Oregon's 0bamacare Exchange Calls it Quits

The state-run 0bamacare insurance exchange in Oregon- Cover Oregon- that failed to enroll a single person through its online portal after state officials spent more than $130 million has called it quits. Instead, visitors to the Covered Oregon home page will be instructed to go to the Department of Health and Human Service's troubled healthcare.gov website.

State officials determined that additional fixes to the Cover Oregon homepage would cost an additional $78 million. The state of Oregon had initially paid software developer Oracle [NASDAQ- ORCL] to develop the Covered Oregon website while Covered Oregon paid another $3 million for TV, radio and internet marketing that played up Oregon's hipster image.

Cover Oregon received a month-long enrollment deadline extension because of multiple technical glitches in its system.

But fixing the existing system, Cover Oregon officials say, would have meant pouring another $78 million into the growing money pit. Switching to the federal system significantly reduces the cost to around $5 million.

It is still unclear how the state might be able to recoup its exchange funding -- if at all. Cover Oregon was partially financed by a 2.5 percent premium tax on insurers selling the exchange, Cover Oregon technology chief Alex Petit said Thursday.

Petit says he’ll meet with federal health officials early next week to iron out all of the financial details.

Oregon’s exchange, which was touted by the Obama administration in the beginning as a success story, quickly proved otherwise. It was widely seen as the worst of more than a dozen states that developed their own online health insurance marketplaces.

The federal Government Accountability Office has announced an investigation into Oregon's exchange, including looking at whether the federal government can reclaim grant money given to Cover Oregon if taxpayer funds were mismanaged.

While the Obama Administration did a touchdown dance earlier this month over the figure of 7.1 million enrolled in 0bamacare, the President's signature law has suffered a number of setbacks on both the federal level as well as states where 0bamacare received support from state and local officials. Towards the end of 2013, Colorado's state-run 0bamacare exchange failed to meet even half of it's worst-case scenario projections for enrollments. The state of Hawaii spent $120 million to create the Hawaii Health Connector website that only 4300 people enrolled in- averaging more than $28,000 per enrollee.

At the Department of Health and Human Services, embattled director Kathleen Sebelius submitted her resignation shortly after the administration began touting the 7.1 million enrollees number.

Report: White House Knew As Far Back As 2010 That Millions Of Americans Would Lose Insurance Coverage Under 0bamacare

According to an NBC report on Monday, The Obama Administration knew that as many as 67% of Americans already insured would lose their coverage once 0bamacare was passed into law as far back as 2010. This runs contrary to President Obama's numerous promises of "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" while stumping for the passage of the law known as the Affordable Care Act in 2009.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

The NBC article drew an immediate and fierce reaction from senior White House staffers on social media.

FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.
— Valerie Jarrett (@vj44) October 29, 2013

Curiously, the NBC story disappeared for awhile on Monday night before re-appearing at a different URL- at first with a key paragraph missing and then with the original content posted.

White House press secretary Jay Carney at first blamed the cancellation notices on 'routine turnover within the insurance industry' and Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner said it was the insurance industry that was to blame, not the Obama Administration. However, the insurance industry claims that the cancellation notices are being sent out because the current policies aren't in compliance with 0bamacare.

Elsewhere, Senator Mary Landrieu [D- LA] claimed that Democrats had only promised Americans could keep their insurance policies if it was "good insurance".

According to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Democrats had only promised that Americans could keep their insurance if it was "good insurance."

"We said when we passed that, 'If you had insurance that was good insurance that you wanted to keep it, you could keep it,'" Landrieu said.

She declined to say if she would support a measure to let Americans keep the plans they had in 2013. "I haven't looked at it specifically," Landrieu said.

So first the White House and the Democrats denied that there was any widespread cancellations of insurance policies taking place, but when the reports of previously insured people receiving cancellations notices or being placed into newer, cost-prohibitive policies for the same level of coverage thanks to Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law became too numerous to ignore, the spin was that those policies millions of Americans were losing were crappy to begin with and that the insurance industry was to blame- all while making sure the individual mandate wasn't delayed during this month's government shutdown.
Other Democrat senators, including those up for re-election in red or swing states, declined to comment on the cancellations

Meanwhile, Obamacare Rollout Going As Well As Expected

Or at least as well as I expected.

Where to start? As President Obama and the Democrats are fond of reminding us, 0bamacare is now the law of the land despite efforts to repeal or defund it [including this month's government shutdown- NANESB!].

The botched and error-plagued rollout of the President's landmark achievement has drawn criticism from both parties and is best embodied by the lethargic and seemingly impossible-to-navigate healthcare.gov website- which the most charitable of critics have likened to an experience with all the warmth, efficiency and joy of a 1970s-era DMV visit. Those criticisms may end up being the least of the Democrats' worries, however.

A few weeks into the 0bamacare launch, enrollment numbers are dismal. Contractors for CGI Federal claimed that the $400 million website only underwent minimal testing a few weeks prior to the October 1st launch of Obama's Affordable Care Act- meaning that by law, Americans are required to buy a product or service through a website that doesn't exist.

Interestingly, not even a week after Democrats constantly referred to their Republican colleagues as terrorists, anarchists, hostage-takers and suicide bombers for even the most watered down demands in the budget negotiations where they sought a delay in the individual mandate, some Democrats are petitioning President Obama and the department of Health and Human Services for....a delay in the individual mandate of 0bamacare. Tellingly, many of these Democrats will be facing an uphill campaign in Republican-leaning states or districts where 0bamacare is unpopular to begin with in 2014.

Meanwhile, instead of demanding any sort of accountability from HHS head Kathleen Sebelius, other Democrats- including the President- apparently thought that the GOP was magically capable of crashing the 0bamacare website through their mere dislike of the law.

But to treat the healthcare.gov website as the sole problem of the 0bamacare rollout would be misleading. It's believed that more Americans in three states have had their insurance cancelled than Americans in all 50 states have filed applications for coverage through the government's website. Many more Americans who already have insurance have received notices that prices will increase dramatically for coverage under the same policy.

A spokeswoman for California's state-run insurance exchange- Covered California- admitted that there would be 'winners and losers' under 0bamacare- with the 'losers' typically being individuals who were purchasing health insurance for themselves or their families before 0bamacare kicked in. Now the costs have gone up dramatically or they will be dropped altogether by Jan 2014. An article from the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month points out that a lower 2014 income would qualify an individual to be eligible for insurance subsidies as well- basically encouraging people to earn less in order to qualify for a subsidy for a good or service they were compelled to purchase under threat of fine or imprisonment by the federal government.

While pushing for the law in 2009, President Obama infamously told audiences "If you like your insurance, you can keep it"- a claim that was met with justifiable skepticism at the time.

Pie in the Sky- Cost of 0bamacare Complaince to Raise Pizza Prices

Customers of Papa John's can expect to see an increase in the cost of the chain's pizza pie, and according to chairman John H Schnatter, President Obama's landmark healthcare law is to blame for the anticipated rise in prices.

In a conference call with analysts, Schnatter said that although he did not support 0bamacare, his company's business model would reportedly allow it to absorb some of the costs associated with the law better than some other companies.

According to Papa John’s Founder, Chairman and CEO John H. Schnatter, health-care reform will cost the company an additional 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza.

“We're not supportive of Obamacare like most businesses in our industry,” Schnatter said in a call to analysts. “But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare.”

Schnatter added that on a corporate basis, the reform would increase Papa John’s price per pizza by 15 to 20 cents.

“Let's say fuel goes up-- which it does from time to time-- and we have to raise delivery charges,” said Schnatter.”We don't like raising delivery charges, but the price of fuel is out of our control as is Obamacare. So if Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs. And of course strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholder's best interest.”

Headquartered in Louisville, KY, Papa Johns [NASDAQ: PZZA] is the third largest pizza chain in the USA and boasts more than 3800 locations in 32 countries.

While an increase of 15¢ to 20¢ may not seem like much at first glance, keep in mind that Papa John's is a large and well organized corporation with considerable purchasing power. For many of the smaller local or regional chains or stand-alone family run pizzerias, those costs will quickly add up and those locations will also have little choice but to pass along costs to their customers.

Frank Pepe's of New Haven, CT- specializing in tomato pies and clam pizzas for over 80 years. Photo- Kevin Finch/Travelling Feast

With a number of such restaurants already in danger of shutting down due to the sluggish economy over the last three years, I suspect the last thing they would need is additional regulations, red tape and paperwork in regards to their employee healthcare under threat of punitive fines from the IRS. If nothing else, think of 0bamacare as the Dodd-Frank of pizzerias.

What's Dodd-Frank? you might be asking yourself? No- Dodd-Frank isn't the Castle County, Maine Sherriff's Deputy who was revealed to be a serial killer in the Stephen King novel The Dead Zone- that was actually Frank Dodd.

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was signed into law by President Obama two years ago. Proponents of the bill claimed it was meant to keep larger banks and financial institutions such as JP Morgan and Bank of America in check in the wake of the 2008 subprime lending meltdown and "too big to fail" bailouts. However, two years later the larger banks that had been bailed out seem to be thriving at the expense of smaller, community banks in the new regulatory environment.

While larger institutions such as Citibank or JP Morgan-Chase had engaged in much of the subprime lending practices that led up to the current economic crisis and malaise, they were larger, better funded and more equipped to handle the compliance costs of the new regulations with Dodd-Frank while much smaller institutions such as Lee Savings Bank or First National Bank of Durango had fewer resources and funds available to put towards compliance. Basically, despite claims of reigning in unaccountable and reckless Wall Street fat cats, the same regulations entailed in Dodd-Frank are adversely affecting the smaller community banks and lenders differently moreso that the giant, bailed-out "too big to fail" institutions like Citi. Althought they weren't pivotal in the subprime lending crisis, the economies of scale can apply that same situation to a Papa John's or Pizza Hut versus a family-run restaurant like the Pizza Den in Chatham, NY or Huckelberry's in Rock Island, IL and I'll leave you to figure out which one is at an advantage in the new regulatory environment.
Many of the small businesses are still trying to figure out how best to make payroll in this economy to try and figure out what provisions of 0bamacare are going into effect when.

Yes, thanks in part to President Obama's economic and healthcare policies, a family going out for a large pepperoni and mushroom pizza once a week may very well become a frivolous and unattainable luxury for many Americans.

In addition to the estimated cost increase with 0bamacare compliance, the midwest is currently in the middle of one of the worst droughts in more than 50 years. The USDA has slashed the estimated corn yield by 12%, driving up the price of corn which in turn will likely force livestock to liquidate herds because of the increased cost of feeding them, making meat and dairy even more expensive.

[Hat tip: Lonely Conservative, Wyblog, La Jolla Princess]

Busy Beltway Thursday- Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Provision; House Finds Holder in Contempt

In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's signature healthcare law on Thursday morning by a 5-4 margin. Chief Justice Roberts had ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. However, he ruled that the mandate could be considered a tax despite Obama and the Democrat's insistence that the mandate wasn't a tax when they were trying to sell the public on it back in 2009.

Via Scotusblog and Legal Insurrection:

“In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.”

In even simpler terms, it's a tax for existing, basically. Using this ruling as precedent, there really would be nothing from stopping Congress from imposing a recurring annual 'Not Buying a Chevy Volt' surtax on any new vehicle purchased in the USA- including a Chevy Volt because only Volts with a certain VIN number are exempt.

While the decison may seem to vindicate Obama and the Democrats who supported it at first, the estimated $1.75 trillion pricetag means that the Democrats have passed the largest tax increase in American history durin a timeframe when the national unemployment rate was never less than 8.1%. The [rather tortured- NANESB!] definition of the mandate as a tax means that it can be struck down or eliminated in Congress with a simple majority instead of a supermajority. This also makes one wonder if the numerous Obamacare waivers the Administration passed out could be considered 'tax cuts for the rich'? Also, will any of the 800,000 or so illegal immigrants that he just gave totally-not-amnesty-amnesty to this month recieve waivers?

Reaction from both sides was immediate, with Obama taking the opportunity to hawk campaign t-shirts and reassure Americans how awesome his new tax was while reading from a prepared statement earlier today. At the same time, Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney's campaign raised nearly $2 million dollars from online donations within hours of the Supreme Court's decision.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives went ahead with a scheduled vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the ATF Fast & Furious gunwalking scandal on Thursday afternoon.

The vote follows a roughly 16-month investigation by the chamber’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the failed gun-running sting known as Fast and Furious -- run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department led by Holder.

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., filed two subpoenas over that period requesting additional information. But he has more recently focused on information related to a February 2011 letter to Congress that falsely claimed the ATF was unaware the operation involved the underground sale of the assault weapons.

“Today, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents,” Issa said after the vote. “This was not the outcome I had sought and it could have been avoided had Attorney General Holder actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide.”

In December 2010, US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed by heavily armed smugglers in a shootout near the US/Mexico border in Arizona- two of the weapons recovered at the scene were traced back to Fast & Furious. Attorney General Holder originally testified that no gunwalking took place under Fast & Furious before later admitting that ATF Field agents were ordered to allow more than 2000 firearms to be smuggled into Mexico by straw purchasers, losing track of all of them. In addition to Brian Terry's death, numerous guns from Fast and Furious have been turning up at hundreds of crime scenes in Mexico. Many on the House Government Oversight Panel requested more documents from Holder regarding gunwalking during often-contentious hearings, but in a move many saw as designed to shield Holder from further oversight scrutiny, President Obama invoked executive privelege on certain DOJ documents and correspondence.

One school of thought out there is that the sole purpose of Fast & Furious was to create more anti-gun sentiment and pass additional gun control laws after saturating an already volatile Mexico with weapons that could be traced back to the USA. This was dismissed by some in the media as being the stuff off kooky black helicopter conspiracy tinfoil hat brigades. Yet nearly every Democrat on that spoke on the House floor Thursday took the opportunity to call for additional punitive gun control laws here in the USA, despite the fact that the DOJ orchestrated arms trafficking already violated several laws on the books.

After a lengthy and incoherent diatribe by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a walkout by the Congressional Black Caucus, the measure to find Holder in contempt passed on the House floor by a 255-67 margin, with at least 17 Democrats breaking from their party to vote on their contempt vote.

Last week's vote in the House oversight committee to bring the contempt vote to the floor of the house passed along

Media That Dismissed Death Panels as 'Myth' Wonders if Former VP Dick Cheney Too Old For Heart Translplant

Former vice-president Dick Cheney was recuperating in northern Virginia after successfully undergoing a heart transplant operation over the weekend.

Interestingly, as arguments both for and against 0bamacare went before the Supreme Court, pundits and various media outlets questioned whether or not Cheney should've even undergone the procedure to begin with.

Some medical centers will not perform a heart transplant on patient over 65, but other major centers will perform transplants on patients who are as old as 72.

In any case, transplants at Cheney's age are not unheard of: Last year 332 heart transplants were performed on people over 65, and according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, 14 percent of recepients are over the age of 65.

"Patients from 18 all the way up to 71 years old, are on the same national list and you're listed on the basis of medical urgency and then how long you've been waiting," said Dr. Jonathan Chen, an adjunct associate professor of surgery at Columbia University in New York.

Cheney had been waiting for 20 months for the new heart, longer than the national average.

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem that long ago that the notion of death panels were dismissed as a myth or politically driven hoax. Yet here we are, not quite three years later with the media and others seemingly wistful at the prospect of Cheney having to go before some sort of government panel that would arbitrarily decide whether or not he could recieve any kind of lifesaving treatment.

Cheney's only five or six years older than former President Bill Clinton, who had already undergone cardiac surgery in 2010. I'm curious to know if a 71 year old William Jefferson Clinton required a heart transplant, would we be hearing speculation from the media over whether or not Clinton was too old?

Obama Campaign Marks 2-Year Anniversary of 0bamacare's Passage With Twitter Campaign That Gets Quickly Co-Opted by Conservatives

Although the Administration was largely quiet about the two year anniversary of Congress passing 0bamacare [labelled as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act- NANESB!], President Obama's 2012 Campaign manager Jim Messina left a message on the campaign website encouraging supporters to embrace the term 'Obamacare'. The 0bamacare monicker was decried by Democrats as uneccesarily divisive as recently as 2011.

In an effort to promote the second anniversary, the Obama campaign attempted to start a twitter campaign using the hashtag #ILikeObamacare. However, it did not long for conservatives pundits and bloggers on twitter to get wind of the hashtag [basically a feature on twitter where a certain topic or phrase is preceeded with '#' which allows more people to view your individual tweet- NANESB!] and quickly co-opt it at which point the messages in support of 0bamacare were seemingly buried in an avalanche of sarcastic tweets pointing out the law's increasing unpopularity, the fact that it was passed in the face of public opposition and it's high cost.

Here are some of my favorites from Friday afternoon.

#ILikeObamacare because a 26 y/o under their parents' ins is a child but a 14 y/o getting an abortion is an adult

— AlexaShrugged (@AlexaShrugged) March 23, 2012

#IlikeObamacare because I'm sure it will be every bit as successful as an Obama-created hashtag campaign.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) March 23, 2012

#ILikeObamacare because it's yet another great opportunity to have my hard earned money pay for the expenses of people I don't even know.

— divadoll123 (@divadoll123) March 24, 2012

#ilikeobamacare because my Canadian aunt died in a hallway when doctors kicked her out of the room and I can't wait for that to happen here!

— Christine Rousselle(@crousselle) March 23, 2012

#ILikeObamaCare because we all know that new entitlement programs cost exactly what the government says they're going to cost. #p2

— Kevin Eder (@keder) March 23, 2012

Naturally, I couldn't help but join in on the fun.

#iLikeObamaCare Because why should America's civilians miss out on all the delays and red tape that are systematic in the VA?

— B G (@Fenway_Nation) March 23, 2012

#iLikeObamacare because if I keep saying nice things about it, maybe I'll get a waiver- just like all the unions who supported its passage

— B G (@Fenway_Nation) March 23, 2012

This would not be the first time conservative bloggers and social media users would manage to ju-jitsu a message from the Democrat party or left wing activists. A few days prior, the Democrats attempted to solicit message of support from Twitter users with the hashtag #WhyImIn.

Despite being passed by a narrow margin two years ago, 0bamacare has a date with the Supreme Court later on this month in which the justices will weight the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, particularly the individual insurance mandate.

Since being passed, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued a number of waivers exempting groups from complying with the legislation. Many of the organizations and employers who recieved the HHS waivers were labor unions that had lobbied Congress in favor of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.

In February, the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services decided not to exempt the hospitals and schools run by the Catholic Church from providing coverage for employees that would include contraception and 'morning after' pills, despite the objections of a number of bishops.

Ealier this month, the Congressional Budget Office had revised their cost estimates to implement the first 10 years of 0bamacare from $940 billion to $1.76 trillion.

Pelosi Hails President Obama's "Courageous" Decision to Compel Catholic Institutions To Provide Birth Control

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi lauded the Obama Administration's earlier decision not to exempt faith-based hospitals, universities and schools from a mandate in 0bamacare that would require them to provide free contraceptives and birth control for employees, despite such actions going directly against Catholic doctrine.

Pelosi's justification of the Administration and HHS ruling on January 20th seems to primarily consist of 'Well all the cool kids are doing it!'.

"I'm going to stand with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made and I support it."

[I swear, if this woman went out of her way to patronize and insult Muslims as much as she did Catholics, she would need round-the-clock protection and have to shack up with Salman Rushdie- NANESB!].

Instead of any sort of exemption for a religious institution, the Obama Administration and Department of Health and Human Services decided that they would simply get an additional year to fall into compliance with their mandate [which just happens to be AFTER an election year; President Obama would rather jab a stick in that hornet's nest after he's done running for re-election- NANESB!].

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defended the administration's most beneficent decision, claiming that it "strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."

While the decision didn't come as a surprise to organizations like the American Council of Bishops, they still expressed disappointment with the ruling.

The delay was no consolation to Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” he said. “The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand.”

However, Catholic and evangelical groups have stressed that their concern over the mandate isn't logistical, but rather philosophical.

The final regulation, however, keeps the conscience clause narrow: Only organizations that are faith-based and primarily employ those of the same faith are eligible for the exemption.

It does, however, give a nod to religious groups’ concerns, allowing faith-based nonprofits an extra year to begin covering contraceptives. White House officials explained the decision as regulatory in nature, rather than responding to the philosophical objections that religious organizations had raised.

“We know that a lot of these organizations may be large organizations, there are approval processes that require the approval of boards,” an administration official told reporters on a call this afternoon. “The transitional period responds to those concerns.”

Interesting how HHS granted a number of waivers to President Obama's allies in the labor union movement but there will be no exemption for Catholic or Evangelical institutions by this Administration.

Some Catholic Bishops have already stated that they will not comply with the contraceptive mandate in 0bamacare.

Bishop Olmstead is fighting the mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that forces charities, schools or hospitals with a religious affiliation to provide birth control coverage as part of its health plan -- even if birth control goes against their religious beliefs.

“This is contrary as to who we are as Americans. Liberty, freedom is very much as to why we began as a nation,” said Bishop Thomas Olmstead on News Talk 550 KFYI.

He and other catholic leaders across the country are fighting the Obama administration on the issue of birth control as a mandatory part of an employee health insurance. Churches would be exempt, but not other religious institutions.

He says the issue is being “forced down their throats.”

“The health department is trying to define who religious institutes. Catholic charities, hospitals, colleges are not religious institutions, but who gives the government the right to define religious institutions?”

Even if one is inclined to believe that birth control and contraceptives should be given out like little packs of M&Ms at Halloween, how exactly is the HHS's mandate not in direct violation of the 1st amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or does the first amendment no longer apply because the Catholic Church and other faiths' stance on birth control and contraception is outdated and no longer 'cool'?

Waivers, Requests for Exemptions Mark 1-Year Anniversary of 0bamacare Being Signed Into Law.

Today marks the one year anniversary of President Obama signing HR 3590- better known as 0bamacare- into law after months of contentious public debate and last minute wrangling. [I don't know about you, but I for one was tired of stepping around all the corpses of people without adequate healthcare who collapsed and died in the middle of the sidewalk- NANESB!]

The bill passed the US Senate on Christmas Eve and squeaked through the House of Representatives by a 217-212 margin in March 2010 after a bloc of reportedly pro-life Democrats caved in exchange for a worthless piece of paper in the form of an executive order.

By and large, the Democrats who voted for 0bamacare found themselves out of a job when voters went to the polls in November 2010. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been issuing a steadily increasing number of waivers- many of them going to unions, school districts or municipalities. The Lonely Conservative is reporting that the number now exceeds 1000 waivers (including the State of Maine) with more to come.

In addition to the waivers, a number of Federal judges have declared parts of the law or the entire thing unconstitutional. More than half the states in the union are actively seeking to block implementation of 0bamacare.

Perhaps the most glaring example of unmitigated chutzpah comes from Conressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9)- who reportedly has is interested in running for mayor of New York City. Weiner was one of 0bamacare's most strident and obnoxious cheerleaders in the debate leading up to it's passage in Congress. However, one year later Congressman Weiner is having second thoughts saying that his office was looking into whether or not a waiver for New York City would be feasible.

Hmm....a waiver? Interesting. Why not some slight modifications to this otherwise flawless gem you were pom-pom shaking for, Congressman Weiner [heh heh.....I said....ah, nevermind- NANESB!]. Unless you were for the bill (as a Congressman) before you were against the bill (as a Mayoral candidate).

Perhaps by this time next year, Congress can completely cut off funding for this thing, or like cap & trade, this monstrosity will languish thanks to legal challenges and key provisions being blocked or de-funded. I suspect this very issue will be an albatross around the neck of the Democrats who voted for this and are running for re-election in 2012.

Death Panels Revisited? Obama Administration Revives Controversial 'End Of Life' Provision via Regulation

Not surprisingly, this was announced on Christmas Eve when the overwhelming majority of Americans were otherwise preoccupied.

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. [snip]

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, [Congressman] Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

I can't help but wonder if these death panels are so 'mythical', according to Congressman Blumenauer [D-OR, 3rd District], then why was it kept out of the original legislation, only to be snuck in later on via regulation when they figured nobody else was looking? Moreover, why are Blumenauer and others urging supporters to keep quiet about it instead of 'shouting from the rooftops'?

Elsewhere, the incoming House Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton [R-MI, 6th District] announced that the House will schedule a vote on repealing 0bamacare before President Obama's state-of-the-union address later on this month. Although the vote would be largely symbolic and almost certain to be vetoed by the President, Upton and other Republicans said they would plan on defunding or rolling back key provisions (the 1099 requirement for small businesses, the individual purchase mandate or the 'Stupak Amendment' regarding language in the bill on abortion) of 0bamacare.

Missouri to 0bamacare: "Drop Dead!"

73.1% of Missourians Racist!!

Tuesday was Primary day in Kansas, Michigan and Missouri. For the Show-Me state, besides voters heading to the polls to pick each party's candidate for the November elections, there was a ballot measure that some observers are calling an early referendum on Obama and the Democrat's recently-passed healthcare laws.

Missouri's Proposition C Missouri sought to exempt state residents from the federally mandated purchase of health insurance in HR 3590 that was passed back in late March. The ballot measure, sponsored by state senator Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfield) among others, passed by a margin of just under 75% on Tuesday night.

The measure enjoyed a wide range of support from Tea Party groups and statewide Republicans. Prop C saw little in the way of organized resistance- save for the Missouri Hospital Association spending $300,000 on mailers- and while some Dems running for officer were against the measure, they spent very little time and money fighting it.

Still, some critics of Prop C hold out hope that the measure could be easily be gutted or overturned in the courts (see California's Proposition 8 or Arizona's SB 1070). Even if Proposition C turns out to be merely symbolic, that has not stopped other states from putting similar measures on the ballot. Voters in Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma will vote on similar measures in November, with Tuesday's vote being seen as an early bellweather.

Notice how the early spin on this seems to be 'This won't stand up in court'- not '0bamacare HR3590 is so wonderful- why would you possibly want to oppose it!?"...just 'sit down and eat this turd sandwich already!'.

But as this Administration has shown us before, it won't think twice [or at all- NANESB!] about taking one of the states to court. Particularly a Red state.

Bill Clinton Hospitalized In NY To Undergo Heart Procedure

Former President Bill Clinton was hospitalized Thursday to undergo a procedure where two stents were implanted after he had been complaining of minor but persistent chest pains.

According to Clinton Lawyer Douglas Band, the 63 year old former commander in chief was 'in good spirits' and is expected to be released sometime Friday from New York Presbyterian Hospital where he underwent the procedure.

I have to say, one of the most notable accomplishments in Barack Obama's first year as President was to make this particular coal-black hearted, bitter, clinging right-winger nostalgic for the Clinton years. I mean.....if the man had what turned out to be a bad policy proposal he was in favor of, he'd pursue it for awhile before either he or his advisors realized it would be a good idea to leave well enough alone instead of repeatedly trying to cram it down our throats while his spokesmen in the media would tell the American voting public that it really was a great idea and were were just too simplistic or reactionary to appreciate it. Granted in the later years of his administration he had a Republican-controlled Congress to deal with.....

We here at Not Another New England Sports Blog! would like to extend our best wishes for a speedy recovery for Mr. Clinton.

Obama Supports Taxing 'Cadillac' Healthcare Plans- AGAIN.

"Yes We Can......[jack up the taxes on your healthcare coverage]!"

From that right-wing den of inequity known as NPR:

President Obama reaffirmed his support for the so-called Cadillac tax on high-end health plans more directly to Democratic Leaders in a meeting yesterday. He stated his position to NPR in an interview last month.

[snip....]

But the Cadillac tax proposal continues to raffle many Democrats' key union supporters, who say the tax would unfairly affect their people, may of whom have given up wage increases for better health care, and many in the middle class.The tax proposal has especially stung the Communication Workers of America who commissioned a report arguing against it. This has lead House Democrats to largely oppose the proposal.

Sometime over the summer, when the rumors were flying fast and furious about the healthcare legislation and what it contained, I heard a rumor that Congress and Obama would no longer try and pass the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (i.e. Card Check) as stand-alone legislation, but instead try and work something similar into the proposed healthcare legislation. At first blush, one way they could circumvent Card Check even being an issue would be to exempt the so-called 'Cadillac' healthcare plans in union workplaces from this proposed tax, creating artificial incentive for non-union workers to unionize. Turns out I gave the Dems too much credit, they simply want to pass this ginormous turd charitably known as 'healthcare reform' on the backs of the middle class- regardless of union affiliation or lack thereof- to hand the President his first significant legislative 'victory'.

Frankly, I'm not surprised at this opportunistic betrayal of the working class that this current batch in Washington is contemplating. What I would like to see is the union heads try and spin this to their no doubt angry members after campaigning for Obama and numerous Dem politicians who are now trying to erode their benefits.

Also, start looking for a very malleable definiton of what constitutes a 'Cadillac' healthcare plan, kind of like how Obama and Biden had a very flexible threshold on what sort of income constituted 'wealthy' or the left/progressives in general moving around the goalposts for the definition of 'patriotic' [remember, dissent stopped being patriotic in January 2009- NANESB!]

UPDATE: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be Charged For Not Having Approved Health Insurance Coverage

Not Another New England Sports Blog! learned from undisclosed sources earlier today that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed will face trial in a Federal Court in New York City in a pilot program from the Department of Justice. The 45 year old Al Qaeda operative and part-time Ron Jeremy impersonator was arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and has been in American custody since then.

Legal analysts tell NANESB! that this is a potentially risky move by Attorney General Eric Holder. First, there is the claim that Mohammed isn't even an American citicizen and would not be required to enroll in an approved plan. Also complicating matters for the Justice Department is that the legislation requiring jail time was not in effect when this story went to press, let alone when Mohammed was arrested in 2003.

Still, the analysts feel that Holder remains confident he can get a conviction, otherwise he wouldn't have made such a maneuver. However, the question remains as to what would happen if Holder failed to get a conviction in the Mohammed trial.

'Setting the terrorist mastermind who orchestrated the deadliest attack on American soil loose to roam free and uninsured in the United States would be a huge black eye for the Administration and Justice Department' one legal scholar who asked to remain anonymous said. 'It would set a bad precedent and further distract from the Attorney General's investigation of the CIA and other intelligence agencies.'