Stupid Voters and Lack of Transparency Helped Pass Obamacare Claims Architect of Obamacare- On Video

Remember how Barack Obama promised to create the most transparent and open government ever:

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government." - 

It turns out that Jonathan Gruber, an economist who helped cobble together Obamacare, claims that "lack of transparency" was what enabled Obama and his Democratic congressional minions to pass the Affordable Care Act.  Lack of transparency, and the stupidity of the low information voter.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Obamacare's "War Against Doctor's"

Alabama Republican congressman Mo Brooks reads a letter from a Decatur, Alabama family practitioner Dr. Marlin Gill who exposes Obamacare's "war against doctors" and the subsequent damage being done to our healthcare system.

Doctors are leaving practices, switching to administrative jobs, or starting concierge practices- like my parents' internist, because of cumbersome regulations that add cost, raise overhead and ""gum up the works."   These new rules and regulations create a slower and less efficient practice, forcing doctors to spend more time on administrative tasks than treating patients. As part of Obamacare, there are new electronic medical records requirements,  including a new coding system. The current system has 13,000, Obamacare now has 70,000 new codes.  The cost to Gill's practice $80,000.  He now sees fewer patients, and many doctors fear non-payment by patients with Obamacare, since many are not paying their premiums.

Video on YouTube here.

Obama Argued Against Healthcare Mandate In 2008 In Debate With Clinton

In his own words- during a presidential debate in 2008 with Hillary Clinton in Ohio- then Senator Barack Obama argues against the healthcare mandate Clinton was pushing whereby individuals were to be fined for not purchasing insurance. This, as we know, is now part of Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Speaking of Clinton's mandate-which Obama claimed was the main difference between their healthcare plans:

"... she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase healthcare. If it was not affordable, she would still, presumably, force them to have it unless there is a hardship exemption as they have done in Massatusetts [sic]..."

Yes, he pronounced the "ch" in Massachusetts with a "t". And no, I'm not being petty, but the left skewered George W. Bush for mispronouncing nuclear, so fair is fair.



H/T BlackAndRight

NBC's Lester Holt Discusses "Unintended Consequences" Of Obamacare

NBC's Lester Holt talks about some of the "unintended consequences" of  Obamacare.

Promise: Insurance for all.

Truth: No insurance and paycuts for many working for small businesses. So good luck getting the funds to pay for insurance or the fines if you don't.

From Subway fast food workers and professors at universities, people are starting to experience those unintended consequences.

Of course, the Obama administration is in total denial.

Even unions (die-hard liberals) admit there are problems.

Way to go.

No Health Benefits For Half The Employees At Obamacare Call Center

Companies that said they would need to cut workers' hours because of the prohibitive costs of health care if Obamacare was implemented were excoriated for that decision, and calls for boycotts forced many to reconsider.  So it's rather interesting that about half of the 200 or so people being trained to answer questions about Obamacare at a call center opening soon in Concord, California will be part time with no benefits. That's right, those poor individuals who aren't full time will have to pay anywhere from $600 to $1,200 per month if single, and $1,400 to $2,900 if married with a family, for the privilege of making a whopping $15.33 to $18.63 per hour. If a person is lucky enough to get 30 hours a week, you do the math. What's worse, it was understood that all those jobs would be full time, including those who were hired.

"The battle for the call center was over jobs with good working wages and benefits; I never dreamed they would be part-time," said Karen Mitchoff, who has heard from complaining constituents and expressed her "extreme displeasure with how it was handled" to call center supervisors.

One recent hire, who last week learned the job would be part-time, said the new "intermittent" employees feel like they've been used as a political tool, and many now regret applying for the positions.

"What's really ironic is working for a call center and trying to help people get health care, but we can't afford it ourselves," said the worker, who asked for anonymity out of fear of losing the job. The county says it had been telling the public and supervisors all along that some positions would be full-time and some part-time. However, portions of staff reports list all 204 jobs as full-time, and a job posting said the same.

It's the latest controversy involving the call center, one of three created statewide to help citizens enroll in various new health care options under President Obama's Affordable Care Act when it goes live at the start of next year.

The rest here.

Will the liberals be outraged? Nah.

Nancy Pelosi Forgets Her Promise Of Lower Insurance Rates For Everyone

Asked by a journalist about her promise back in 2012 of lower rates for everyone under Obamacare and how some people's premiums will actually go up, Nancy Pelosi's flip response: those who had no insurance will obviously have their premiums go up because they never had insurance in the first place. She then goes on to say that she doesn't remember ever having promised that everybody in the country would have a lower premium.

And yet in a Meet The Press interview on July 1, 2012 that's exactly what she said:  "..... and everybody will have lower rates, better quality care...."

Ooops.

Whole Foods CEO Apologizes For Calling Obamacare "Fascism", Liberals Will Still Boycott

John Mackey, co-CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods and a free-market Libertarian, received a lot of flak when he penned his alternative to Obamacare in 2009, and even more for calling Obama's health care plan "more like fascism" during an interview with NPR this past Wednesday. Now, as they did back in 2009, the usual suspects are calling for a boycott- which is what stupid liberals do- without taking into account that Whole Foods ranks as one of the top 100 places to work, so corporate must be doing something right. In fact, the health food store was ranked #32 in CNN's top 100 for 2012. Not only has 53-year-old John Mackey capped executive wages, he has paid himself an annual salary of a whopping $1.00 since 2006. Yes, that's right, "one" dollar. Cashier's make a little over $26,000 per annum, team leaders over $80,000. They receive 100% health coverage, subsidized gym memberships and are offered domestic partner benefits for same-sex partners. So liberals are calling for a  boycott of a workplace that you'd think would be a liberals dream, just because the CEO happens to think Obama's Affordable Care Act sucks?

Unfortunately, Mackey bowed to pressure for his fascism comment, apologizing for what he called a "poor word choice", and posting it on Huffington Post and the Whole Foods blog:

I made a poor word choice to describe our health care system, which I definitely regret. The term fascism today stirs up too much negative emotion with its horrific associations in the 20th century. While I'm speaking as someone who works hard to offer health care benefits to more than 73,000 team members, who actually vote on their overall benefits packages, I am very concerned about the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions.

I believe that, if the goal is universal health care, our country would be far better served by combining free enterprise capitalism with a strong governmental safety net for our poorest citizens and those with preexisting conditions, helping everyone to be able to buy insurance. This is what Switzerland does and I think we would be much better off copying that system than where we are currently headed in the United States.

I believe that health care should be competitive in the open market to promote innovation and creativity. Despite the criticism of me, I am encouraged that this dialogue will bring continued awareness and a better understanding of viable health care options for all Americans. There is an alternative to mandated health care in free enterprise capitalism based on voluntary exchange for mutual gain. This alternative allows individuals and businesses to innovate and develop customized solutions to health care where a “one size fits all approach” fails. Creativity and progress are stifled when government regulations dictate the parameters of what health care plans can be offered. Creative businesses, and the people who work them, can make something that has value for all stakeholders.

I need a new word or phrase to describe the state of health care now because it is something that I, like all folks entrusted with the wellbeing of a team, grapple with daily in this era. I think for now I will simply call it government-controlled health care to distinguish it from free enterprise capitalist health care. Clearly, I would prefer free enterprise capitalism in health care because it would greatly increase innovation and progress —just like it does in every other aspect of our lives, wherever it is allowed to exist. I hope those who are my critics, would recognize that we are all after an improved state of society, and not be distracted by the poor use of an emotionally charged word.

The majority of comments on the Whole Foods blog are negative, some even call for his resignation, and some say they will not shop there until he's gone:

SHARON KA SAYS ...
I will not be shopping at Whole Foods in Madison, Wi anymore. i think you can guess the reasons why. John Mackey needs to resign.

And idiots who don't bother to do their research, since Mackey makes $1.00 per year:

ED FROM JERSEY SAYS ...
I shop at Whole Foods not because I care about their political views but because of the quality of the food. That said, I think I pay enough for their food that a portion of it should benefit the employees by providing them with health care. Why is it that CEO's think they deserve their million dollar salaries, fat bonuses, and fat stock options, but the lowest people on their totem pole don't deserve the most basic human element? CEO's need to factor in the human element into their business model.

And another idiot who has no clue about Mackey or Whole Foods policies, since he offers 100% insurance coverage:

EMDOYLE SAYS ...
Do you provide healthcare for your employees? Or are they forced to find something for themselves like so many other big companies? You say you support universal health care - we all do, including the President. But when CEOs don't try to lead the way on an issue such as this, and, instead, sit back passively and then criticize the outcome, that's just ridiculous. You think of yourself as a job creator, but if you don't offer health insurance, you're only doing half of what is needed and relying on the government to pick up the slack. Good work.

I find the response very sad, but not at all surprising.

H/T Drudge Report.

Obamacare Forcing Darden Restaurants To Cut Worker's Hours

I love how the liberals keep calling Romney/Ryan liars, and yet they are in total denial about the many fibs that have ushered forth from their precious Barack Obama's lips.

Let's focus on Obamacare.  Anyone remember how he promised that we would not lose our preferred doctors, or our insurance, and he assured us that our insurance rates would not go up?  Right.  None of those things are turning out to be true. Now, maybe he truly believed nothing bad would happen, perhaps they weren't blatant lies, but if not,  how can we trust someone who made such gross miscalculations?  Either way, it's an epic fail.

Not only are people's insurance rates going up (I wrote about this in another post), they will also be losing their preferred doctors because, in some cases, they will be losing their insurance. Companies are now discovering they can no longer afford to provide insurance for their employees, so, boom, gone. This is what's going to happen to many waiters and waitresses at Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and LongHorn Steakhouses.  Darden, the parent company of those restaurants, is instituting  some major changes in the work schedules of employees to get around not having to provide insurance.

In an experiment apparently aimed at keeping down the cost of health-care reform, Orlando-based Darden Restaurants has stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least a few Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and LongHorn Steakhouses.

Darden said the test is taking place in "a select number" of restaurants in four markets, including Central Florida, but would not give details. The company said there has been no decision made about expanding it.

In an emailed statement, Darden said staffing changes are "just one of the many things we are evaluating to help us address the cost implications health care reform will have on our business. There are still many unanswered questions regarding the health care regulations and we simply do not have enough information to make any decisions at this time."

And other companies are considering following suit.  White Castle, the fast food burger joint, is thinking of not hiring as many full-time workers.

Obamacare is set for 2014, and you're a fool if you don't think more companies will stop providing 30 hours of work to save themselves some money.  After all, they'll be fined up to $3,000 per worker if they don't.

"I think a lot of those employers, especially restaurants, are just going to ensure nobody gets scheduled more than 30 hours a week," said Matthew Snook, partner with human-resources consulting company Mercer.

So what's Darden doing? Offering their  workers a 28 hour work week. Many believe it will adversely affect the restaurant industry. They get such little money as it is, relying mainly on tips, that less work hours will net less income. I wouldn't stick around.

Right now, all 185,000 or so Darden workers get some form of health insurance. The ones offered a limited-benefit plan are the ones who will be most affected,

That type of coverage is being phased out under health-care changes, which will ban annual limits for most plans.

About 25 percent of Darden workers are full time, meaning they work more than 30 hours a week. Though employees say Darden already offers traditional health insurance to full-timers, Janney Capital Markets analyst Mark Kalinowski said the cost of providing that could become higher for Darden under the Affordable Care Act. Because that law requires everyone to have health insurance, more workers will likely choose its coverage, Kalinowski said.

"Even a modest jump up in the amount of employees that decide they want the insurance you're offering could have a meaningful impact on your bottom line," he said.

So much for all those promises.  I can guarantee that it's not just restaurants that are going to start implementing cuts to save on insurance when Obamacare comes into play.

But even some Republicans are falling for the Obamacare hype and plan on voting for Obama in November- the ones with pre-existing conditions. Now, I can relate, I have two, but I'm still not voting for Obama and here's why: when I was searching for alternate insurance because my COBRA payments are so high -and yes, my premiums went up, as well- I was told yes they would insure me, but I would have had to pay much more for less benefits.  So, yes, insurance companies will have to take you and your pre-existing conditions on, but are you going to be able to afford the exorbitant cost? No, you won't.  So what's the point?