that inhabit our country.  Is it perfect? No.  Should it be scrapped per the GOTP? No.

Next we will look at some of the talking-points put forth by the GOTP and why they fail.

This is your Christianity (pt 2)

Continuing our saga of stupid shit people say to justify their hate.

And my reply to that garbage,

First mistake is telling me to calm down, you see Mr. Jeremey, "Don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry".  As I stated, I know how this game is played, I was part of the wheel for many years.  While it disgust me now to realize the part I may have played in fomenting this atmosphere, I take solace in that I will fight it with every last breath.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over_fifteen_percent.htm

You Jeremey, like many others need a reminder that an individual believer is only but one cog.  While you claim you, Mr Trump, and those that voted for him are not racist,  tells me you need to look in the fucking mirror.  I take it history was not your strong suit.

And again I will ask, WTF does race have to do with the subject at hand?  The article speaks to Mr Blackwell's support for the use of reparative therapy and his appointment to the transition team.

As I stated earlier today in another posting, I will reiterate here.  I am against ideologies not individuals. What one believes in private I have no issue with. BUT bring those beliefs into the public sphere (ie legislating discrimination), I have issue. Organize those beliefs into an agenda, ie. the GOP party platform, I have a bigger problem.

I would strongly suggest you read the platform and go so far as to read various commentary concerning such.  I would also read the various articles concerning the men (and women) behind the discussions concerning said platform.  If you are as much of a "believer" as you say you are, you will be appalled at what you have voted for.  (I am assuming you voted for Trump and the ensuing GOP platform.)  You see when one votes for a candidate, you're not just voting for them, you are voting for the party and what they endorse.  The GOP is a party of extreme socio-religious nuts who only care for themselves; the rest of us peons be damned.

Since you tucked tail and ran, you never did justify a few points mentioned. 

1] How do you justify the repeal of the ACA knowing that millions will lose their healthcare;  some with pre-existing conditions that will no longer be covered?  Why is a complete repeal so important and not fixing the issue(s), leaving the base intact?  Why won't the GOP consider maintaining coverage for those with pre-existing conditions or means for the working poor to afford standard coverage?

I am going to assume you have private insurance and these issues are of no concern to you.  How else should I think, or are you voting against your own best interest out of misinformation? Please enlighten me as to what you will gain from a GOP victory as I have a fuck-ton too lose.  (Not that I can afford to lose much more.)

I will add this qualification,

After reiterating his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he may keep two of the law’s most popular provisions. One is straightforward enough — children up to age 26 being allowed to stay on their parents’ plan. The other — preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions — offers a perfect illustration of why Trump and most of the other Republicans critics of Obamacare don’t understand the health insurance market.

While I may not respect the man, I do respect the office he will soon hold.  IF this article is accurate, this is the type of discussion that needs to take place.  At issue is whether the GOP controlled House and Senate will allow for such.

I have no qualms admitting there may be or are flaws in the ACA (not something I personally experience).  I have friends who have stated as much in regards to cost and to some degree what coverage they require.  What many are not aware though is the cost is not completely controlled by the ACA, that issue is your insurance company.

2] What is your justification for curtailing a program such as SNAP?  You do realize that over 50% that receive such are children, seniors, disabled and military? 

The Reich in their stupidity has tried to use 2 Thessalonians 3: 10 as justification; please don't make the same mistake as y'all have a tendency to argue out both sides.  You can't argue that Christ, in Matthew 25 is not speaking to the government, then turn around and say Paul is speaking to the government, in 2 Thessalonians; it's the same fucking book, kinda kills the consistency of message theme y'all tout.  To allow 14% of our citizens to be food-insecure is as Neolithic as your religion.

And I forewarn you, fraud is less than 3% and the notion of the welfare-queen is fallacious.  And as an FYI, I fully support the work requirement for single, non-disabled, childless adults to gain SNAP benefits.  The caveat, there has to be gainful employment available.  Under a GOP system, if history is our evidence, we know that is not possible.

Without going into much detail, the attacks on the system are just plain wrong. Food stamps fraud is rare and predominantly white-collar crime.  The system serves many and is under-enrolled.

Fact, the Reich wants to eliminate minimum wage, women's right to vote, and civil rights advances since 1964.  What I did not mention, a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or outright repeal of the First Amendment.  Much of what we see today was embolden by Hobby Lobby decision.

The Hobby Lobby case, of course, deals in part with the question whether the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)] was or is intended to benefit the owners of large, for-profit, nonreligious corporations. Hobby Lobby's interpretation that it does would open the floodgates to exempt every business owner in the United States from the anti-discrimination laws, because there is no real middle ground. The forces behind Hobby Lobby have tried to argue that the Court should hold for Hobby Lobby because it is "closely held," but that would not limit the holding to a few instances, because over 90% of corporations are "closely held." If the Court sides with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, it will open the Pandora's box of corporate law.

Sad thing, none of this is new.  These attacks on our most basic rights have been occurring since the 30s.   Interest was renewed in the 60s and 70s.  With implementation of the Reich plan beginning in the 80s.

As I stated, Trump is not a theocrat; he is a conman.  IMO he has conned the Reich to get what he wanted, now he doesn't know what to do with the role he has acquired.  While he does hold ultimate veto power, the theocrats have that now firmly in their hands although not filibuster proof.  It will be individuals like Pence, Palin, Carson, etc. who will do the most damage; damage we will feel for generations.

Religion Clause: 7th Circuit Again Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits

So for the past week or so. I have been trying to get a handle on this recent ruling concerning "Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits".

In Grace Schools v. Burwell, (7th Cir., Sept. 4, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a RFRA challenge to the Obama administration's accommodation under the Affordable Care Act for religious non-profits that object to furnishing contraceptive coverage under their health insurance policies. The majority, relying to a large extent on the Circuit's recent decisions in Notre Dame and in Wheaton College, held that the accommodation does not impose a substantial burden on the free exercise rights of various Indiana-based Catholic non-profit charitable, educational and health care institutions.

I guess what I struggle with is, "how" there is an issue with the "accommodation" aspect at all. I mean seriously, how the hell is informing the government that [insert religious organization of choice] has a religious objection to the mandate a "burden" under RFRA?  The mandate isn't the issue per se (in this particular instance), it's the process of "getting" an "accommodation" they're bitching about. 

Recall that the accommodation now allows a religious non-profit that objects to the contraception mandate either to complete a government form or to simply inform the government that it has a religious objection to the mandate. If so, the government then informs the non-profit's health insurer or third-party administrator that the insurer or TPA has to provide contraception directly to the non-profit's employees and students free of charge,,,.

,,,the accommodation itself violates their religious freedom, because it makes them complicit in the provision of contraception. ("But for" their certification, they say, their insurers or TPAs wouldn't be required to provide contraception. Moreover, they claim a religious objection to doing business with insurers or TPAs who provide contraception to their employees, even if required by the government.)

I also find Manion's dissent a little bizzare,

The court, through a perfunctory examination, interprets the accommodation’s twisted framework and holds that it frees the religious nonprofits from having to power the mandate themselves and, thus, does not violate the RFRA. The court is wrong: A thorough examination reveals that the accommodation’s tangled mess is hiding the fact that the extension cord gets its power from the nonprofits’ health plans and must be plugged in before it will work. It also exposes the fact that the government is forcing the nonprofits to plug in the accommodation themselves by signing the self‐certification or providing the alternative notice.

Who exactly generates that so=called "power" the religious nonprofits enjoy?

Religion Clause: 7th Circuit Again Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits

Conservative Federal Judges Wave The White Flag On Obamacare | ThinkProgress

Another little known case with huge implications:

More than a year ago, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed down its decision in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services. Matt Sissel and his attorneys claimed that a key provision of the Affordable Care Act must be struck down because of an alleged procedural error committed by Congress while the law was debated and passed. The three-judge panel rejected this claim, but Sissel’s attorneys responded by asking the full DC Circuit to reconsider the case. That petition, seeking full court review, languished for months without an answer from the court’s judges.
,,,
Sissel challenges the Affordable Care Act under a provision of the Constitution known as the Origination Clause, which provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” In practice, this clause creates a procedural roadblock that Congress frequently avoids through the Senate’s broad amendment power. Though a “Bill for raising Revenue” must begin in the House, the Senate has the power to amend such a bill with an amendment that completely rewrites its text. Thus, to avoid violating the Origination Clause, the Senate will take a bill that already passed the House, amend it to replace that bill with its own preferred language, and then pass the amended bill and send it back to the House.

This is a common practice that the Senate has used for many years. In 1986, for example, the Senate used this process to enact tax reforms that were signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The same process was also used to enact the Affordable Care Act.

Sissel, however, claimed that this process could not be used to enact Obamacare, in part because original House bill that the Senate amended “had nothing to do with health insurance reform.” Yet, as Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in an opinion joined by the DC Circuit’s three other Republican members, this claim has no basis in the text of the Constitution. “The Origination Clause,” Kavanaugh explains, “imposes no germaneness requirement on the Senate when it amends revenue-raising bills that originated in the House.”

Kavanaugh summarizes the fatal flaw in Sissel’s argument in just a few sentences:

The Origination Clause permits the Senate to “propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” The text of the Origination Clause therefore grants the Senate as much authority to amend revenue bills as it grants the Senate to amend other bills. There is no general germaneness requirement when the Senate amends other House bills. It follows that there is no germaneness requirement when the Senate amends revenue bills. “As on other Bills” means “As on other Bills.”

Conservative Federal Judges Wave The White Flag On Obamacare | ThinkProgress

Republicans schedule new 'Obamacare' repeal vote | MSNBC

"The very idea of repealing an effective health care law is increasingly bizarre, and as Senate GOP leaders realize, there’s zero chance of the repeal measure passing. The fact that Mitch McConnell sees this as a necessary part of the debate,,,"

Bizarre considering their own people have said it is working,

Obamacare is working. There's no better evidence of this than a brief filed on behalf of the government in King by the Hospital Corporation of America, better known as HCA, the largest health care provider in the country (once run by Obamacare foe Florida Gov. Rick Scott). HCA argues that the legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs is "absurd," but, more importantly, it presents detailed data drawn from its own operations that demonstrate that the health care law is helping patients and the company itself.

Republicans schedule new 'Obamacare' repeal vote | MSNBC

Critics Question Whether Insurance Card Measure is a Remedy | The Texas Tribune

That's the ticket, let's shame those of us who are poor a bit more.  Just another means to "us and them" people; a waste of time and funds. And whatever happened to the idea of small government?

But instead of Hester Prynne’s infamous “A,” insurance cards for Texans with coverage under the federal Affordable Care Act would bear the letter “S,” for subsidy.

Supporters of House Bill 1514 by state Rep. J.D. Sheffield, R-Gatesville, say it’s necessary to standardize insurance cards and clarify the type of health coverage a patient has.

The House will take up the legislation, which easily passed out of the Insurance Committee, on Friday.

Doctors’ groups say the bill would also help physicians “remind the patient about the importance of continuing his or her portion” of payments toward the health insurance premium, said Sara Austin, an Austin-based neurologist, in written testimony in favor of the bill.
,,,
“Other than creating a group that you’re going to discriminate against, I don’t see any purpose for indicating that people are getting a subsidy,” said Jose E. Camacho, executive director of the Texas Association of Community Health Centers.

Jamie Dudensing, chief executive of the Texas Association of Health Plans, which lobbies on behalf of several major insurers, said recently that she was similarly worried the bill could create a “scarlet letter” effect where some doctors could decide not to see a patient they learned to be on an “Obamacare” plan.

“Right now, providers are not really supposed to be discriminating against consumers if they have a contract with a health plan,” Dudensing said this week at an event hosted by The Texas Tribune, adding that insurers were “very concerned” about the bill.

Critics Question Whether Insurance Card Measure is a Remedy | The Texas Tribune

Hobby Lobby Part II Is Barreling Towards The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress

In other ACA news, we have the fall-out of Wheaton College v. Burwell, or a perfect example of moving the goal-posts:

Nevertheless, some employers, including the employers who sought out Wednesday’s order from Alito, remain opposed even to this accommodation. Because sending the letter will set in motion a chain of events that may lead to someone using contraception, conservative “religious liberty” groups have taken the position that sending the letter would make employers “complicit” in the act of providing birth control.

Thus far, the lower courts have not been particularly sympathetic to this argument. As the Third Circuit wrote in the decision temporarily stayed by Alito, “[f]ederal law, not the religious organization’s signing and mailing the form, requires health-care insurers, along with third-party administrators of self-insured plans, to cover contraceptive services.” Thus, the plaintiffs’ “real objection” isn’t to sending a form or letter to the federal government; it is to “what happens after the form is provided—that is, to the actions of the insurance issuers and the third-party administrators, required by law, once the [plaintiffs] give notice of their objection.” Federal law does not grant these plaintiffs “a religious veto against plan providers’ compliance with those regulations, nor the right to enlist the government to effectuate such a religious veto against legally required conduct of third parties.”

Nevertheless, Alito’s order is a warning that this issue will not remain in the lower courts forever. Indeed, the Third Circuit case provides the Supreme Court with a vehicle that it could use as soon as next fall to consider whether the send-the-letter or the fill-out-the-form options will survive contact with the justices, or whether federal law does, indeed, give religious employers “the right to enlist the government to effectuate . . . a religious veto against legally required conduct of third parties.”

Hobby Lobby Part II Is Barreling Towards The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress

Americans United Fights In Federal Court For Student And Staff Access To Contraceptives At Notre Dame | Americans United

“The court asked some tough questions and is clearly giving this a very in-depth look,” said Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, who argued the case. “We hope they agree with our position that the federal government had very compelling reasons to ensure women’s access to contraceptive benefits, and that it has sought to provide that access while showing great sensitivity to religious objections and concerns.”

The dispute in University of Notre Dame v. Burwell centers on a regulation issued under the Affordable Care Act permitting religious nonprofits to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to employees and students by notifying either their insurance company or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objection. If a non-profit opts out, federal law requires that their insurance company then separately make contraceptive coverage available to affected employees and students at no cost to, and without further involvement by, the non-profit.

The 7th Circuit Court ruled 2-1 in February 2014 that the regulation does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But Americans United, which intervened in the case on behalf of three Notre Dame students, was back before the appeals court today because the Supreme Court in March ordered the lower court to review its decision in light of Hobby Lobby.

Americans United has argued that no federal appeals court has accepted Notre Dame’s argument – either before or since the Hobby Lobby decision. The students just want to ensure that they have access to contraceptives, which they cannot afford to purchase on their own.

Americans United Fights In Federal Court For Student And Staff Access To Contraceptives At Notre Dame | Americans United

Full D.C. Circuit will rule on health care subsidies : SCOTUSblog

So if my last post concerning the ACA wasn't confusing enough (I'm still trying to determine if what I wrote made any sense) here comes another round of flip-flop-orama.

In this case we are dealing with a re-hearing of Halbig v. Burwel, a case concerning a technicality in the language used in the Affordable Care Act ",,,through an Exchange established by the State under section 1221 of the Affordable Care Act." It is comparable to how some (myself included) use the words "the church" to refer to all of Christendom as opposed to a specific denomination. Or "the State" when referring to an aspect of government.It is an argument of semantics, a nit pick.

Some are troubled that a legal claim, once seen as a long shot, has gained such traction. Topher Spiro, a former Senate health policy staffer now at the Center for American Progress, said he viewed the lawsuits as "silly, not to be taken seriously."

"Other than a few right-wing activists, no one thought this was a legitimate challenge," he said.

Simply put, the issue is whether Congress intended the subsidies to be available to both the people who lived in states that set up state-based exchanges and the people who lived in states that had federally-based exchanges.

So what does this mean?

Well, there have been four challenges to the ACA: King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell (cited above) and cases in Indiana and Oklahoma that have been heard but no rulings have been issued. The issue, both the Halbig and the King rulings came out on the same day and they conflict.

Two federal appellate courts on Tuesday handed down conflicting rulings on whether the government can subsidize health insurance premiums for millions of Americans who live in states that rely on the new federal health insurance marketplace to enroll in coverage.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the tax credits provided under President Barack Obama’s health care law can be offered only to states that set up their own marketplaces.

Two hours later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., upheld the legality of the subsidies, saying that a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service to allow the subsidies nationwide was a “permissible exercise” of the agency to interpret ambiguous language contained in the 2010 federal health law.

And that brings us to the subject of the attached article,,,

By granting further review, the D.C. Circuit has raised the chances that the administration will win in that court, as it did previously in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. If there is then no conflict among appeals courts on the question, that could reduce the chances that the Supreme Court would feel a need to step in. However, the issue is pending in other lower courts, so a conflict remains a possibility.

The controversy has already reached the Justices in the case of King v. Burwell, in a petition filed by challengers to the subsidies seeking to overturn their defeat in the Fourth Circuit. The government has not yet replied in that case; this week, it received an extension until October 3 to file its response brief.

It is unclear at this point whether the D.C. Circuit’s grant of en banc review of the subsidies question will have any effect on the Supreme Court’s consideration. The Justices might opt to wait to see if a conflict in lower court exists, but they also could go ahead and grant review of the pending case. That would proceed more slowly than will the new review in the D.C. Circuit, however.

Full D.C. Circuit will rule on health care subsidies : SCOTUSblog

BREAKING: Obamacare Death Panels Have Arrived, First Patient Executed Today |

This is another one of those WTF moments. Although with this one, even though I disagree with the conclusions reached in the article I can "see" where the twisted reasoning is coming from.

So again I was trolling my news feed (shocking) and this headline popped.

BREAKING: Obamacare Death Panels Have Arrived, First Patient Executed Today

Followed by this comment.

Everyone qualifies for Affordable Health Care, unless you are really sick...

Now I have my views concerning the PPACA and y'all are going to have yours. I'm not arguing for or against. What I would like to point out is how "gullible" (to borrow from The Bashful Bloviator) people can be and why it is so important to do honest fact checking and not accept something (a headline or article) and then push it as "fact" just because it fits your preconceived notions, "They always let you know what's happening before they roll it out."

But I digress and I'm totally off-topic,,,

So today whilst waiting for one of my pod-casts to go live a friend posted this,

Betty White is ALIVE all of you posting she is dead..its a hoax!

(Supposedly White DYED whilst doing her hair). Which brought me back to the above headline and attached article, also a hoax which I confirmed in less than 30 seconds. Not only is it a hoax but the original article has been plagiarized, chopped and altered according to Carr:

The American News version deleted a line from the original claiming the woman was to be executed by firing squad, in order to make it sound more believable.

The strange apologetics began when I pointed that "fact" out after discovering for myself that The Daily Currant, a known satire site, was the first entry in my search. Carr's site was number 3 or 4. Nice to have my sanity verified.

James Kosur at B2C concludes his piece about Betty White with these wise words, "If nothing else, this hoax further proves that a lot of those social shares from your friends are from stories they never even read. Talk about a rousing endorsement for social sharing… or not."

BTW, a bit of synchronicity ",,,86-year-old Dorothy Zborknak has been ordered to death. The reason? According to the administration, she is no longer useful." Bea Arthur is already dead,,,lol,,,and who can forget "the Golden Girls."

BREAKING: Obamacare Death Panels Have Arrived, First Patient Executed Today |

See also: Known US based satire sites that I am aware of:

• The Daily Currant
• National Report
• The Onion
• SatireWire
• ScrappleFace
• Weekly World News
• Landover Baptist Church
• Objective: Ministries

You world be surprised by the number of people "offended" by "the juvenile antics and internet graffiti" these sites report on. Obviously some individuals do not understand satire.

Florida GOP's Quasi-Obamacare Alternative Has Signed Up 30 People

If this is the Repugs idea of repeal- and-replace, we are in deep shit,,,

This March, as an alternative of sorts to the Affordable Care Act, Florida's Republican-led government launched a health insurance website called Florida Health Choices. It had no relation to HealthCare.gov, the federal Obamacare website, and offered limited-benefit options that cover things like prescription drugs and dental or vision services.

But since the launch of the Republican alternative, Florida Health Choices has signed up 30 people, the Tampa Bay Times reported Friday. By comparison, 984,000 Floridians enrolled in private coverage under Obamacare and 764,000 low-income residents were unable to obtain any kind of coverage through the federal law because the GOP- controlled state legislature refused to expand Medicaid.

As the Associated Press reported at the time of the website's launch, it was hoped that those stuck in that Medicaid expansion gap would use Florida Health Choices. The concept actually dates back to 2008, the brainchild of then-Florida House speaker Marco Rubio, now U.S. senator. Rubio had secured $1.8 million in start-up funding at that time, according to Reuters, and the state legislature then authorized $900,000 last year to fully launch the website.

Florida GOP's Quasi-Obamacare Alternative Has Signed Up 30 People

Administration offers new tweak to birth control rule - The Washington Post

So just how asinine are the objections to the ACA becoming,,,

First we had Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius who claimed that being required to fill out a short form violates their religious liberty. The court ruled, "[t]o meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, applicants need not use the form prescribed by the Government and need not send copies to third-party administrators."

Next was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling which not only dismantled United States v. Lee (1982) - an employer cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees - but added confusion by stating,

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage,,, Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims,,,

In short, fill out a form, you know the one they told the Little Sister they didn't have to use. Yea, OK, that will work,,,for 5 days.

The kicker in all this, Wheaton College v. Burwell where the Court once again reversed course and granted a temporary exemption from the requirement that they fill out the form. [As an aside: Wheaton basically argued, as did the Little Sisters, that filling out the form itself is a violation of their religious liberty. But as some have pointed out Wheaton objects to the "work-around" itself as their health plan would still be required to provide contraceptive coverage and it doesn't want that to happen even though it doesn't have to pay for it.]

That brings us to where we stand today,,,

The new federal guidelines address a set of ongoing legal challenges to the contraceptive requirement raised by dozens of religious nonprofit groups, such as hospitals and charities, that could again put the contraception mandate before the Supreme Court. The religious nonprofits are challenging the administration's already existing opt-out, in which the groups can ask a third party to provide the contraception coverage to their employees. However, the nonprofits say that filling out the form notifying the third party violates their religious beliefs.

The nonprofits can now directly inform the Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objections. HHS and the Labor Department will then coordinate contraception coverage with insurers and third party administrators. The nonprofits still have the option to notify a third party directly.

Which boils down to this, Hobby Lobby is appeased as is Wheaton College.  BUT,,,

Several of the country’s biggest faith groups on Friday said the revised rule was still problematic because it didn’t fully exempt organizations – for-profit or non-profit – with religious objections.

"Here we go again,” said Russell Moore, president of the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. “What we see here is another revised attempt to settle issues of religious conscience with accounting maneuvers. This new policy doesn't get at the primary problem.”-

Now the religionist want to move the goalpost yet again by claiming that they cannot take ANY action that will set in motion a chain of events that leads to someone receiving contraception, as doing so would make them complicit in the act of providing birth control.

Sorry to say but this debacle is no longer about the ACA or the birth control mandate. It goes much deeper and many fail to see where this is leading:

If you can be exempt from an insurance law that is supposed to bring medical care to everyone, why not just ask to be exempt (as some of these groups have) from pay equity statutes, from civil rights laws (effecting lesbian and gay Americans)? There is no stopping this once you go down this slope of exemptions based on religious claims for FOR PROFIT COMPANIES.

Administration offers new tweak to birth control rule - The Washington Post

Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate | Right Wing Watch

And it starts.

As I suspected when this case first hit, the real motivation comes forth. Nothing the Reich does is "individually" motivated (this is not about the Green's personally held religious convictions) and as I have posted before, it centers around a point made by Michael Meyerson in writing about Newland v. Sebilius.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that religious organizations have the power to decide for themselves, free from governmental interference, matters of internal discipline and governance. Thus, the courts are barred from stepping in to settle a dispute over which of two religious factions is the rightful owner of particular church property. Judges may not question a church's interpretation of its own internal documents.

If such rights were extended to for-profit corporations, much of modern corporate law would have to be discarded. By describing their internal structure as one of a religious hierarchy, those running a corporation could engage in all manner of manipulation free from the fear of governmental oversight or judicial review. Many private employees would be vulnerable, for the first time since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to discriminatory treatment due to the religious preferences of their employers.

The special protection that is given to religious organizations so that they are free to perform their religious functions cannot logically or properly be ripped from its rightful context and applied to secular, for-profit corporations.

In other words, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously’ objectionable.” In Peter LaBarbera's own words, "LGBT Left has been winning in the courts, but now we have hope that SCOTUS will honor small biz conscience exemptions on homosexuality."

Regretfully I do not share in the optimism of Dylan Scott over at TPM:

While the company Hobby Lobby triumphed at the U.S. Supreme Court in challenging Obamacare's contraceptive mandate on Monday, the Court does not seem to have flung opened the floodgates for anti-LGBT discrimination as some had feared it might. 
,,,
Based on initial readings of the Hobby Lobby decision, LGBT advocates seemed to have dodged a bullet. The Court's ruling, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, is explicitly narrow in effect. But some advocates worry that those pushing anti-LGBT bills will see an opening to introduce new bills and file new lawsuits to legitimize discrimination. Whether they'd win, though, is much less clear.
,,,
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs," Alito asserted. "Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." 

Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate | Right Wing Watch

REPOST::Stop calling Hobby Lobby a Christian business - The Week

Finally someone gets it and isn't afraid to say it,,,

"We're Christians," Hobby Lobby's president Steve Green proclaims, "and we run our business on Christian principles."

That is music to the ears of many conservative Christians, who rallied around Hobby Lobby when the retail chain argued at the Supreme Court that ObamaCare's contraception mandate unlawfully burdened their religious beliefs. But a closer look at Hobby Lobby's actual business practices reveals this claim to be as hollow as a flute. Turn over just about any trinket in a Hobby Lobby store and you'll find a gold oval stamped with "Made in China," a country that is one of the worst offenders of human dignity, unborn infant life, and economic justice anywhere in the world.

As such, those shiny stickers littering every Hobby Lobby from sea to shining sea are more than a statement about a product's geographical origin; they are also a stinging indictment against the way the retailer has sought to label itself.

[,,,]
Now, of course, a huge number of American companies outsource labor to China, and thus help prop up this shameful status quo. But very few of these American companies simultaneously trumpet themselves as "Christian businesses," arguing in court that providing employees with health insurance covering contraceptives violates their religious beliefs. How can this ObamaCare mandate be so foul to Hobby Lobby executives, while they say very little about Chinese policies forcing women to have abortions against their wills? Is abortion wrong only when the terminated life is American?

The most glaring inconsistency between Hobby Lobby's ethical proclamations and its business decisions concerns the matter of religious liberty. The craft store chain is hailed by conservatives as standing up to Uncle Sam and fighting for religious freedom. Yet Hobby Lobby imports billions of dollars worth of bric-a-brac from a nation that denies 1.35 billion citizens freedom of worship.

If Hobby Lobby was concerned with religious freedoms — not just those of conservative American Christians — it would quit doing business in China.

Stop calling Hobby Lobby a Christian business - The Week

There's A Crisis At The IRS And It's Not What You Think

The IRS is, however, an insular, often tone deaf and sometimes bumbling bureaucracy which is being starved of the resources it needs to do its job.  Since 2010, its Congressional appropriations have fallen 7% —-and that’s in nominal dollars, before any adjustment for inflation. During the same period, its appropriations funded workforce has shrunk by 10%, with enforcement staff down 15%, according to numbers Congress’ Government Accountability Office released last week. Meanwhile, the tax agency’s workload has increased with the explosion of identity theft tax refund fraud; a 4% growth in returns filed; and new laws to administer, including the Affordable Care Act  (a.k.a. Obamacare).

 “The IRS is in crisis and it’s not the crisis that everybody thinks it is,’’ IRS Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson said in an interview. “It’s  a crisis of insufficient funding and too much work and  now, insufficient skills in our employees who are not being trained,’’ she added. Faced with both a budget crunch and embarrassing revelations  about silly spending on conferences, including the production of Star Trek and employee line dancing videos, the IRS slashed training spending in 2013 to 83% below its 2010 level.

[,,,]
House Republicans have, of course, blocked any funding for the IRS to process or police the new health insurance subsidies (technically, refundable tax credits) that are at the heart of Obamacare.  The new credits are sure to create confusion during the next filing season and the IRS projects that without more funding just 53% of callers will be able to get through to a human being in 2015.  Beyond clogged phones,  “the affordable care act is so controversial that it’s going to wash over the agency just like the 501(c)(4)  stuff did,’’ further eroding the IRS’ popular support, Everson predicted.  He worries that declining support for the IRS, combined with falling enforcement, could create a “bad cocktail” that makes younger generations less likely to comply with the tax law.

There's A Crisis At The IRS And It's Not What You Think

House Republicans Gear Up For 50th Vote To Dismantle Obamacare

"Maybe if you buy 50 repeal votes, you get one free. We get it. We understand. We get you don't like it. I got it."
--
The House is set to vote Wednesday on a bill by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) to effectively delay the individual mandate for one year by reducing the penalty in 2014 for not buying insurance from $95 to $0. (Inclement weather in Washington could conceivably delay the bill further.)

The Republican-led chamber passed a similar bill last July, capturing 22 Democratic votes. Now that it's an election year, it's plausible that a significant number of Democrats will defect, given the unpopularity of the individual mandate and the likelihood that Senate Democrats will throw the bill in the garbage once it arrives.

It's the House GOP's first vote to wipe out a central feature of Obamacare since the law's major provisions took effect on Jan. 1. For all its rollout woes and negative press, millions of Americans are benefiting from the law and the consequences of full repeal are no longer theoretical. But the dreaded mandate remains an easy target that's ripe for politicking.

"The Simple Fairness Act will give hardworking Americans a one-year delay of the individual mandate tax to provide relief and protect families from this unworkable law," said Jenkins, the vice chair of the Republican conference.

House Republicans Gear Up For 50th Vote To Dismantle Obamacare

Legislative panel approves special-language amendments to Private Option | Arkansas Blog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Well it's official, a Teapug admitted that they are doing everything possible to submarine the ACA,,,

Bell explicitly acknowledged that “without active marketing, you probably get declining enrollment.” That is, for Bell, a feature, not a bug: "We're trying to create a barrier to enrollment." Less enrollment means lower costs, he said. "In general, as a conservative," he said, "if I have the opportunity to reduce government spending in a program from what’s projected … I’m probably going to take that deal."

The other thing to bear in mind: the get here for Bell is not just taking the foot off the accelerator on private option enrollment; he's also continuing to block spending on outreach — and completely eliminating the guides program come July — for the Obamacare Marketplace (the non-private-option pool, above 138 percent of FPL). Technically, almost all of the outreach funding that his amendment would kill was only supposed to be directed at non-private-option consumers above 138 percent of FPL; thus, Bell's amendment would be landing a blow against the enrollment process in Obamacare wholly aside from the private option.

[,,,]
Several Democrats were visibly angry and frustrated, and were aggressively critical of the amendments during the committee hearing. (One asked, "You're saying we should keep our citizens ignorant?" Another asked, "what is next — should we stop the federal government from signing people up for Medicare?"). At least some said they would not vote for the private option with these amendments attached,,,

Legislative panel approves special-language amendments to Private Option | Arkansas Blog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Is Target right to send its part-timers to Obamacare? Probably. - latimes.com

Not exactly. As Trader Joe's did in September when it took a similar step, Target is suggesting that most of the affected workers will do better under the exchange system than they were with company-sponsored insurance. Target is probably right.

We say "probably" because the Minneapolis retail giant refused our request for data that would help nail down the pluses and minuses. We asked for the average wage of part-time employees affected by the change in policy; the number of part-timers; their average hours per week; and the benefits and premiums they were eligible for up to now. (The new policy takes effect April 1.) Target said none of that information is public.

Target also said workers averaging more than 32 hours a week would remain eligible for its company-sponsored health plan. That's curious, because the ACA requires big employers to provide coverage for full-time employees, who are defined as those working 30 hours a week or more. Target refused to clarify the discrepancy, though it's proper to note that the employer mandate doesn't kick in until next year.

[,,,]
What's happening under the surface, of course, is that these companies are shifting some of their own employee benefit costs to the taxpayers, who are providing the applicable subsidies.

But that's not a bug in the Affordable Care Act; it's a feature. Its goal was to get more people covered, in part by spreading the cost society-wide. And that's what's likely to happen. The cost of employee healthcare for part-time workers was on the long road to unaffordability long before enactment of the law.

[,,,]
The missing piece of the puzzle, still, is what the companies do with the money they save. If they use at least some of it to pay their workers better, that's a net gain for everyone. If they merely shovel it out to top management and shareholders, then they've gotten something for nothing, and acted shamefully.

Is Target right to send its part-timers to Obamacare? Probably. - latimes.com

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 16)

Q:: How optimistic are you that the Administration will prevail in the Hobby Lobby case?

I'm guardedly optimistic about it. I say that because, there is a point where if you allow (because of this federal statute) every company to be exempt from anything they don't like, all of the sudden it sounds like you created this gigantic loophole in this law; and, perhaps every other law. Where people just do whatever they want, follow whatever laws they want. That's not called governance anymore, that's called anarchy. And I don't think members of the SCOTUS in general are willing to go that far.

I don't know how you'd draw the line, as we discussed earlier, if it's ok for a Catholic or Mennonite employer to do this. Why not a Scientologist? Why not a Jehovah's Witness? Why not a Christian Scientist person who doesn't want to cover any kind of medical,,, This is just no place to draw the line once you go off this cliff of saying companies have a conscience and companies can do anything they want in regards to the laws they don't happen to like.

So it's a dangerous road, I think there are probably people even in the middle (Justice Stephen G. Breyer & Justice Anthony M. Kennedy) who are not going to want to go down a road that seems to have no end but a drop-off a cliff.

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 15)

Q::Do you feel that Hobby Lobby has a larger agenda against Obamacare as a whole?  That his "religious freedom" is being used as a bit of a fig leaf for hostility to corporations having to participate in insurance in general?

I think that Hobby Lobby (I can’t speak for Hobby Lobby’s entire agenda or lower agenda), but I wouldn’t doubt that it’s there, but I’m not sure about that.

What I am sure about is that the United States Catholic Conference supports their view.  Most of the Religious Right supports their view.  They do have a a not so hidden agenda and that hidden agenda (or not so hidden agenda) is, “WE want to be able to exempt ourselves from any laws that we don’t like; that we find “religiously’ objectionable.”

So that’s why when some of my friends talk about this as if it’s “merely” about contraception, I have to correct them.  I say it’s about EXEMPTION by companies from the laws that apply to the rest of us, the imposed costs or burdens, or doing something which people may find objectionable.

There’s no question that the Religious Right hates the whole ACA.  They don’t just only hate the revision of it, they have always hated it.  They have always hated this President even before he got it passed.  So when you start with that premise, you know this is one of the weapons they want to use to try to tear the statute apart.  Having failed to do the thing they had hoped to do earlier, that is two years ago, to dismember the ACA by claiming that a personal mandate (individual mandate) was unconstitutional.  In that case they lost the Chief Justice [John Roberts] and that’s why we have the ACA going into effect; albeit slowly and tripping along the way.  But it is going into effect on January 1st.

[Edited for clarity]
So they take the law, nitpick at one section of it, and to achieve what they hope is another ding into the creditability of the ACA.  As I said earlier in a broader sense they will go after other laws they wish to be exempted from following.