Even More Obamacare Follies

#526
#526
And the irony of her situation is not lost on her. In a recent email addressed to her former boss, Illinois Congressman Bill Foster, and other Democratic colleagues, she wrote:


“I spent two years defending Obamacare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can’t put in print. The congressman was not re-elected in 2010 mainly because of the anti-Obamacare anger. When the congressman was not re-elected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job. I was upset that because of the health care issue, I didn’t have a job anymore but still defended Obamacare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong.”


Obamacare jacks up her insurance - Chicago Sun-Times

You weren’t wrong... you were and are STUPID.

Yes, but I bet if you had a chance, you would vote again for your Lord and Messiah, Barack Obama, wouldn’t you?

Next time, listen to fact and not emotion.

BAM there it is; the major difference in decision making for conservatives and liberals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#527
#527
Gramps said:
Yes, serious. It is now public the White House has been misleading the Ametican people about this since 2010.

Obama has said many times if you like your policy you can keep it, while knowing that was not true.
Click to expand...



Flat flat out LYING to the American people! And the LG types give him a full pass!

10545439985_18f0a6a5ce.jpg



Ted Cruz is looking wiser and more trustworthy with every passing day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#535
#535
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I had the same amount of trick or treaters as all the people who signed up for 0bamacare today
Click to expand...

Maybe you should move to a nicer neighborhood, one that people are willing to take their kids to go trick or treating..












Just kidding skin. I couldn't resist .
 
#537
#537
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I live on a hill. It's tough for the kiddos to get up it but probably not as tough as signing up for 0bamacare
Click to expand...


There are several churches in our town that have " trunk or treat". That is where the majority goes now. We use to get 50-75 kids , the last few years we may average 5. We only had 2 tonight.
 
#539
#539
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I had the same amount of trick or treaters as all the people who signed up for 0bamacare today
Click to expand...

Sadly, Obamacare is all TRICK, no treat. Hope the American electorate cleans out the Senate in 2014 and hamstrings the $h!+ out of this guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#540
#540
Tommy Thayer @tommy_thayer
"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period." Not true. I just got notice mine's cancelled 12/31. #ObamaCareFail
Click to expand...
.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#541
#541
VolsNSkinsFan said:
.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Thought you would like this.×Alarm Clock WTAE 4m.wtae.comFREE - In Google PlayVIEWPITTSBURGH48° FPartly Cloudy« HOME*SearchSelect a sectionAdvertisement


Appeals court strikes down ACA birth control mandate

By By Greg Clary CNNPublished On:*Nov 02 2013 12:52:04 PM EDT*Updated On:*Nov 03 2013 11:30:47 AM ESTShare on facebookShare on twitterWashington (CNN) -In a ruling likely to set the stage for a battle in the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal appeals court has struck down an Affordable Care Act mandate requiring some businesses to provide insurance coverage for birth control.A key provision of Affordable Care Act championed by President Barack Obama requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide medical insurance and coverage for contraceptives and pregnancy-related care. The companies must provide the coverage or pay a substantial financial penalty.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a lower court's ruling Friday and said the individual owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio, should not be forced to provide coverage for contraceptives to their employees.
But the divided court said lawsuits could not be filed under the names of the corporations themselves, since they were not "persons" under federal law and could not express religious beliefs. The difference is significant in terms of which parties may bring challenges to the Affordable Care Act.The companies are owned solely by brothers Francis and Philip Gilardi, Catholics who are opposed to access to birth control. The ruling allows their lawsuit to proceed and bars enforcement of the employer mandate, at least as applied to the Gilardis.In the 2-1 decision, the judges said forcing those owners to provide the coverage would violate their individual First Amendment rights allowing for the protection of their religion."The contraceptive mandate demands that owners like the Gilardis meaningfully approve and endorse the inclusion of contraceptive coverage in their companies' employer- provided plans, over whatever objections they may have," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote in the court opinion."The burden becomes substantial because the government commands compliance by giving the Gilardis a Hobson's choice," added Brown, a President George W. Bush appointee. "They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong. If that is not substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, we fail to see how the standard could be met."The Obama administration has already created rules exempting certain nonprofits and religiously affiliated organizations from the contraceptives requirements. In those cases, women would receive coverage from another company at no cost.The administration issued those rules after multiple states and dozens of religious organizations sued the government over the requirement.At least 75 separate lawsuits have been filed in federal court by for-profit corporations, like Freshway, whose owners oppose the requirement on religious grounds. Some courts have ruled for the mandates, and others have struck them down. Three of those appeals are pending at the Supreme Court, but the justices have not yet indicated when they would consider them for review.The high court in 2012 narrowly upheld the law's key funding provision -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to have health insurance. That provision is not at issue in the current fight over the employer mandates.The case decided Friday is Gilardi v. U-S Department of Health & Human Services (13-5069).
Click to expand...
 
#542
#542
If a company doesn't want to cover BC, that's their choice. If my family doesn't want pregnancy coverage, that should be our right to refuse it.
 
#544
#544
VolsNSkinsFan said:
If a company doesn't want to cover BC, that's their choice. If my family doesn't want pregnancy coverage, that should be our right to refuse it.
Click to expand...

Refuse all you won't, but liberals know what's best for our families & dictate that you comply w/the LAW of the Land.
 
#545
#545
Note the key words I'm using. "Choice" & "Right"

According to Progs, my family and private companies don't have any of those when it comes to our Health
 
#546
#546
Face the Nation transcripts November 3, 2013: Feinstein, Rogers, Hayden - CBS News

SCHIEFFER: The president said in the beginning that one thing was that if you like the health care program you had you could keep it. We now know there was debate within the administration before he said that as to whether that was actually a promise that could be kept. Should the president not have made that statement?

FEINSTEIN: Well, as I understand it you can keep it up to the time -- and I hope this is correct, but this is what I've been told -- up to the time the bill was enacted, then after that it's a different story. I think that part of it, if true, was never made clear. It is really very unclear right now exactly what the situation is. And, yes, that's a problem. But I think it has to be said, this is a very large major priority. And if it can get up and running, it can be, I think, a very positive thing. The big problem here is there are so many destroyers -- in the House, in the public, in the private health care sector that just want to destroy. That's not helpful.
Click to expand...

What a dumbass
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#550
#550
There has never been a Communist (oops, I mean Democrat) who has ever worried about advancing governmental controls on the citizenry. They salivate at every opportunity to steal away one more constitutional right.
When their efforts fail to pass legislation by legitimate means their fearless leader issues another of his socialistic executive orders, all of which steal another right from the people.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top