Payback is a Bitch

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Obamacare offers subsidies to help pay for health insurance – if you are buying insurance through the federal exchange and your income qualifies. But now the word is out that at least 1 million people are probably getting the wrong subsidy amounts.

The Washington Post has inside sources providing all sorts of juicy details on this problem – but it didn’t take an investigative reporter to predict this was going to happen.

Heritage expert Alyene Senger warned that Obamacare’s subsidies are tied to income – and if your income changes at any point during the year, your subsidy is supposed to change, too. She explained in January:

if a person’s income fluctuates, which happens more frequently than many realize, the subsidy amount will change from month to month. Thus, when it comes time to file taxes in April, the amount of subsidy received over the past year must be reconciled with the final calculation of the total subsidy for which the individual was eligible—based on actual income for the entire tax year.

So if you qualify for more subsidy help than you receive during the year, you’ll get a tax refund. But if you were given more subsidy than your income qualifies you for, you will be required to repay the excess subsidy.

So don’t make too much (or pursue the American Dream of a better life too hard) of else Mama (Government) will become upset with you and have to get out the IRS yardstick and punish you for you sins you greedy little thing. 🙂

Settle for what Mama gives you, and just shut up and be a good little serf.

Now, the Post reports that the government is attempting to keep up with this – except that the part of Obamacare’s computer system that is supposed to match proof of income with people’s Obamacare applications is, well, not built yet.

Since taxpayers are funding the subsidies, it’s important to make sure the correct amounts are going to the correct people, right? Well, that does make the Obama administration “sensitive” these days, the Post says:

Beyond their concerns regarding overpayments, members of the Obama administration are sensitive because they promised congressional Republicans during budget negotiations last year that a thorough income-verification system would be in place.

This setup is a disaster. And it will ensnare a lot of people. Senger pointed to one analysis estimating that nearly 38 percent of families eligible for subsidies also experience “large income increases” at some point during the year – meaning they would have to pay back some or all of their subsidies.

“The issue is symptomatic of many problems that will plague the law in coming years,” Senger said.

Is it any wonder that 60 percent of voters in a recent poll said the debate about Obamacare is not over? And 89 percent said Obamacare will affect their voting decisions this fall.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is right – Obamacare is still not the answer for America’s health care needs. It’s time for Congress to look at patient-centered alternatives that would restore choice to American health care – and stop the unending tales of Obamacare disaster. (Heritage)

But it’s been the Liberal Socialist wet dream for nearly 100 years, they won’t stop until the lat drop of your blood is spilled in hubris to their God.

Hate the VA scandal, welcome to ObamaCare, the VA for the masses. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

So True…It’s like a perpetual PBS Pledge Break….

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 

 

Your Role

From the man who made “never let a crisis go to waste”, Rahm Emanuel former White House Chief of Staff comes what we all knew in our hearts.

The Democrats claim, even now, that the Republicans obstructed them and that they sought “bi-Partisanship” on Health Care Reform and the President even said he’d listen to ideas from Republicans.

We all knew that was bullhockey (and when he repeated the same lines in his speech right after the election…)

Well, in a book, Rahm has admitted as much.

In a new book, Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn’t pursue bipartisan support for health reform, because it would take too much time, instead insisting that the lesson of Clinton’s failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House’s strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.

Rahm makes the claim in interviews with journalist Richard Wolffe, in his new book, “Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House,” which was released today. From page 102:

Unlike his boss, Emanuel wasn’t interested in looking reasonable with Republicans; he wanted to look victorious. He didn’t care much for uniting red and blue America; he wanted blue America to beat its red rival…

Obama was prepared to sacrifice time and political capital to make his policy bipartisan and more ambitious; Emanuel believed Obama did not have that luxury. “Time is your commodity. That answers everything,” Emanuel said. “But a lot of us thought we didn’t have the amount of time that was being dedicated. If you abandon the bipartisan talks you get blamed. He still wanted to try to achieve it that way. But that’s one of a series of things you can look back on and be a genius about.

“My job as chief of staff is to give him 180-degree advice. He hired me, as he asked, to learn from the past, or to use my knowledge from my time in Congress and in the Clinton administration. Watching ’94, watching ’97 when we did kids’ health care, and then studying Medicare, what were the lessons? The lesson about time as a commodity is not mine, it’s Lyndon Johnson’s. You got X amount of time; you gotta use it.”

The decision to waste time chasing bipartisan support for health reform was clearly one of the mistakes that led to health care being such a big political liability for Dems. It extended the whole mess by months and months, which gave opponents more time to demagogue the bill and scare voters and helped turn the public against the process. Rahm seems to be suggesting here that he foresaw something like this happening, and argued against the futile quest for bipartisan support, which is certainly not the view of his legacy in the White House that has endured.(WP)

Gee, I’m shocked….And he was always portrayed as “the Moderate Voice” in the White House.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid!

Then Big Sis Janet Napalitano when asked about the government gropes at airports,“It’s all about security,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. “It’s all about everybody recognizing their role.” (Reuters)

Your role as always is to sit down and shut up because the government is better, stronger, more powerful and just plain better than you.

They want to take care of their serfs. And don’t want you little people to be bothered by thinking how you’re being exploited.

Your Lord and Masters have spoken. Shut up, sit down, and know your place.

Oh, and there will be “death panels” despite how the left mocked people for suggesting it and got all frothy and pit bullish crazy ever time someone mentioned it.

Ever notice that when Leftists get really made about a characterization of them it usually ends up being true? 🙂

The left’s favorite economist, who condemned others for saying ObamaCare would require death panels, now admits they are real and necessary. The way to control costs, he says, is death and taxes.

Paul Krugman has long extolled the virtues of Britain’s National Health Service and its National Institute for Clinical Excellence with the Orwellian acronym of NICE. Krugman has been anything but nice to NHS critics and those who’ve said that what have been called its “death panels” would be brought to America via ObamaCare.

In a roundtable discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” the New York Times columnist said of what recently came out of the president’s deficit commission: “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.

“Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for,” Krugman said. “And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, (the deficit commission) should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.”

Krugman went right to his blog Sunday afternoon to “clarify” his comments. He explained, and we are willing to accept, that he was being derisive of the term and sarcastic. “I said something deliberately provocative on This Week,” Krugman wrote, “so I think I’d better clarify what I meant,” which is something he regularly denies to others.

He explained that “health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care.”

Whatever his intended use of the phrase “death panels,” what he describes are in fact “death panels.” A group of people will sit on a, er, panel, deciding what treatments are cost-effective and should be available and who should get them. That is called rationing and in cases of the “extreme care” he mentions, a life-and-death decision.

That’s a death panel.

We recall how Krugman savaged Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for warning what Krugman now says should happen might happen. Palin said: “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

Sharing Krugman’s belief that such a system is just fine is Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama’s choice to head the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. Berwick has said: “NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable and — importantly — knowledge-building system.” No, NICE is a system of rationing through a bureaucratic formula defining “cost-effectiveness” that has rushed untold numbers of Britons to an early grave.

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open,” is what Dr. Berwick told a National Institutes of Health publication when he was just president and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement.

The Obama administration’s health care reform is all about cost and little about care. Dr. Berwick has opined: “We can make a sensible social decision and say, ‘Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.’ ” In other words, the government will decide whether treating you and extending your life is worth it.

By any other name, that’s still a death panel. (IBD)

Welcome to Orwell’s…I mean Obama’s America.

Your role: Serf. Their Role: Master

If they want Death panels, they get death panels, you just can’t call them that and you can’t object. That’s not your role.

If you don’t want to be groped at airports like your a side of beef at local Strip Club, too bad! They have to play being serious about security (While ignoring 18-40 year old male Muslims).

That’s their role.

Now do you want some Hope and Change? 🙂

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Steve Kelley