Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Flight of the Obamacare Bringers: Obamacare Exemptions Create a Ruling Class

In the age of the Soviet Union, socialism was for everyone except the party members. While the masses lived in government-issued projects and drove government-issued cars (for those whose applications could prove such a vehicle was a necessity), members of the central committee and politburo lived in Black Sea dachas, enjoyed caviar, and rode in chauffeur-driven limousines. 

Socialism has always been the spirit behind the creation of America's Affordable Care Act. It was the same for Social Security, Medicare, and all other programs created in the name of helping everybody. You can decide for yourself whether these programs are good or bad, but any program that involves re-distributing wealth and issuing benefits across all segments of society is a brand of socialism. But there is something ominously different about the career of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Its bringers are running full-speed away from it!

In 1965, former President Harry Truman enrolled himself in Medicare. If it was good enough for everyone, it was good enough for a president. And yet, since the 2012 re-election of President Obama, two years before the expected full-implementation of Obamacare, those of the very segments of society which made this law a reality are tripping over themselves to get their constituents exempted from it. 

The first grumblings came from Senate Democrats, worried about their re-election chances in 2014. Montana Senator Max Baucus, one of the chief sponsors of Obamacare, began calling the law "a train wreck." Next, it was the turn of the labor unions, most notably Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s Teamsters, UFCW, and Unite-Here. Together, they issued a damning statement about Obamacare to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Here are its most insightful passages:


"Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us."


"As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties."



"Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it." 
The Affordable Care Act will “destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
This week, in keeping with Obamacare's trend of destroying" the backbone of the middle class", the president just issued an executive order, exempting congressional staffs from receiving the Medicaid-Plus (i.e. Obamacare exchange plan) that was set to replace their existing (and generous) Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) with lower quality coverage. Over the last few weeks, these staffers have groaned that Obamacare will force them to pay thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket expenses.

Hearing their cries, the president issued his executive order exempting congressional staffers from Obamacare, breaking his own law. This is not the first time the president has broken the Obamacare law. A matter of weeks ago, he waved the employer mandate (delaying it, conveniently, until after the 2014 midterm elections). Does it seem far fetched that labor unions will get an exemption too? Not at all. 

The president has already shown us that he has no regard for the rule of law, that he conducts himself as being above the law, and that he will save his privileged, ruling elite, from the very laws he signed to make everyone" pay their fair share." The only segment of American society that will not get an Obamacare exemption is the middle class, in other words, those of us who can not afford to send a lobbyist to Washington on our behalf. The Affordable Care Act (with all its exemptions) is set to create a new American ruling class, unless it is repealed.

Patriot Thought



Sources:

WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html

Hoffa quotes from:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/16/James-Hoffa-Flips-on-ObamaCare


2 comments:

  1. Yes, when our representative had his last town hall in Cumming, he told us that he did not want the Representatives and Senators to have to be under Obama Care...because the less people under Obama Care the better we'll all be.

    Now THAT one I'll always remember!

    That's how tyrants act.

    -Hank

    ReplyDelete
  2. What's breathtaking is that he expected you to believe that congressional exemptions somehow benefited you. As if the several hundred congressmen and senators being exempt would have any positive impact on the other 316 million plus Americans who are not exempt. It's unbelievable that he could tell you that with a straight face. Only a politician could pull that off!

    ReplyDelete

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.