The Daily Caller: The Obama administration is waiving the deadline for states to establish a health insurance exchange in accordance with Obamacare, reports The New York Times. But it should not be taken as a sign of deference to the states, or a willingness to be flexible; it should be taken as a sign of desperation.
The announcement is in fact an attempt by the administration to shore up the health care law’s inherent weaknesses and to cajole states into enacting a federal scheme. Contrary to what the feds now claim, the latest and most glaring weakness of Obamacare is that it was crafted to depend on states to establish health insurance exchanges. These exchanges are meant to be the vehicles for the distribution of tax credits and subsidies to buy qualified health insurance plans.
If a state refuses to set up an exchange, and so far 25 have refused,the federal government must step in and create one. However, the law does not authorize tax credits and subsidies to flow through federally created exchanges, only those created by states. An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule issued in May 2012 attempted to fix this problem — initially dismissed as a “drafting error” — by extending credits and subsidies to federal exchanges and so-called “partnership exchanges,” which a number of states have indicated they will adopt.
But the law’s plain meaning, and Congress’ intent, cannot be swept aside by a rule issued by the IRS. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is challenging the IRS in federal court over the rule and the case will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. It has huge implications. If federal exchanges cannot facilitate tax credits and subsidies, they also cannot be used to impose penalties on employers that fail to comply with the law’s “employer mandate” — a fine of $2,000 per employee per year. States that refuse to set up an exchange could therefore shield thousands of their residents and small businesses from onerous federal taxes and penalties.
The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has made this argument forcefully and in great detail, and it seems to be gaining ground. Cannon, along with Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, have authored what will likely be the definitive argument against the legality of the IRS rule in a forthcoming Health Matrix article.
They argue that once it became clear that a significant number of states were not going to set up exchanges, the IRS sought to fix the problem by regulatory decree. However, by stipulating that tax credits and subsidies would be available only through state-created exchanges, Congress sought to create an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges — because it could not simply order states to create them without overstepping constitutional boundaries. It seems that it did not occur to Obamacare’s authors that many states would simply refuse, or that offering tax credits and subsidies would not be sufficient inducement for them to comply. It was a gross miscalculation, and could mean the undoing of Obamacare.
Seen in this light, this week’s announcement by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius looks more like a plea to recalcitrant states to cooperate and set up exchanges so the feds won’t have to. Sebelius was supposed to determine by January 1 whether states were prepared to run an exchange, but she knew as far back as Nov. 15 that Texas, at least, would not establish one.
Waiving the deadline isn’t a deferential gesture by HHS to the states; it is the latest attempt by the federal government to deputize states into implementing federal policy, and a desperate attempt at that.
Texas and other states should remain steadfast in their resolve not to become tools for Washington, D.C. If the feds want Obamacare exchanges, let them set up those exchanges themselves. Americans would be much better off with weak federal exchanges than they would with the state-based exchanges Congress first envisioned in the law.
KISSING OBAMACARE GOODBYE - Part 2: The State Battlefield
By: AJ - Hat Tip: MJ
We are going to end Obamacare at the state level by using the KISS principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid, so let’s get it started!
Using simplicity and common sense, we Americans can take this into our own hands and do what we need to do to prove that Obamacare is irrelevant and unnecessary at the state level. All we need is a simple solution, which this article provides, and one state that will pursue this by doing a little homework.
Let me start by telling you what this is NOT… this solution is not reliant on the politicians who foisted this upon us or the spineless politicians doing nothing to end it. It is not dependent upon repeal, courts, nullification, state-wide voting, Constitutional amendments, petitions or polls.
Now let me tell you what this is… it is about picking one or more states that will do some simple homework to prove beyond doubt that the Obamacare law is not applicable in their state. If we do this, we can proactively take control of the narrative to announce that Obamacare is irrelevant because the state is already compliant.
BACKGROUND:
First, Obama and his comrades established that the fundamental basis of Obamacare is to ensure that everyone has healthcare. They claimed that 12 to 30 million people are going without healthcare and these people have a right to it. Has anyone challenged this with actual data that shows who these people really are? Read on and you will find out.
Second, Obama and his comrades claim that the 12 to 30 million phantom people are our poor and disadvantaged. This enables a powerful narrative that the media and left-wing talking heads can push onto the uninformed and ignorant 26% who support Obamacare. Is anyone challenging this narrative with actual truth? Not yet. That’s why, when we convey facts and even show sections of the actual legislation to uninformed people, their bottom line response is, “Well I think everyone should have healthcare”. Again, the false narrative wins the day, the uninformed remain ignorant and they actually believe that these phantom people who want healthcare cannot get it.
Third, the Obama narrative has now advanced to “States need to expand the Medicaid rolls” and some GOP Governors are flatly saying “No”. What these Governors fail to see is where this narrative is going. Medicaid is for the poor and disabled, so the spin masters are setting the stage for their next assertion; “Republicans won’t expand the Medicaid rolls because they want poor and disabled people to die.” When are these GOP Governors going to flatly say that the poor and disabled are ALREADY covered by Medicaid? And tell the truth that expanding the Medicaid rolls is a false narrative.
GOP Governors are playing checkers while Obama and his comrades are playing chess and are a few moves away from checkmate. Instead of responding to Obama’s narrative and falling into his trap, do some homework and speak boldly to create a completely different narrative. In other words, expose the truth.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
States can take control of the narrative by defining a clear, true and concise narrative that lets people know that, from our poor to our elderly and everyone in between, all who want healthcare can already get it without Obamacare.
Can a state prove this? Yes. I contend that all a state needs to do is gather totals… the total number of people served by each of the categories delineated below. Every provider, insurer and program know how many people they serve in a given state.
Get the totals, add them up and then compare that number with the total population of the state to see how many people are not receiving healthcare from any of these categories. The number will either be zero or a very small percentage of the state population. Then, just a little more homework will reveal that the vast majority of this small segment of the state’s population is actually young, healthy people who choose not to spend their money on it because they don’t need it, they don’t use it and they don’t want it.
Take a very close look at all these programs and healthcare-delivery vehicles (below) that have been in place without Obamacare and before Obama took the Presidency. Look at all the people covered in these categories. A majority of working Americans who already have healthcare plans actually have no idea that all these programs exist and, unfortunately, Obama’s lies sound believable to them when no one counters him with the truth.
Medicare: for everyone aged 65 and older.
Medicaid and/or SCHIP (e.g. CA has MediCal and Healthy Families): for everyone who is poor and disabled.
TRICARE: for service members, retirees and their families.
Veterans Administration: for Veterans.
Employer-based: for individuals and families covered through their employer.
University-based: for University/College attendees (e.g. CA has a mandatory fee that all students must pay which provides healthcare coverage whether they want it or not).
COBRA: for individuals and families who are in-between jobs/left their job for whatever reason. If they are unable to find new employment and their income remains low (e.g. unemployment), they become eligible for Medicaid, Hospital/Doctor Financial Waivers, and they can go to clinics or even private providers. One size doesn’t fit all and these people have choices.
Tribes: for individuals and families who are members of an Indian Tribe.
Clinics: for individuals and families who receive healthcare from community-based/free clinics.
Private Provider: for individuals and families who choose to pay for their own healthcare through private providers.
Religious Exemption: for individuals and families who choose to be exempt for religious reasons, which includes people such as the Amish, Muslims, Mennonites and Hutterites (because purchasing insurance violates their religious beliefs).
Hospital/Doctor Financial Waiver: for individuals who receive free healthcare directly from doctors/hospitals because they submitted a ‘financial hardship’ form.
Don’t forget that Obama and his comrades gave the states another category:
Obama/HHS Waiver: for millions of Obama’s lobbyists/special-interest friends/campaign contributors who received an Obamacare waiver directly from Obama’s HHS secretary.
After a state gathers the grand total of all the above categories and subtracts it from the state population, the state can create their own waiver in order to protect young peoples’ right to choose and once they are in this new category, everyone is accounted for in terms of healthcare and Obamacare is proven irrelevant and unnecessary because the state is already compliant. Everyone who wants healthcare already has it.
*Freedom-of-Choice Waiver: this is a new category (if needed) for the majority of young people who seek to exercise their unalienable Right, as granted by our Declaration and Constitution, to choose not to spend their hard-earned money on healthcare because they do not use, want or need it while they’re young and healthy. The Freedom-of-Choice Waiver accomplishes the exact same thing as the waiver granted at the Federal level by Obama – it exempts people who want exemption; therefore, it is completely consistent with Federal precedence.
Take control of the narrative Governors! Do your homework! Don’t fall into the latest trap. Expanding Medicaid rolls is a false flag. Our poor and disabled are already on Medicaid and, in fact, many who are not poor and can afford healthcare are on the Medicaid rolls already. We don’t have $100 million a year in Medicaid fraud, waste and abuse by accident. So don’t take the bait! Medicaid rolls don’t need expanding because our poor and disabled already have Medicaid. So get out there and spread the truth!
While we’re on the subject of going on offense and getting the truth out there, notice that Obama’s campaign rhetoric includes sound-bites that give the false impression that Obamacare will give people whatever healthcare they want – for free – and up to now, his lies remain unchallenged.
Know this… Obamacare does not address the quantity or quality of healthcare; it merely asserts that once the federal government controls our healthcare, a 15-member panel and about 159 new government agencies will decide the quantity, quality and location of treatment IF they allow you to have it.
Who is challenging Obama about the federally controlled Medicare program that, by far, denies more claims for the people it serves than any other form of healthcare coverage? Quantity or quality is not even part of the debate when talking about Obamacare because Medicare already shows us what happens when the federal government controls healthcare. Get out there and spread the truth about this!
Make no mistake, Obamacare does not make healthcare a “right”, it takes away our right to choose and it forces our young people to pay into a monstrous system that destroys the best healthcare system in the world, transforms citizens into serfs, creates another massive redistributive system that seizes the fruits of our labor and gives the federal government control of our finances and our lives. As Mark Levin says, it forever changes the relationship between government and citizen.
So… which states will remain on defense and constrain their public responses to the false narratives and clichés thrown at them by Obama and his comrades?
And… which states will do their homework, gather the totals and create the media firestorm that will stop Obamacare dead in its tracks?
Which state will be the first to prove that Obamacare is irrelevant in their state because they are already compliant and everyone who wants healthcare already has it?
Which state is ready to go on offense and protect individuals and businesses in their state from Obamacare?
Let’s get it started! If states do their homework, take control of the narrative and spread the truth, we’ll be kissing Obamacare goodbye in short order.
Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate ^ | 3/10?/12 | Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate - Cross-Posted by John Jansen (March 20, 2012 at 2:05 pm) - h/t to MJ
In addition to the 15 Catholic bishops scheduled to speak at Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom locations, countless other influential speakers from all walks of life will also be addressing rallies throughout the country this Friday, March 23.
The speakers at the more than 130 Rally sites represent a wide array of backgrounds and professions, including members of Congress, physicians, college presidents, pastors, radio hosts, law professors, heads of organizations, publishers, religious sisters, pregnancy resource directors, and rabbis.
The New York City Rally will feature several big names, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and pastoral associate of Priests for Life; Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Philip Reilly, and Mother Mary Agnes Donovan, Superior General of the Sisters of Life.
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Father Paul Schenck, Rev. Rob Schenck, and the Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse will address the Rally outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
In addition to the Bishop David Choby, the Nashville Rally will feature Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) and Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Liberty Commission.
The Chicago Rally will feature Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL); Mary FioRito, Executive Assistant to the Archbishop, Archdiocese of Chicago; and Joe Morris, Past President of B’nai B’rith in the Midwest.
Moving over to the West Coast, the San Francisco Rally will feature Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights without Frontiers, Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ of Ignatius Press, and Kevin McGary, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of California.
These are just a few of the hundreds of speakers who will be addressing enthusiastic crowds at Rally sites across the country this Friday, March 23. You won’t want to miss it!
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius answered questions in Congress this week about the left framed ‘contraception compromise’ or the ‘first amendment un-compromise’ as framed by the right.
Sibelius essentially said that the decision has been made and this mandate along with many other surprises for those who did not follow the ObamaCare fight on in August 2013… PERIOD! The decision has been made and will go into affect regardless of the Constitution, religious freedom or what the American people want.
Remember what Nancy Pelosi said… “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in the bill!” Well, you are beginning to find out.
So why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)
Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.
President Obama himself said that he had done the same thing when he was a community organizer. He got leftist priests and nuns in Chicago to compromise the values of the church.
The backlash over Sibelius' interpretation of the mandate built to a crescendo last week. Obama went to the podium and announced a "compromise." It was nocompromise at all ... In reality, Obama’s contraception mandate tramples religious freedom.
This is not an issue that will go away and may haunt the president through the 2012 Election cycle. It is a huge power grab and the first of many frightening realities of the what is really in the ObamaCare Bill. It should be a flag to all concerned Americans that each us needs to read that bill and insist that our Congressman and Senators read it immediately… and act. It should also be a flag to all Americans about the ideology of the President and his team and what is in our future if Obama survives this and is re-elected.
Socialized Medicine, which ObamaCare is, is he crown jewel of socialism… progressivism. It gives the government the control over one sixth of the U.S. Economy and decisions over who get care and who doesn’t, who lives and who dies, and this fight in addition to being a fight over religious freedom and the first amendment, not contraception, is also a fight over what the government can make each of us buy and pay for from here on out.
One of the best explanations of this fight I’ve heard is:
If you are against murder and someone says, “Okay, you don’t have to kill anyone yourself. We will hire someone to kill them for you.”, there is no resolution to the issue. It goes against your values, against God and against everything you stand for. That is exactly what is happening with the birth control mandate being forced on the Catholic Church by the administration and ObamaCare.
Beck Announces ‘We Are All Catholics Now’ Movement to Stand Up for Religious Freedom
The controversy over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate is at a boiling point, as many Catholic leaders continue to view the president’s so-called “accommodation” as a failure to protect religious liberty.
Now, Glenn Beck is coming forward with a new movement called “We Are All Catholics Now.” The main goal of the initiative is to ask Americans to reach out to Congressional leaders (at the moment, Senators) to encourage the passage of legislation that would protect religious groups’ conscience rights.
Watch Beck discuss the effort on his radio show this morning:
The main push, Beck says, is to support the highway transportation bill, which will likely be voted upon this week. It will include an amendment – Blunt Conscience Protection Amendment – from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would protect religious conscience rights. In the House, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) is working on companion legislation, though it may not be voted on for a few weeks.
Beck is encouraging individuals to get involved by calling their Senators and letting them know that “we are all Catholics now.” The issue at hand is not about contraception as it has been framed by many media outlets, he says. Instead, it is a religious freedom issue that hinges upon the separation of church and state’s mandate that the government not force churches to violate their values and principles.
Here are his directions for getting involved and making an impact:
Call the Capitol and speak with your Senator. The numbers are: 202.224.3121; 202.225.3121; the toll free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard include: 1-866-220-0044 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-833-6354, 1-888-355-3588, 1-866-808-0065, 1-877-762-8762, 1-800-862-5530.
Call the switchboard, ask to be connected to a Senator from your specific state (it will take two calls, one for each Senator).
Whoever answers:
1. Tell them that you want to tell the Senator to vote for the Blunt conscience protection amendment. 2. Ask them if they know how the Senator will vote on that amendment 3. Tell them you want to be contacted back about how he voted (be sure to ask for accountability — they hate it, but it makes them call you back). 4. When you call, be sure to tell them “We are all Catholics now”. This key phrase will let them know you are part of a larger, organized movement working in support of religious freedom.
You can read more about the movement at GlennBeck.com.
Sitting in yesterday at GBTV was the co-author for Indivisible talking about the importance of his book as well as Glenn’s book Being George Washington during this pivotal times.
He spoke on the importance of uniting and turning back to God for divine intervention was our only chance to turn our country around.
This is the time to stand-up and choose your side.
Governor Palin appeared on On the Record calling this mandate an ‘Un-American Act’
Add this fight to the expected rise in unemployment (even with the job number game) and possible $5 gas prices at the pump… and this might end up being Obama’s Waterloo! Some believe the timing of this fight is an answer to the prayers for intervention being said daily by many Americans.
This is not a fight over contraception and who will pay for it. It is a fight over religious freedom vs. secularism, a fight over the Constitution vs. Progressivism, a fight over limiting the powers of the commerce clause vs. the government being able to force us to purchase and pay for anything they choose, and the fight over the ideology that will control this country. This is not a fight that anyone can afford to sit out.
With all that's going on with the Catholic Church and the President right now, this has become a huge hot button topic. But why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood… In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)
Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.
Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.
It is time that people themselves read the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and demand that their Congressman and Senators read it and work to repeal and replace it.
If for no other reason… A vote for any of the 4-GOP candidates, whoever becomes the nominee, will guarantee the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare and removal of the government from our HealthCare! A vote for Obama is a vote for socialized medicine, rationing and a long list of surprises yet to come. 2012 will be the last chance to get rid of ObamaCare because of the way its tentacles will spread.
Jack Lew appeared on Fox with Chris Wallace this morning and said there would be no additional compromise on the mandatory birth control mandate… “We have set out our policy” said Lew.
WALLACE: You say it's consistent. The Catholic bishops are clearly not satisfied with it -- if I may, sir. They have issued a statement that says that they view the decision by the president, the revision, with grave moral concern.
Let's put up their statement on the screen.
"Today's proposal involves needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion -- government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions."
And, sir, they call on Congress to block the president's policy.
LEW: No, I think the president's policy does not do that. It does not force an institution that has religious principle to offer or may for benefits they find objectionable. But it guarantees a woman's right to access. We think that's the right solution.
There are others who opposed women's access to contraception. They have different views than we do. I'm not going to speak to the motives of any of the parties. But it's quite significant that a range of Catholic organizations has embraced this.
We didn't expect to get universal support of the bishops or all Catholics. I think that what we have here is a policy that reflects bringing together two very important principles in a way that's true to the American tradition. And that's what the president is trying to do.
There are others who want to have a clash over it. We want to bring these two principles together.
WALLACE: But you say you're not going to get universal support. There are others -- this is the conference of Catholic bishops. This is the most powerful statement by the Catholic Church in this country. They deal with grave moral concern and they say it should be turned around.
LEW: I can't speak to the differences within the Catholic Church.
WALLACE: How do you respond to their statement that this government coercion?
LEW: I would point to the statement put out by the Catholic Health Association, which knows a fair amount about what it requires to health care in this country. They thought this was a very good solution. They understand what the policy is.
WALLACE: So, the bishops --
(CROSSTALK)
LEW: I think our policy is the right policy. I think that there's broad support, but they're not universal support for it. And we think this is right way to go.
WALLACE: So, you're not going to change despite what the bishops say.
LEW: Our policy is clear.
WALLACE: Your policy is clear. Meaning, no revisions to the revisions?
LEW: We have set out our policy.
WALLACE: And that's it?
LEW: We're going to finalize it in the final rules. But I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties. And, you know, we think that that's the right approach.
WALLACE: Mr. Lew, I think it's fair to say this is precisely why so many people and I understand, you can argue whether it's the majority or minority -- but why so many people are opposed to Obamacare, because they are concerned with the idea that the government can mandate what people have to do, what private businesses have to do, what even religious institutions have to do.
LEW: I think the notion that this is about should we provide basic health care to all Americans is not the issue. You know, there are differences to whether or not the Affordable Care Act is the right approach. We think providing coverage to tens of millions of Americans and making sure that we have a health care system that provides the kind of care that people need that will help drive down the cost of health care in this country is a very important thing.
This is -- this question of the impact on religious institutions is something we took very seriously right from the start. That's why when the policy was announced; we said it would take 13 months to transition it in a way that would be respectful of those differences.
So, I think we've addressed that. I think that this concern is one that people can disagree, you know, on the margins about. But we have addressed the core issue -- no institution that has, non-profit institution that has religious principles that we violated has to pay for or directly offer these services. But women have access to the kinds of care that they are entitled to.
(If you are not up on this issue… follow the thread here from the bottom up)
Update: Religious organizations are already saying that the Obama’s announced compromise is hollow. Catholic Bishops and other religious organizations are moving forward with their protests. The political fallout from this issue could be huge in the 2012 Election among religious groups and Independents. Remember Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008.
RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here.
Snip
So everywhere I'm reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches -- well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. "What's happened here is that Obama's caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he's gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!"
Snip
Obama is not doing what he's doing to make Barbara Boxer happy or the pro-abortion crowd happy or the Democrat Senate Caucus happy. He knows that's gonna happen. What he's doing is violating the Constitution. He is coalescing extra-constitutional power. He is making a power grab here that is unprecedented in the history of the presidency. (interruption)
Thomas Edsall, that's right. Thomas Edsall wrote that piece in the Nuev Orc Times, former Washington Post columnist. So I don't think... This has been my if you then argument with the Republican establishment from the get-go with Obama. I don't think this is traditional politics at all. I don't think traditional politics has anything to do with why Obama's doing this. This is about fundamentally transforming this country from a representative republic to a pure, straight democracy with the president assuming he's the majority and therefore can do whatever he wants to do. We're not dealing with the average, "Okay, the Democrats won the White House. They're gonna have it for four or eight years. We gotta try to stop 'em however we can and we'll get power back."
There's something unprecedented going on here.
Woodrow Wilson dreamed of this.
FDR dreamed of this.
Obama is doing this.
The White House will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women!!!
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here. Great to have you. It's Friday. Let's go to! JOHNNY DONOVAN: Live from the Left Coast at our satellite studios in Los Angeles,...
WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change...
UPDATE, 12:14p: More evidence the “compromise” stinks: Planned Parenthood likes it. UPDATE, 12:02p: From a House source: This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference. The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway. Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell...
(Reuters) - U.S. health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine. "We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group. "As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process." Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that...
With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Blaze has covered the religious freedom issues surrounding the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate extensively. President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.
Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday. ABC has more regarding what sources are saying the president is poised to present:
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. [...]
One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.
In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception.
The exact nature of the clarification remains unclear, but any accommodation could largely follow what exists in a majority of states, like in Illinois where DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the country, offers an employee health plan that does cover contraception. Georgetown University offers a similar plan.
The shift is aimed at containing the political firestorm that erupted after Obama announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventative care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by Aug. 2013.
Republican leaders and religious groups, especially Roman Catholics, responded with intense outrage, saying the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.
The issue also pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that had been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama‘s health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans’ conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.
Republicans vowed to reverse the president’s policy, with House Speaker John Boehner accusing the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country’s most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals.
The measure also sparked an internal debate at the White House. Vice President Joe Biden, then-chief of staff Bill Daley and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, all Catholics, raised concerns about how the administration proceeded on the policy. On the other side, senior White House advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle, Pete Rouse and David Plouffe argued for the need to ensure coverage for all without exception, as a matter of women’s health and fairness.
The Obama administration clearly underestimated the response it would receive from Catholics and non-Catholics, alike, after implementing a universal mandate on health plans that requires coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
As the Blaze has extensively documented, the response has been swift and hard-hitting. Many liberals who traditionally support these options for women have been jumping ship to side with Catholic leadership in agreement that the administration has overstepped its bounds — an event that so rarely happens in theological and political circles.
But it’s important to note that, despite very boisterous outcries, Obama does have support from some liberals on this issue; many of them are pointing to the fact that nearly all Catholic women use contraceptives as a defense. Using this argument, those who favor the mandate claim that the Church is out of touch and not accurately speaking for its followers on this important women’s health issue.
But is this the proper lens through which to view the issue? Free and religious speech advocates would argue that usage has little to do with views on government intervention in church affairs. In the end, it’s a complicated scenario with political capital for whichever side wins the public over. At the moment, the situation may not be as favorable for Obama as he would like. In an article published on Wednesday, Religion News Service’s David Gibson provides five reasons that the president may be losing the battle.
First, the debate, despite what the mandate’s supporters say, is about religious freedom — not contraception. Regardless of where one stands, the main issue at hand is whether the government has the right to interfere in church affairs and dictate what will be covered in health care plans. Gibson writes:
The bishops don’t have as much credibility with the laity as they used to, thanks to the clergy sex abuse scandal, among other things. But Catholics are still a potent tribe, and if outsiders are seen as attacking the church, Catholics can get defensive – and they can get even.
Then there’s the fact, as mentioned, that some liberal Catholics have abandoned the president on the issue. Regardless of where these individuals stand on use of these health care options, forcing Catholic institutions (among other faith-based groups) to violate their conscience just isn’t sitting right.
Now, let’s talk about those other faith groups. Many times, people of different religious traditions have a tough time coalescing, but on this issue, individuals with varying theological ideals are coming together. After all, it’s one thing to sit back and watch an attack on a rival faith group unfold, but when considering what could happen, should this mandate go unchecked, many religious people are fearful: “What’s next?,” they’re wondering. Gibson continues:
Even though evangelicals and other conservative Protestants generally don’t have religious objections to contraception, they do have a big problem with “big government” and with perceived infringements on religious freedom. Evangelicals – both their leaders and their troops – have never been big Barack Obama supporters anyway, so they were happy to provide any electoral and rhetorical muscle the Catholic hierarchy could not muster.
The fourth reason Gibson highlights is the fact that the “attack on religion” frame the issue is being explored through is an appealing one for Republicans. While many conservatives are wondering why Obama would approach this subject in an election year to begin with, others are noticing just how effective religious freedom rhetoric will be for the GOP nominee.
The rhetoric is already ratcheting up. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier this week.
And, of course, there’s the overwhelming fact that the president will need to secure the Catholic vote to ensure re-election. “While Obama won the overall Catholic vote 54 percent to 46 percent in 2008, he lost the white Catholic vote, 47 percent to 53 percent,” Gibson writes. It‘s hard to imagine the president won’t lose a portion of this important cohort as a result of his refusal, thus far, to compromise.
As GOP Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have both said, “Obama has shown his hand and if he is re-elected, even if they walk this back now, this is the road that his administration will go down!”
Sure, he’s shown “openness” to the ideal of coming up with a viable solution that appeases both sides, but to those so staunchly opposed, such a notion isn’t good enough. The president will need to admit wrongdoing and back away from the mandate, should he wish to appease many of those individuals who feel wronged by the government’s newfound regulations. So far, there’s no evidence that he will take such a course.
Is the Timing of the War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments… Another ObamaCare Revelation, God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention by Many Americans?
The present issue of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring (through ObamaCare) that all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, cover the cost in full for contraception, sterilization procedures, and the “week-after“ pill ”ella” that can induce early abortions is being framed as a fight over contraception. It is not an issue of contraception! It is an issue of religious liberty and an assault on the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
No politicians ever go after the Roman Catholic Church… Why? Because it is suicidal. Also, with everyone salivating to get the Hispanic voting block, who are almost all Catholics, this recent news of anti-religious freedom in ObamaCare resulting in a battle with the Catholic church could be Obama’s Waterloo.
Jews, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, a coalition of people of faith and even Atheists are standing with the Catholics on this matter. 90% of all Americans identify themselves as being related to some religion, even if not practicing.
So the question is, is the timing of this realization of one of the coming horrors in ObamaCare a huge mistake by Team Obama and perhaps an intervention by God in answer to all the prayers for help and guidance being said by God fearing Americans daily? Or is the primary focus of the left more about creating division and chaos to fundamentally transform America than getting elected… or re-elected?
Take a good look back at the famous ‘Fabian’ Window… the group the Progressives stem from. The Fabian Window is a view into the Heart of the New World Order Agenda, and yes that is former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair standing by that sinister Window!
The founders of the Fabian Society are depicted in the famous stained-glass Fabian Window[1] designed by George Bernard Shaw. The window was stolen in 1978 and reappeared at Sotheby's in 2005. It was restored to display in the Shaw Library at the London School of Economics in 2006 at a ceremony over which Tony Blair presided.
—Obama denigrates religion, covers up religious symbols when he speaks in churches, and proclaims that we are not a “Christian” nation. In fact, we are a Christian nation, but not exclusively so, and far more tolerant of all believers and disbelievers than the Arab countries from whom he courts favor. In those countries you may be maimed, banished or killed if you are not Muslim. Freedom of religion in those countries is but an empty phrase in constitutions that exalt Islam over all other religions. Is Obama remolding our religious heritage? …Taken from CFP’s Beware the Obama Fabian Window. Many feel that Obama is Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing on the Fabian Window Coat of Arms.
Remember, Obama’s weakness is religious people. He doesn’t have the churches and true Bible reading/God fearing Americans behind him. So they are poking us to get us worked up to standup as a focus point making us the fringe and bringing us head to head with the left… the unions, OWS, avowed Progressives, etc.
Below are just a few of the article and perspective on this subject:
Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, wrote a letter to be read at all Sunday Masses for U.S. military personnel around the world that said that a regulation issued by the Obama Administration under the new federal health care law was “a blow” to a freedom that U.S. troops have not only fought to defend but for which some have recently died in battle. “It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle,” the archbishop wrote.
Updated: *167* Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate by Thomas Peters7 days ago In the past I’ve compiled a list of all the bishops speaking out on a particular controversial issue (for instance, over Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama) — here are the bishops who have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate.[See my ongoing coverage of Obama/HHS's war against religious liberty here, here, here and most recently here. I'm also tweeting more updates @AmericanPapist.] If I have missed anyone please let me know in the comments! And please double-check that your bishop really is not there...
If the federal government can succeed in forcing people to violate their faith, it will have the power to force anyone to do anything. It is therefore sad but not surprising that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius took to USA Today this week to spin rather than explain her boss’s decision to force people and entities all over the country to fund abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization against their consciences.
However, one of the most startling comments came from former Democrat Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper who said that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to cover the cost in full for contraception, sterilization procedures, and the “week-after“ pill ”ella” that can induce early abortions.
For those of us who have followed and fought against the passing of ObamaCare that knew about every ugly detail that has come to light since its passing… and there are many more to come, the amazement about its content keeps creating amazement for us. Government-run healthcare is the crown jewel of socialism and the ugliness contained within has only begun to surface. How dare an elected official who voted on this type of freedom changing bill say, “If I had known….” Read the bills, pay readers, have your staff read it. There really should be a penalty to pay by these people. Election 2012 or the Supreme Court Ruling will be our only chance(s) to rid ourselves of ObamaCare!!
This is not a matter that will just blow over, even though the White House is starting to back peddle on this issue for now; but this is a glimmer into our future if Barack Obama is re-elected. Those in the trenches know that any and all of the compromises we see during this election year will be rescinded as soon as Obama is re-elected.
This fight is much larger than this single issue… As Father Morris stated on Hannity the other night and again today on The Factor… “This is the fight over Freedom of Religion”, the very issue that America was founded on! The Left’s siege on churches has begun!!
Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said! Similar remarks from Speaker Boehner, Senator Marco Rubio and congressional politicians from both sides of the aisle.
For those who think speaking up doesn’t matter or make a difference here is an example where it did. But the goal needs to be full repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. Cause you can bet that there won’t be this kind of compromise if Obama is re-elected, including with the micro chipping! M~
Secret shoppers aren’t anything new. Retail stores use them regularly to gather customer service data. But what happens when the government uses them to check up on doctors across the country? Is that going too far? That‘s exactly what’s about to happen to over 4,000 doctors in nine states.
The New York Times reports that 4,185 doctors in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia — 465 in each state — will be getting stealth calls from people posing as potential patients. The point is to see if doctors are discriminating against those with government care such as Medicare, and to decipher how long wait times are.
“Access to primary care is a priority for the administration,” Health and Human Services spokesman Christian J. Stenrud told the Times. “This study is an effort to better understand the problem and make sure we are doing everything we can to support primary care physicians, especially in communities where the need is greatest.”
But plenty of doctors don’t see this as a friendly phone call as much as a government encroachment. Or, worse, Big Brother.
“I don’t like the idea of the government snooping,” Dr. Raymond Scalettar, an internist in Washington, told the Times. “It’s a pernicious practice — Big Brother tactics, which should be opposed.”
And that seems to be the consensus of those physicians interviewed by the Times:
Dr. Stephen C. Albrecht, a family doctor in Olympia, Wash., said: “If federal officials are worried about access to care, they could help us. They don’t have to spy on us.”
The Times obtained a mock script of what a mystery caller might say:
Mystery shopper: “Hi, my name is Alexis Jackson, and I’m calling to schedule the next available appointment with Dr. Michael Krane. I am a new patient with a P.P.O. from Aetna. I just moved to the area and don’t yet have a primary doctor, but I need to be seen as soon as possible.”
Doctor’s office: “What type of problem are you experiencing?”
Mystery shopper: “I’ve had a cough for the last two weeks, and now I’m running a fever. I’ve been coughing up thick greenish mucus that has some blood in it, and I’m a little short of breath.”
Most offices will get two calls, one pretending to be from someone with private insurance and one from someone pretending to have government care. Still other offices will get a third call from government officials who “will ask whether the doctors accept private insurance, Medicaid or Medicare, and whether they take ‘self-pay patients’” in an attempt to note any discrepancies.
The use of the secret callers comes as a Massachusetts Medical Society released a report last month showing a dismal trend in the state where government health care has taken root: 53 percent of family physicians and 51 percent of internal medicine physicians are not accepting new patients, and wait times are increasing, averaging 36 days to see family doctors and 48 days for internists.
“Is this a good use of tax money? Probably not,” Dr. Robert L. Hogue, a family physician in Brownwood, TX asked the Times. “Everybody with a brain knows we do not have enough doctors.”
Read the NY Times article here. Read the full Massachusetts Medical society report here.
Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
“This is not a way to build trust in government,” says Dr. George J. Petruncio of Turnersville, N.J.
Philip Scott Andrews/The New York Times
Dr. Raymond Scalettar of Washington is dismayed at the idea of “snooping”.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks in Seattle on Feb. 9, 2011. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that the administration's new $500 million early learning initiative is designed to deal with children from birth onward to prevent such problems as 5-year olds who "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.
“You really need to look at the range of issues, because if a 5-year-old can’t sit still, it is unlikely that they can do well in a kindergarten class, and it has to be the whole range of issues that go into healthy child development,” Sebelius said during a telephone news conference on Wednesday to announce the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge.
Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan jointly announced the $500-million program, which will provide competitive grants to states to address issues affecting educational outcomes for children from birth to age 5. (The actual question needs to be why aren’t we helping mom’s be home with their young children; why aren’t more people home-schooling or moving their children to Christian schools and why would you want these people to have anymore effect on your children than they already do? They have already proven that under the Progressive watch, education and knowledge is at an all time low and instilled propaganda against America, free-market Capitalism, religion and their parents is at an all time high!)
On the conference call, CNSNews.com asked: “What were the current problems that were found with the health, social and emotional development for children ages birth to 5?”
Sebelius, adding on to comments from Asst. Education Secretary Joan Lombardi, pointed to studies done in her home state of Kansas, where she served as governor. “When we looked at 5-year olds--and we tested about half the 5-year-olds in a relatively homogeneous state like Kansas -- and found that about half of them were not ready for kindergarten at age 5," Sebelius said.
"And some of those skills were missing: readiness for their math or reading," she said. "A number of children were missing the social and developmental skills which would allow them to sit in a classroom or play with others or listen to a teacher for any period of time. So I think it was an indicator that you couldn’t just test curriculum readiness.”
According to the U.S. Department of Education, awards in Race to the Top will go to “states that are leading the way with ambitious yet achievable plans for implementing coherent, compelling, and comprehensive early learning education reform.”
The “candy cane case” may have serious implications for the First Amendment rights of elementary school children. This creatively-dubbed legal battle started back in 2003 when an elementary school in Plano, Texas, refused to allow children to distribute religious materials.
Jonathon Morgan, a third-grade student at the time, brought candy cane-shaped pens to share with his class. Administrators at the Plano Independent School District refused to allow him to distribute the pens, because they had religious messages attached. Back in 2001, another student’s party favors (pencils that said “Jesus is the reason for the season”) were also confiscated. Read Full Article Here
In addition to the 
Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience! 
