Tag Archives: obamacare

Demonstrably False: The Presidency of Barack Obama


By George H. Shear

Barack Obama’s flimsy lies in defense of his handling of the Secret Service prostitution scandal have been characterized by the Washington Post as “Demonstrably False.”  This truthful statement from a leading media outlet has been a longtime coming; but those of us who have been honest observers of the miserable failure in the White House say: Better late than never.

Barack Obama has lied to us from the first day he entered public life from wherever he came from. If Franklin Roosevelt’s Administration was the, “New Deal” and John Kennedy’s was the “New Frontier,” Barack Obama’s Administration must be labeled “Demonstratively False.”

Here are some of the “Demonstratively False” lies from Obama proving his Administration deserves this label.

“If you like your health care plan/ doctor you can keep your health care plan/doctor.”

“We agree[d] on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums…”

“My healthcare plan will save each American family $2,500 a year.”

“My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”

 “We have “shovel ready jobs.”

“We will restructure mortgages to help you avoid foreclosure.”

“Federal contracts over $25,000 will be competitively bid.”

“There will be constitutional oversights to protect against illegal surveillance of American citizens.”

“We will get our troops home as the first thing I do as president, I will end this war…. take that to the bank.”  

“You will have five days to review and comment on any non-emergency bills before they become law.”

“… we’ve got to get serious about starting to live within our means, instead of leaving debt for our children and grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.”   

“…. I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay – and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

Then, of course, there is Obama’s biggest lie of all: “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.”

 Sources: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/list-23-famous-obama-quotes-turned-broken-promises-cold-hearted-lies/    


Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have is Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com



10,535 pages of ObamaCare in 4 sentences

Coach is Right staff writer Jerry Todd sums up the extraordinarily complex Affordable Care Act in 4 easy sentences.

As humorous as this sounds…..every last word of it is absolutely TRUE!

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured.

2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured.

3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.

4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured,

Which will be free of charge to them.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called “redistribution of wealth” … Or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM.

This is what happens when you violate the principle of subsidiarity.

Liberal courts might award the powers of Congress to the Internal Revenue Service

By Doug Book, editor

In June of last year I wrote that the future of ObamaCare would depend upon the outcome of a small number of under-reported lawsuits filed to prevent the IRS illegally re-writing the Affordable Care Act.

At issue in the lawsuits:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through exchanges that are run by “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state.” (2) By mid 2013 however, 33 states had refused to build an ObamaCare Exchange so necessary to the functioning of the law. And although the ACA made provision for recalcitrant governors and state legislators by permitting the federal government to build exchanges within their borders, it did NOT allow for federally run exchanges to provide the subsidies and tax credits without which healthcare plans would be unaffordable for a majority of businesses and individuals.

Section 1311 of ObamaCare allows for providing tax credits or subsidies to certain people who purchased qualified health plans “through AN EXCHANGE ESTABLISHED BY THE THE STATE.”  (5) Section 1321 – the section regulating federally run exchanges – makes it clear that neither tax credits nor subsidies may be offered through exchanges established by the federal government. (3)

In short:

“Congress did not authorize tax credits, subsidies to private insurance companies, or penalties on employers in states with a federal Exchange.”

“Nor did Congress grant the IRS authority to create such credits, subsidies, and penalties…”  (4)

However, in May of 2012, Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service decided to unilaterally change the language of the ACA and override the will of Congress by stating that the Service will have the authority to provide subsidies and tax credits to ObamaCare participants from federally run exchanges.  The IRS literally rewrote the law and rescued the president’s legislation by giving itself permission to spend an estimated $800 billion taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years—dollars which were NOT authorized by congress to be spent. (1)

How does the Obama Regime defend implementation of an IRS rule which ignores the clear language of the ACA?  By claiming that the new rule is “consistent with the intent of the law and our (Treasury Department’s) ability to interpret and implement it.”

But regardless of IRS assertions of intent, the text itself of the Affordable Care Act proves their claim to be an outright lie.

In response to the typically breathtaking contempt of the Obama Regime for both the law and the Constitution, 4 lawsuits were filed. Two have been decided: Halbig v Burwell (the new head of the HHS) and King v Burwell. In Halbig, the DC Circuit Court ruled the shenanigans of the IRS to be illegal. In King, the 4th Circuit Court decided that the language of the law was indeed “ambiguous,” making the IRS rewrite “a reasonable interpretation of the relevant text.”

Two lawsuits now remain each insisting HHS and the IRS overstepped their authority. They are Pruitt v Burwell and Indiana v IRS.

How may the American public expect them to be decided? Who can tell! The increasingly corrupt and pernicious purveyors of the legal system in the United States make predicting what should be the most straightforward of rulings virtually impossible. The unconditional appetite to further a politically inspired agenda has replaced the Constitution as the foundation of American jurisprudence.  

Imagine providing a federal bureaucracy the power to “borrow” tax dollars, determine their use and ignore the specific, written language of the law, all for the purpose of implementing a political fix for legislation which didn’t turn out quite the way its authors  had intended.  

That an American court could even consider a ruling which might endorse such an abuse of power is scary as Hell.

(1) http://www.coachisright.com/the-fate-of-obamacare-rests-on-the-outcome-of-two-underreported-lawsuits/
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-the-irs-has-an-unwelcome-role-in-obamacare/2013/05/23/b4e10550-c3df-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html
(3) http://obamacare.net/testimony-the-illegal-irs-rule
(4)  http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/illegal-irs-rule-increase-taxes-spending-under-obamacare-1

(5) http://freestaterblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-affordable-care-act-on-life-support.html


Additional reading:


What Kind Of Health Care System Do You Want?

Reforming health care is a signature issue with the current administration, but even the most ardent proponents of Obamacare would be reluctant to call it a success.  Notwithstanding the well-publicized problems, of the countless billions spent on this program, precious little has gone into actual patient care.  But really, what should we expect from a system designed by soulless bureaucrats such as “bioethicist” Ezekiel Emanuel and Donald Berwick, former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services?

Emanuel infamously suggested that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, while Berwick intoned that the federal government must step in between doctors and their patients to curb and redistribute the use of medical resources.  To be sure, both of these medico-ghouls are in favor of a single-payer government-controlled system.  One wonders if they know who founded government-controlled health care.  None other than Adolf Hitler.  You could look it up.

Of course, what we do have at the moment is not health care at all.  Rather, it is disease care.  Inasmuch as there is not enough money in the world to support a disease care system, you would think that the government would be doing all it can to improve public health and encourage prevention.  But, you would be wrong.  In fact, many preventive programs are having the exact opposite effect.

It was known as early as the mid-1960s that the lipid/cholesterol theory of coronary heart disease was total bunk.  Yet, we are still being pummeled with precisely the wrong advice in the advocacy of a low fat/high carb diet.  There is no doubt that this course has almost single-handedly caused the current epidemic of obesity and diabetes.  And, it has done virtually nothing to lower the incidence of coronary heart disease.  Applicable drug sales, however, have skyrocketed.  Notably, anti-cholesterol and glycemic control meds have been fraught with serious side effects.

A similar tale can be told of the absurd official recommendations on a low salt diet.

Assuming that all this is not the deliberate result of some star-chamber conspiracy, what went wrong?  Chalk it up to egos, massive intertwining bureaucracies, zero accountability, and huge amounts of money.  I trust that the ego and monetary components are self-evident.

As to intertwining bureaucracies, consider the effect of USDA grain subsidies on the official dietary recommendations, and the resulting disaster of high carb diets.  If the Feds really were concerned with health care, wouldn’t they put some subsidies on fruits and vegetables?

As to zero accountability, consider the hundreds of millions of dollars pharmaceutical companies must spend to get a drug through FDA approval, and then consider how many of these approved drugs are taken off the market only a few years later.  Why are there never any consequences for the FDA, but only gigantic lawsuits against Big Pharma?  Isn’t the FDA supposed to be the certification agency of all that is safe and effective?  Why is it always held harmless?  If your own doctor did something a fraction as calamitous, he would be sued for malpractice.

Perhaps, the quadrual of egos, massive intertwining bureaucracies, zero accountability, and huge amounts of money are simply four sides of the same square, three of which naturally follow from the bureaucracy portion.  One could add our obsession with process instead of outcome.  Despite the dozens of catastrophic failures, we still must have an unchanged FDA approval process.  Despite the decades of poor results from any number of strongly advocated “health” measures, we must still have them in place.  Despite the fact that giving insulin to an obese type 2 diabetic will only make him fatter, and increase his “need” for exogenous insulin even more, we must keep on with this nonsensical therapy.

Might I suggest that the first step in improving any health care system is for the individual to take an ownership in his own health, instead of giving his proxy to such an obscenely conflicted enterprise as the federal government and its henchmen?

A few days ago, I was having a conversation with a top addiction medicine doc, based in Arizona.  He remarked that these days, addiction medicine is one of the last specialties allowing him the freedom to act like a true physician–a partner and consultant in improving the health of the patient.  The addicts who come for treatment sincerely want to get better, and the doctor is their guard and guide.  No proxy required, and befitting of our Independence Day.

The Left reveal their colossal fear of religion in the Hobby Lobby case

By Doug Book, editor

In spite of having mastered the frequently demanding practice of deceit, once in a while genuine motivation breaks through the left’s façade of compassion and caring. Though not widely recognized, it happened in the Hobby Lobby case decided by the Supreme Court on Monday.

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, Congress provided the option of going to court to anyone who sought religious based exemption from a federal law. In providing this statutory right to religious objectors, Congress wrote that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…”

Among other things, Hobby Lobby attorneys argued that imposing massive fines against their client for not providing “abortion drugs” to employees must obviously represent the sort of substantial burden addressed by Congress in the statute. The Supreme Court agreed.

Concerned that the substantial burden language in the RFRA might at least in part derail Barack Obama’s efforts to subordinate religious freedom to the commands of the state, a number of the Government’s amici—friends of the Court arguing on behalf of the government case—advised justices that there would be no “burden” if Hobby Lobby “…simply terminated health insurance for all of its employees.” That is, “…terminating health insurance and compensating employees with additional wages would be no burden.” Hobby Lobby would no longer face the threat–that is the BURDEN–of government fines for the company’s Christian refusal to supply abortion drugs to its employees.

The Court rejected this argument in its 5-4 finding for Hobby Lobby.

But hold on. Wasn’t the overarching purpose of ObamaCare to provide health insurance–affordable, quality health insurance that is—to the uninsured? Weren’t these the premier talking points of the left? So why are government amici suggesting that a closely held corporation   providing insurance coverage to some 15,000 employees suddenly deny those people coverage? Shouldn’t Obama’s forces congratulate employers of this sort?

Could there be a better example of the contempt in which the practice of religion—especially Christianity—is held by the far left? Contempt and fear that is. For the left believe it must be their exclusive right—the right of government–to teach people the difference between right and wrong; that is, teach and demand that the behavior mandated by those “teachings” be executed without question or refusal!

But the lessons provided by 2000 years of Christianity put a big hole in government’s dreams of being the owners and purveyors of absolute moral authority. The Hobby Lobby case made it clear that the left is far more interested in curtailing—preferably destroying—the practice of religious freedom than in making sure everyone has health insurance.

Once again the left allows the mask to slip, showing us who and what they are.