Meet the Humble Nuns Who Just Shook Up Obamacare

The Little Sisters of the Poor are an international Roman Catholic Congregation of women, which was founded in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan. They operate homes in 31 countries, where they provide loving care for over 13,000 needy elderly persons.

Although the Little Sisters’ homes perform a religious ministry of caring for the elderly poor, they do not fall within the government’s narrow exemption for “religious employers.” Accordingly, beginning on January 1, the Little Sisters will face IRS fines unless they violate their religion by hiring an insurer to provide their employees with contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/uO-I3o0WjqU[/youtube]

Sarah Torre and Amy Payne from the Heritage Foundation wrote the following report:

Who takes care of poor people when they get old—when they are on their deathbeds? For thousands of people, the answer is Little Sisters of the Poor.

“The elderly are at risk, with no one to speak up for them, no one to stand up and to express to the world and show the world that these people are still valuable,” explains Sister Mary Bernard.

The Little Sisters take care of more than 13,000 poor men and women around the world who are elderly. They dedicate their lives to running homes for these most vulnerable.

As you can imagine, this isn’t a profit-making venture, providing free care for the needy.

Starting in the new year, Obamacare would force these sisters to direct their insurance provider to include abortion-inducing drugs and contraception in their health insurance plan—something that goes against their beliefs. If they don’t, the fine (up to $100 per employee per day) would be in the millions of dollars.

But Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the sisters a temporary halt on this Obamacare mandate just hours before the New Year’s Eve countdown. The Obama Administration has until 10 a.m. today to respond to the stay.

The Obamacare mandate (also known as the HHS mandate, for Health and Human Services) punishes people like Little Sisters of the Poor for holding beliefs that spur them to compassionate service in the first place.

And they are far from alone. There are now more than 300 individuals, charities, schools, and family businesses suing over the coercive rule.

So far, things aren’t looking good in court for the Obama Administration. To date, federal judges have granted temporary stays against the mandate in nearly 90 percent of the cases they’ve considered, including a flurry of injunctions for non-profit charities and schools over the past week.

This is only one of the many reasons Americans need relief from Obamacare. We need health reform that respects people’s values and allows us the freedom to choose health care in line with our beliefs.

FL Governor Rick Scott stands against the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. It violates the 1st, 4th, 10th and 14th Amendments. It infringes on the religious liberties of Americans and private business who do not wish to provide abortion services or contraception in their healthcare plans. These rights are protected under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. The Affordable Care Act forces you to buy product or services in direct violation of the Commerce Clause and in direct violation of your constitutional rights. You cannot be forced to buy anything in this free republic.

Stop living in fear of this administration and many are refusing to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

The weak do nothing Congress refuses to prosecute President Obama for crimes against the Constitution. Here in Florida though Governor Rick Scott stood up to the federal intrusion on our rights.

Florida Governor Rick Scott, does not support the federal health reform law, including the health insurance exchanges. Florida legislators also refused to approve legislation to create an exchange in Florida, they returned a $1 million federal planning grant awarded in 2010.

After the Supreme Court ruling that upheld most of the unconstitutional Act in June 2012, Governor Scott announced that Florida would not establish a state-based health insurance exchange. This was to ensure we followed the constitution and not the mandates coming from the Department of Health and Human Services machine in Washington DC.

Governor Scott continues to fight against the Affordable Care Act and any operation of the illegal federally controlled health insurance marketplace. In September, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) banned navigators from all county public health facilities. Florida DOH officials have said the move is consistent with its policy of blocking outside groups that are not doing state business. The Florida DOH is following the 10th Amendment.

The Florida DOH have also said the ban helps protects consumers from privacy concerns stemming from the collection of personal information for inclusion in a federal database. This database violates the HIPAA Act and your 4th Amendment rights. The Obama administration strongly criticized the ban on navigators, labeling the order “obstructionist” and “plain absurdity.” Of course President Obama did, he is not getting his way in Florida. He’s trying to get a hold of all your personal medical information and centralize it in Washington DC.

ObamaCare_I-WILL-NOT-COMPLY_300x244-01The taxpayer funded federal exchanges may end up competing with Florida Health Choices, which is the state’s own version of an online marketplace. Florida Health Choices was established by 2008 legislation. However, it is still not operational. According to its website, Florida Health Choices will launch early in 2014. We must shut down and defund Florida Health Choices and allow free market insurance companies to manage the health care in Florida. Its not the taxpayers responsibility.

Florida’s own insurance exchange does not comply with the Affordable Care Act. This is fine, we don’t have to comply with any unconstitutional laws coming out of Washington, rather we must ignore them. As originally conceived, Florida Health Choices was only to be available only to small businesses, not individuals. Plans have now evolved to include options for individuals. Florida Health Choice will not subsidize the cost of plans sold through the exchange for low-income individuals or offer tax credits to businesses. Nor does Florida Health Choices require a minimum set of benefits as the ACA exchanges do in the form of essential health benefits.

This is called freedom boys and girls and we are free people in Florida. DO NOT COMPLY with any unconstitutional law especially Obama Care. Do not comply with the IRS when they demand proof of health insurance. This is a violation of your 4th Amendment Rights. This is a violation of your privacy rights. REFUSE their requests for information under the 10th Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment.

On the federally operated exchange set up illegally in Florida by the Obama administration and Kathleen Sibelius , 10 insurers are selling ACA-compliant health insurance policies. Since when did the federal government determine if any kind of insurance was federally compliant for you ? It your choice to pick your insurance coverage not the government. We don’t live in a Communist controlled country. It boils down to one thing, its all about control over on you?

This Obama Care is illegal and infringes on your rights as Americans. The insurers in Florida that are supposedly approved by those in the White House probably were working within free markets anyway. They are Aetna, Cigna, Coventry Health Care of Florida, Florida Blue (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida), Florida Health Care Plan Health Options, Humana, Molina Healthcare, Simply Healthcare Plan, and Sunshine State Health.

My friends you can either surrender to the forces in Washington DC or you can stand up and refuse to comply and be ready for the battle that lies ahead. You must ensure that you remain a free American in a free country with the freedom to choose whether you wish to purchase any product or service or not without fear of prosecution.

I will not comply with the IRS and I will not permit them to harass, intimidate, threaten, or fine me for non compliance. I am a free man and the current White House leadership is an enemy of this country and our values. We have a right to stand up and defend ourselves from it. And that we must do.

I want legislation drawn up that prohibits doctors, hospitals and medical facilities etc. in the State of Florida from accepting any form of Obama care coverage because it is a constitutional violation infringing on our 1st, 4th and 10th Amendment Rights.

I want all doctors and hospitals and private medical facilities in Florida to refuse to accept Obama care insurance. If you get threatened stare them in the face and tell the government to pack sand. You must take a stand.

Why Young People aren’t signing up for Obamacare

[youtube]http://youtu.be/lsVG_dRxGF8[/youtube]

Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk weighs in on why young people aren’t signing up for ObamaCare.

Planned Parenthood nominated for 2013 “World Population Control Award”

It is time to give credit where credit is due. This column is dedicated to recognizing Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger for their efforts in controlling the world’s population. Planned Parenthood has since its conception (no pun intended) the mission of eliminating from the world all “defectives” and “human waste”. PP has taken “human breeding” down a new path to near zero population growth in the United States and Europe by bringing to light the “inherent misery and defect of large families.”

For this we nominate Planned Parenthood for the “2013 World Population Control Award.”

No war, pestilence, genocide or government policy has done more to limit the numbers of defectives, feebleminded, poor and unwanted than Planned Parenthood.

Edwin Black, author of War Against The Weak, writes, “The global effort to help women make independent choices about their own pregnancies was dominated by one woman: Margaret Sanger … Motherhood was to most civilizations a sacred role. Sanger, however, wanted women to have a choice in that sacred role, specifically if, when and how often to become pregnant.”

So how did Margaret Sanger’s movement evolve to what it is now?

According to Black, Sanger was, “A crusader at heart, she was thrust into a mission: to bring birth regulating information and options to all women. It was more than a health movement. It was a woman’s liberation, intended to benefit all of society. Sanger and her circle of friends named the program ‘birth control.’ … Her various advocacy organizations evolved into the worldwide federation know as Planned Parenthood.”

“But Sanger was an ardent, self-confessed eugenicist, and she would turn her otherwise noble birth control organization into a tool for eugenics, which advocated for mass sterilization of so-called defectives, mass incarceration  of the unfit and draconian immigration restrictions,” reports Black.

Black notes, “… Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior strains could multiply without competition from ‘the unfit.’ She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and the unfit as ‘human waste’ not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that  human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated.’ Moreover, for both political and genuine ideological reasons, Sanger associated closely with some of some of America’s most fanatical eugenic racists.” Sanger stated, “My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”

“The feminist movement, of which Sanger was a major exponent, always identified with eugenics,” wrote Black.

The Rapid Multiplication of the Unfit cover“Human breeding was advocated by American feminists long before Davenport respun Mendelian principles into twentieth century American eugenics. Feminist author Victoria Woodhull, for example, expressed the belief that encouraging positive and discouraging negative breeding were both indispensable for social improvement. In her 1981 pamphlet, The Rapid Multiplication of the Unfit, Woodhull insisted, ‘The best minds of today have accepted the fact that if superior people are desired, they must be bred; and if imbeciles, criminals, paupers and [the] otherwise unfit are undesirable citizens they must not be bred.”

Today the United Nations has a competition for its “Population Award.” The UN website states, “Each year, the Committee for the United Nations Population Award presents an award to an individual(s) and/or institution(s) in recognition of outstanding contributions to increasing the awareness of population questions and to their solution. The Award, which was established by the General Assembly in November 1981, in resolution 36/201, and was first presented in 1983, consists of a gold medal, a diploma and a monetary prize. Nominations for the award are accepted through 31 December of each year.” The 2010 award was given to Bill and Melinda Gates. There is even an international Population Institute.

Planned Parenthood since 1912, with the full support of the feminist movement, has been the primary force in “stopping the breeding.” Congratulations! We are in a Brave New World indeed.

What Florida’s Health Care Reform did for Moise Brutus

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Bc75STuBqTU[/youtube]

Imagine waking up from a coma to find that both of your legs and your left hand are gone.

After a motorcycle accident that nearly killed him, this was Moise Brutus’s devastating reality. And he had to navigate the broken Medicaid system to try to recover. Now, he calls those days “the dark times.”

Medicaid wasn’t working for Moise. His extremely difficult injuries meant that he had specific challenges and needs. But as he says, the old government program was a “one-size-fits-all” model.

Thankfully, Moise lived in Florida, which was trying out some reforms to Medicaid. He was able to switch out of the old Medicaid program into a private plan—and that changed his life.

The private plan gave Moise an individually tailored approach to his needs.

“That’s when everything started to get better for me,” he says. He was able to get “the best care, the best prosthetics, the best of everything.”

Ultimately, the higher quality of care empowered Moise with the rehabilitation and motivation he needed to get his life back. He’s now training for the Paralympic cycling team.

“Health care reform” is an abstract phrase. It means many things to many people. But for Moise Brutus, Medicaid reform was the key to a new beginning in life.

This is exactly why Heritage has supported reforms to Medicaid that would give every patient the type of care Moise was able to get. Everyone deserves to have his or her health needs addressed in an individual way.

It’s one thing to talk about the fact that Medicaid provides substandard care. It’s another to hear a story like Moise’s and see how that can make the difference in someone recovering from a traumatic event.

Obamacare merely makes Medicaid worse by dumping millions more people into this broken program. Heritage supportsreforms that would subsidize private health insurance for low-income Medicaid beneficiaries.

Learn more what Congress and the states could do to bring personalized care to low-income Americans.

Restraining Order requested against Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in New Case Challenging the HHS Mandate

On Monday, December 23, 2013, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in its newest case challenging the HHS Mandate.  The case has been assigned to Federal District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III.

TMLC attorney, Erin Mersino, filed the new case on December 20, 2013 on behalf of the Ave Maria Foundation, Ave Maria Communications, Domino’s Farms Petting Farm. Rhodora J. Donahue Academy Inc., and the Thomas More Law Center, all founded by Catholic philanthropist Tom Monaghan.  The Plaintiffs at first sought to be included in an HHS challenge that was already pending before Judge Lawrence Zatkoff. That request was denied on December 20, 2013, and hours later on that same day, Mersino filed TMLC’s newest case.  Due to the late date, Plaintiffs were forced to request injunctive relief on an emergency basis because the HHS Mandate will be enforced against them beginning January 1, 2014.

Click here to read TMLC’s Motion for TRO

The purpose of the lawsuit is to seek a court ruling that permanently blocks the implementation of the HHS Mandate requiring employers and individual to obtain insurance coverage for abortions and contraception on the grounds that it  imposes clear violations of conscience on Americans who morally object to abortion and contraception.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech and the Establishment Clause.   It also claims that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act enacted by Congress.

Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the of the Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas Perez, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Jack Lew, Secretary of the Department of  the Treasury; and their respective departments.

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER

TMLC Logo(1)The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Americans get scrooged as Obamacare deadline shifts again

Ask most Americans what today is and they’ll reply the eve of Christmas Eve, and many are out completing their last minute shopping.

Today was supposed to be the deadline to sign up for Obamacare in order to make the January 1 cutoff. But you can chalk up today to yet another failure – as administration officials have quietly extended the deadline 24 hours to Christmas Eve, according to the Washington Post.

As reported by Fox News this morning:

A series of administration fixes and delays is turning the milestone into a day that for many Americans will underscore the uncertainty about the future of the law. The original plan was simple — that Americans who enrolled in Obamacare, online or otherwise, by Dec. 23 and paid in full would have insurance when coverage kicks in New Year’s Day. But the disastrous Oct. 1 start for the federal website and some state-run sites — marked by crashes and the dissemination of incorrect information — sent President Obama and other top administration officials scrambling to change the law in hopes of bolstering enrollment numbers.

Obamacare is fraught with fundamental problems — not just the website — but the overall premise, and even yesterday Democrat Senator Joe Manchin, whom I thoroughly respect, recommended this whole thing be delayed, particularly the individual mandate tax.

Many economic forecasters and market analysts agree we have yet to see the full impact of Americans losing their coverage. Next year could be even more horrific because of the employer mandate which was “unconstitutionally” delayed by President Obama.

Just last week, as we reported, Obama issued another change decree stating that those who had lost their insurance coverage — because of his own mandate — could retain their previously declared “substandard, junk plans” and not be subject to the individual mandate tax.

Obamacare is NOT a law. Let me state this again, Obamacare IS NOT A LAW. It is the whimsical design of deviant minds that will destabilize one-sixth of our economy for their own political and ideological gain.

Just yesterday, President Obama again evidenced his delusion as he restated his case that Obamacare is on the right track and urged those who had yet to enroll to do so by Monday. “The law is working,” he said in a statement. “If you don’t have health insurance, go to [the site] right now and sign up. If you do it before December 23rd, you can be covered on the first day of the New Year… I’m asking you to spread the word about getting covered.”

If the “law is working,” then why grant yet another exemption before he whisked off on vacation to Hawaii? Obama delivered yet another lie when he stated, “I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans.”

The upsetting part is that these Americans were fine with their plans until his imperial excellency decided he knew what was best for them — and then proceeded to hose it all up.

Those Americans who lost their plans will not be able to restore comparable pricing, due to the administration’s upheaval of the industry and the ever expanding pool of high risk, elderly, and indigent onto the insurance rolls After all, someone has to subsume the costs and subsidize the system.

According to Fox, while enrollment is ticking upwards,

Several underlying problems persist, including the accuracy of the numbers and how many of those enrolled have in fact paid for their policies. Such problems could create far more serious consequences in the coming weeks should people who think they have insurance under ObamaCare go to a pharmacy or doctor’s office and find out otherwise.

But of course when that happens, the insidious blame game will kick in and the insurance companies will take the hit from President Obama. Robert Moffit, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies, spoke with FoxNews.com on Friday and explained it this way,

“The complexity of the law, including who is exempt from what, will continue to confuse Americans. This whole thing has turned into a rat’s nest of rules and regulations. Who would have thought Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would grant so many hardships? … This administration is under the mindset of how America is supposed to work, which has nothing to do with how it really works.”

As esteemed author and conservative philosopher Thomas Sowell put it, “We have traded in that which works, for that which sounds good.”

Merry Christmas America from President Barack Hussein Obama. You get a lump of coal, and he is the one who’s been naughty.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Legatus, Largest Catholic Business Organization Obtains Preliminary Injunction in HHS Mandate

ANN ARBOR, MI – Legatus, the Nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business CEOs and professional leaders, obtained a Preliminary Injunction against the Federal Government in its case challenging the HHS Mandate.  Federal District Judge Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan entered the Order granting the Thomas More Law Center’s motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday afternoon, December 20, 2013.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Legatus on May 7, 2012.  “Legatus” is the Latin word for “ambassador”, and its members are called upon to become “ambassadors for Christ” in living and sharing their Catholic Faith in their business, professional and personal lives.  It was founded in 1987 by Catholic philanthropist Tom Monaghan, to bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life – Faith, Family and Business.  Legatus currently has over 4,000 members in 31 states.

Erin Mersino, the TMLC’s lead attorney handling the Legatus case, has been spearheading the Law Center’s challenges to the HHS Mandate in eleven cases thus far.

When the lawsuit was originally filed Judge Cleland refused to enter an Injunction because Legatus was a non-profit organization and protected by the safe harbor provisions. Also, the Government represented that it was in the process of adopting rules that would accommodate organizations like Legatus.  The judge stated, however, that should the Government act in a way that was inimical to the rights of Legatus, it could again approach the Court.

The safe harbor provision protecting Legatus from the provisions of the HHS Mandate expires on January 1, 2014.  TMLC re-filed its motion for a Preliminary Injunction after the Government adopted its accommodation rules on the grounds those rules still required Legatus to facilitate insurance coverage for processes it feels are contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

In granting TMLC’s motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the Court found that even with the new rules adopted by the Government concerning religious accommodations, Legatus will likely show at trial that the HHS Mandate “substantially burdens the observance of the tenets of Catholicism.”  Further, the Court found that there were many other ways to achieve the Government’s interest to increase free contraception without restricting the religious liberty of Legatus.  Accordingly, the Court found that the government has not made a convincing argument showing the HHS Mandate is advancing a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means.

The Court noted that it had hoped that the government would not “act . . . in a way inimical to the rights Legatus seeks to protect.”  The court commented that it had “been unduly hopeful.”

Click here to read Judge Cleland’s entire opinion

ABOUT LEGATUS

In the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church and His Vicar on earth, Legatus is an international organization of practicing Catholic laymen and laywomen, comprised of CEOs, Presidents, Managing Partners and Business Owners, with their spouses, from the business community and professional enterprises. Legatus Mission: To study, live and spread the Catholic faith in our business, professional and personal lives.

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER

Renowned as a national nonprofit public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the Thomas More Law Center’s mission is to restore and defend America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, and to preserve a strong national defense, and a free and sovereign United States of America.  In courtrooms throughout our Nation, Law Center lawyers fight for the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, the sanctity of human life, and a strong national defense. The Law Center does not charge for its legal services, and relies on tax-deductible donations from concerned patriotic Americans and charitable foundations.

Government Largess is the Opiate of the People

I attended a round-table presentation given by a local doctor on expanding Medicare to cover ever more Americans. A member of the group during the discussion asked everyone around that table about their personal health care coverage. Everyone said the federal government was at least in part subsidizing their coverage.

I want to use the example of Social Security to explain how we have all become addicted to government largess. With our addiction government control over us has increased to the point that today many are dependent on federal largess to maintain their health, happiness and well being.

Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” I submit to you that, “Government largess is the opiate of the people.”

Government is defined as a “system of ruling or controlling”. Largesse is defined as, “the liberal giving (as of money) to or as if to an inferior.” Therefore, government largess is ruling or controlling by the liberal giving to inferiors (the governed).

Let me provide a brief historical perspective on how we got here.

We the people began to learn about government largesse 104 years ago with the founding of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society in New York City on September 12, 1905 in Peck’s Restaurant. An organizational meeting was held and Jack London was elected President with Upton Sinclair as First Vice President. The ISS was established to, “throw light [in America] on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.” Their motto was “production for use, not for profit.”

Production for use, not for profit is the prime goal of government largess.

So how could socialists begin distributing government largesse? First they had to gain unfettered control of production.

On February 3, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to our Constitution. Congress grabbed control of production via the federal income tax. We taxed our productivity by tapping every American’s wages. With the millions, then billions, and now trillions of dollars that Congress collected, they could entice or even force the strongest American to take the government largesse drug.

Then on April 8, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution which transferred U.S. Senator Selection from each state’s legislature to popular election by the people of each state.

These two events made it much easier to collect and distribute government largesse as now Senators were no longer loyal to their state legislatures or primarily concerned with state sovereignty. Now U.S. Senators, along with U.S. Representatives, saw the value of spreading the government largesse drug amongst the people in return for votes.

During the Great Depression Congress created the first opiate for the masses and named it Social Security. It was to be a social insurance program run by government, in other words guaranteed government largess for life.

The Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt. He and Congress said this new drug would keep those unemployed, retirees and the poor financially secure. He called it the New Deal. All we needed to do was just pay in and all would be well.

In 1937 the United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Butler validated the Social Security Act and stated that, “Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money [collected from the income tax] for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. The Court held that Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.” All taxes went into the general fund.

Testifying before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in 1952, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration said—“The present trust fund is not quite large enough to pay off the benefits of existing beneficiaries”—those already on the receiving end, in other words. In 1955 chief actuary believed that it would take $35 billion just to pay the people “now receiving benefits”.

In 1935 under the Social Security program the Congress included the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Act (AFDC).

During the late 1950s many states realized that this act, while created to help widows with children, was being used to subsidize women having children with men they were not married to. Louisiana alone took 23,000 women off the AFDC act rolls based upon their immoral behavior.

In 1960 Arthur Flemming, then head of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Dwight David Eisenhower and a key architect of Social Security, issued an administrative ruling that states could not deny eligibility for income assistance through the AFDC act on the grounds that a home was “unsuitable” because the woman’s children were illegitimate.

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court’s “Man-in-the-House” rule struck down the practice of states declaring a home unsuitable (i.e., an immoral environment) if there was a man in the house not married to the mother. Thus, out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation were legitimized. In very short order, the number of women on welfare tripled and child poverty climbed dramatically. The assault on the family was on and Congress and the Supreme Court were co-pushers of this new government largesse drug called AFDC.

In effect the federal government became the pimp, the homes of single mothers became the brothels and the fathers became the Johns. The children begotten by these women became the next generation of addicts. Just as a baby born to a mother doing crack is addicted to cocaine, so too are these children born with a lifetime addiction to the onerous and destructive drug – government largess.

Then Congress added a new ingredient to the powerful Social Security drug called Medicare on July 30, 1965.

Congress created Medicare as a single-payer health care system. Medicare was for those over 65 years old and was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. President Johnson called it part of his Great Society program. Congress immediately got more addicts to begin taking this drug.

At the same time Congress added a second even more powerful ingredient to this drug called Medicaid. This new ingredient brought into being an entirely new distribution system – all of the states of the union. Even though this new program violated state sovereignty it was passed anyway, in no small part because Senators were no longer accountable to the State Legislatures but rather committed to pushing government largess.

The states were now helping pay for and distribute this powerful and expensive designer drug. The drug was offered to low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Congress now had more people on the Social Security drug than ever before. Congress had turned a corner – addiction to government largesse was now imbedded in our society.

But Congress was not finished for it kept looking for more clients until we now know that the estimated unfunded liabilities for these four drugs are:

Social Security – $10.7 trillion

Medicare Parts A and B – $68 trillion

Medicare Part D – $17.2 trillion (created in just 3 years)

Our addiction to government largess will cost our children and grandchildren an estimated $95.9 trillion dollars. Ladies and gentlemen, the gross domestic product of the entire world in 2007 was $61 trillion.

I repeat my premise that government largess is the true opiate of the people.

I close with the following quote from a May 26, 1955 Herald-Tribune News Service article:

“Seven Amish bishops appealed to Congress today to exempt members of their church from receiving any benefits of the Social Security program. They are willing to continue paying Social Security taxes, however . . . . The bishops made it clear that no elder of the church would think, today, of applying for Social Security or any other government benefits. They want the law changed, they said, to “remove temptation” from their children and grandchildren.”

Watch this video: Government Gone Wild Seminar: Cradle to Grave

FL Senator Rubio and Rep. Buchanan get Special Obamacare Subsidy

(CNSNews.com) – Under Obamacare — as it is being implemented under a regulation issued by the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — a middle-aged member of Congress who earns an annual salary of $174,000 from the taxpayers, and who has a wife and children, will get a $10,000 subsidy from the taxpayers (over and above his $174,000 salary) to buy a health insurance plan that a regular citizen making almost $80,000 less than the congressman will not get.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare, included language mandating that members of Congress and their staff buy their now-mandated health insurance plans through a government exchange.

The laws says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).” (See Section 1312(d) of the law)

Americans in the private sector who buy health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges only get a federal subsidy (a tax credit) if their income/family situation is below 400% of poverty, the ceiling for which is $94,200 for a family of four.

If they surpass that 400% level, then no subsidy.  Theoretically, a family bringing in $174,000, like a member of Congress, would have to have 12 children dependents to even be eligible for a subsidy under the Obamacare rules. (See Federal Poverty Guidelines.pdf )

Read more.

Based on this ruling Florida Senator Marco Rubio and many of the Florida Congressional delegation members, led by Rep. Vern Buchanan and Alcee Hastings, will receive  this subsidy.

Large Gap Exists Between Lifetime Social Security and Medicare Benefits and Taxes

The American Enterprise Institute’s Jim Pethokoukis found this great chart (below) by the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerl. It shows the lifetime Social Security and Medicare taxes and benefits.

“Couples retiring today, with roughly the average earnings of workers in general, as well as average life expectancies, still receive about $1 million in lifetime benefits,” writes Steuerle. However, they will only pay $747,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes over that lifespan.

The gap between taxes and benefits has always been large. However, more people retiring and living longer–both great things–is causing the financial situation of both programs to get worse. As it stands now, Social Security won’t be able to pay full benefits starting in 2033, and Medicare Part A, which pays for hospital services, will go bankrupt in 13 years.

These programs must be reformed or the country will have to endure painful benefit cuts, crushing taxes, or both.

As U.S. Chamber Executive Vice President Bruce Josten said in June, “We need to make the responsible common-sense choices now, even if they are hard, to guarantee the promise of these programs to the next generation.”

Learn more at the U.S. Chamber’s “Ten Truths About America’s Entitlement Programs.”

The 6 Things You Need to Know About The Human Care Complex

This is the first in a series of columns on America’s human care system. With the Affordable Healthcare Act now the law of the land, it is time to understand six things: the who, what, where, when, why and how we got here.

In 1976, the great critic of 20th-century society, Ivan Illich, wrote: “Modern medicine is a negation of health. It isn’t organized to serve human health, but only itself, an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals.”

In 1961 President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned America about a growing government-industrial complex.

During his farewell speech Eisenhower warned, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” [Emphasis mine]

Since 1961 the military-industrial complex has been surpassed by the political power of the government/human care complex.

Eisenhower said, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.” [Emphasis mine]

The human care “scientific technological elite” is now in the hands of the National Institute of Health (NIH). The NIH human care system, in some cases, is not about improving health. The NIH human care system may ultimately result in increased cases of pain, suffering and death.

Since passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act, there has been a battle raging over the control of human care. The battle is between the producers and consumers of human care — or as Illich and others have described it: sickness or  illness care. There are a growing number of consumers being cared for by the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid systems. Estimates are that ten thousand Americans daily are entering the federal human care system.

A growing number of doctors and think tanks are recognizing that the human care system is not designed to make people healthy; rather, it is designed to grow and be sustained by ever more illness care. This is accomplished via human care standards called “protocols.”  The illness care providers are ultimately responsible for human care medical guidelines becoming protocols.

The human care system has become a government/industrial complex controlling over 17% of America’s GDP. In comparison, the military is less than 4% of GDP.

Patients believe human care providers are acting in their best interests.

However, like any other producer of products or services, the human care system is focused on keeping competition down, increasing scarcity of services with the objective of keeping costs and thereby profits high. The human care system is by definition a cartel. A cartel is defined as, “A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.”

Add to the “human care cartel” government at every level and you have a powerful force, which few are willing to confront.

Dr. Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, looked at the human care system in her landmark study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the July 2000 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Starfield came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

  • 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;
  • 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;
  • 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;
  • 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;
  • 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.
  • The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

According to Dr. Starfield, “This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.”

In 2010 Dr. G.R. Greenwell, MD, FACSM, began examining the US human care system. According to Dr. Greenwell, “Chronic noncontagious illnesses such as diabetes, arteriosclerosis  and hypertension have been continually increasing since the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP) was established in 1976.”

“From 1976 to 1987 the number of diabetics in the United States increased by 25%. In 1995 the methodology for decreasing the incidence and severity of diabetes by more than 58% was demonstrated. Since that time the ODPHP has failed to require demonstrations and research projects to utilize that methodology in order to receive grants or funding. Consequently the percentage of people living in the USA suffering with diabetes has increased over 107% since 1995. The number of people in the United States with diabetes has increased 138% since 1995,” notes Dr. Greenwell.

Dr. Greenwell reports, “In 2006, approximately 65,700 non-traumatic lower-limb amputations were performed on people with diabetes. During the first 10 years of the War on Terror the total number of lower limb amputations of active-duty armed forces personnel was only 1,621.”

Dr. Greenwell points out, “The number of lower limb amputations due to diabetes and vascular disease during 2006 was 109,500. It’s been proven that if an optimum aerobic exercise program had been included in the treatment of these patients, approximately 80% of these amputations would have been precluded from becoming necessary (see page 8 of the 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet).”

The human care cartel is more dangerous than any other cartel because taken to its ultimate end it can contribute to the pain, suffering and deaths of those to whom it purports to serve.

Part II will look at the who and what is behind America’s human care system.

RELATED LINK: The National Council for Aging Care’s information regarding Health and Well Being

Small Business Health Plan Website Delayed Until November 2014

UPDATE: The process really won’t get better anytime soon. Politico reports that the federally-run SHOP Marketplace website will be delayed until November 2014:

“We’ve concluded that we can best serve small employers by continuing this offline process while we concentrate on both creating a smoothly functioning online experience in the SHOP Marketplace, and adding key new features, including an employee choice option and premium aggregation services, by November 2014,” according to an HHS notice issued a day before the long Thanksgiving weekend. Those features give workers more choice of health plans, rather than having the business owner choose it.

The administration originally delayed online enrollment in the federal-run small business exchanges just days before the failed Oct. 1 launch of HealthCare.gov. At the time, HHS said online enrollment would be available “sometime in November.” Weeks ago, administration officials said online enrollment would be ready by the end of this November.

In a blog post, the Department of Health and Human Services explains how small businesses can buy health plans for their employees without a functioning website:

For small businesses in states with a SHOP Marketplace that’s run by the federal government, we are making changes to make sure that you can take advantage of SHOP coverage and the tax credit as soon as  possible. Specifically, for 2014, small employers will enroll their employees in coverage through an agent, broker, or insurer that offers a certified SHOP plan and has agreed to conduct enrollment according to HHS standards.

This process, called “direct enrollment,” is similar to how most small employers get insurance today. You don’t need to apply for SHOP eligibility before enrolling, or to use HealthCare.gov, unless you’d like to see information on your plan options, including which insurance companies offer SHOP Qualified Health Plans in your area.

The post also notes that the enrollment period to begin coverage on January 1, 2014 has been extended to December 23.

Following up on yesterday’s post on the federal SHOP Marketplace exchange website being little help to small businesses who want to buy health plans, I mentioned that companies can apply by mail or fax. Bloomberg Businessweek’s John Tozzi described the cumbersome process:

Companies with up to 50 employees can browse plans on healthcare.gov, starting on this page. (The government also offers this rather cumbersome, embedded spreadsheet of approximately 45,000 health plans offered across the country—have at it, Excel jockies.) The quotes here are sample premiums for individuals (ages 27 or 50) or for different arrangements of family coverage. There’s no place—that I could find, anyway—to get a single quote that includes some employees on family plans and some on individual coverage.

Actually applying for small business coverage on healthcare.gov right now requires both online and offline steps. Employers must set up an online account, then download a PDF application. After filling out the application (possibly with the help of a broker), business owners must print it out and mail it to London, Ky., where the paperwork is being processed manually. After that, the Health and Human Services Department is supposed to contact employers and confirm that they’re eligible. Then the company can select plans and offer employees coverage. After workers decide whether or not to enroll, companies can finally submit their application online and pay for the first month of their policies. Got it?

Tozzi doesn’t expect this to get better anytime soon:

“We are exploring options to ensure that small businesses have access to coverage in the SHOP marketplace. We are continuing to do an assessment of that work, and we’ll have a process in place by the end of this month,” HHS spokeswoman Julie Bataille said on a conference call with reporters Monday, according to a transcript provided by the agency. She wouldn’t comment on when online enrollment would be working, but she said details on an “enhanced process” would be coming “soon.”

Warning: Your doctor can’t protect your privacy or your medical records

There is a growing concern by Americans that their personal and private information is being collected and shared without their knowledge and consent.

For example, in Florida teachers, parents, administrators and students are voicing concern over the data mining component of Common Core, which will give access to every public school students’ private information to those outside the classroom or school house. WDW – FL reported recently on how the iBloom website was compromised in New York, allowing hackers to post public school students’ medical information and grades on the internet.

Recent scandals about government spying on individuals pales in comparison to the revelation that HealthCare.gov was recently hacked. Cyber security experts are warning about efforts by foreign governments, such as Russia and China, to compromise medical databases. But this is just the tip of the iceberg according to Florida doctors.

As health records are digitized they become more sharable and more vulnerable to privacy violations.

The more individual information is placed on large centralized databases the more that information may be accessed, without the knowledge and consent of  the individual. Doctors in Florida are raising privacy concerns as they fully implement the “electronic health record” (EHR) mandate for their patient’s records. Doctors worry about their loss of control over their patients’ records and their ability to limit those who access them. They worry about the growing the risks and liability of a privacy violation.

The US Department of Health and Human Services website states, “With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), an environment has been created that requires the adoption of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) by 2014 for seventy percent of the primary care provider population.” See an overview of the Recovery Act.

HHS warns, “ARRA authorizes the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide a reimbursement incentive for physician and hospital providers who are successful in becoming ‘meaningful users’ of an electronic health record (EHR). These incentive payments begin in 2011 and gradually phase down. Starting in 2015, providers are expected to have adopted and be actively utilizing an EHR in compliance with the ‘meaningful use’ definition or they will be subject to financial penalties under Medicare.”

Florida’s doctors are scrambling to implement the AARA mandate, at the risk of violating the HIPPA mandate.

Doctors can no longer guarantee that a patients medical records are safe and secure from prying eyes. Yet, Florida’s doctors according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) must, “[R]equire that healthcare providers (Covered Entities) and Business Associates apply appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the privacy of Protected Health Information (PHI). Additionally, the HITECH Act requires that they implement policies, procedures and technical controls to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic PHI data. The Act also tightened breach notification requirements, increased financial liability amounts and established that covered entities are liable for their business associates.” The doctor does not have total control of the patient record, but the doctor is liable for a breach, according to the law.

This is a medical Catch-22. Doctors no longer control their patients privacy but are required by law to protect their patient’s records.

This reminds us of the Capital One credit card commercial that asks: What’s in your wallet? Florida doctors are now asking: Who’s in my medical records?

Florida set to accept Medicaid expansion money? But at what price?

Section 2001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expands eligibility for Medicaid. Florida is one of the twenty-five states opting not to expand Medicaid as President Obama wanted and the Affordable Care Act originally envisaged. The supreme court upheld the personal mandate, the most controversial aspect of the healthcare reform bill, but ruled that states could not be required to expand Medicaid. However, that may all change.

Sarah Boseley writing for The Guardian reports, “Secret conversations are taking place in Florida between healthcare stakeholders and the legislature that will most likely lead to the Republican-controlled state accepting Medicaid expansion money, according to senior figures in the health industry.”

Boseley quotes Patrick Geraghty, President and CEO of Florida Blue, who has been involved in discussions in the state and nationally, “We believe strongly that we ought to be taking that funding. The money should be used to support change and innovation in healthcare systems. For our state it’s $51 [billion] over 10 years. That’s a lot of investment in transformation.”

“States can access the federal funds either if they expand the public Medicaid programme or, as permitted under the legislation, if they come up with an alternative way to fund expanded coverage. To qualify for Medicaid expansion money, however, an alternative system must be granted a waiver by federal authorities. Geraghty said she believed Florida would ‘do the right thing’ and undertake an expansion,” notes Boseley.

Donna Shalala, secretary for health and human services under Bill Clinton and now president of the University of Miami, said, “Governor Rick Scott has already said he would take the Medicaid expansion money for three years. I think the senate has some people that are prepared to play and are prepared to shape some kind of a framework for taking the Medicaid money.”

Whenever a state takes federal funding there are always strings attached and questions about program sustainability. Tarren Bragdon from the Heritage Foundation notes, “The old Rick Scott knew why Medicaid expansion is a dangerous idea: an already bankrupt federal government couldn’t possibly keep its funding promise to cover states’ expansion costs, Medicaid is already failing patients and taxpayers and expanding it would stretch the safety net even more, and the states that previously expanded Medicaid are now facing nightmarish consequences.”

According to Florida Legal Services, Inc., “Currently, the federal government covers approximately 58% of all Medicaid costs in Florida. This percentage is referred to as the federal matching rate or “FMAP.” In contrast to 58% FMAP for the current Medicaid population, the PPACA requires the federal government to cover 100% of costs associated with the newly eligible Medicaid Expansion population from 2014 to 2016. The FMAP for the expansion population gradually tapers down to 90% in 2020 and remains at 90% FMAP thereafter.5 These federal matching rates are mandated by federal law and cannot be altered without an Act of Congress. Further, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have clarified that states can withdraw from covering the expansion population at any time.”

Bragdon states, “Obamacare Medicaid expansion in Florida is projected to cost taxpayers anywhere from $3.7 billion to $19.5 billion annually, FHCP [Florida Health Care Plans] will cost Florida just $237 million a year to provide coverage for an estimated 115,000 uninsured Floridians.” Do the math.

Any expansion of Medicaid will, in the long term, increase the costs to all Florida taxpayers. Proponents of expanding Medicaid in Florida cite “caring for the needy” and a “take the money” to make up for state budget shortfalls. If Medicaid is expanded in Florida it would add one million new enrollees to those already on Medicaid. That would be up to one out of 17 Floridians would become dependent on federal and state Medicaid funds.

So why the big push now? Well, after all 2014 is an election year in Florida and that is potentially one million votes for the party in power, or is it?

Bragdon warns, “When Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) gave Medicaid expansion a metaphorical bear hug last February, he flip-flopped on a years-long record of opposition to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Many argue that the grassroots army he built during his national anti-Obamacare tour in 2009 provided him the jolt of support he needed to win a close race for governor in 2010. But with his expansion flip-flop, it’s unlikely that army will fight passionately for him again.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Health Care Report from the States: Florida Medicaid Expansion

Ignore the rumors: No deals on Medicaid

Reforming Florida’s Medicaid Drug Program