[talaniman]

I thought it was about getting caught lying.

[speechlesstx]

I thought it was about getting caught lying.

Nope, it was lying about Obamacare - still. There's a Benghazi thread if you wish to take up Issa's off the cuff remarks.

[talaniman]

Issa: Administration lying about HealthCare.gov | TheHill

Obamacare Website's Biggest Security Threat May Be Darrell Issa

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/cb...epeat-debunked-

Sun Rises In East, Darrell Issa Lies About It

Tried to stay on subject.

[speechlesstx]

The regime has its first death panel victim, Doge.

[speechlesstx]

Surprise! Another unilateral change to Obamacare designed exclusively to help Democrats win elections, i.e. not have to face the consequences of their stupid law, which by the time they get done with it will be totally unworkable.

The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats.


As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.


Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.

The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.


The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber.


“I don’t see how they could have a bunch of these announcements going out in September,” one consultant in the health insurance industry said. “Not when they’re trying to defend the Senate and keep their losses at a minimum in the House. This is not something to have out there right before the election.”


The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on Monday both said they had no updates to announce.


Late last year, the administration was grappling with the beleaguered HealthCare.gov and millions of canceled health plans in the individual market.
Republicans noted President Obama had repeatedly promised that no one would lose their health plan if they wanted to keep it.


Obama subsequently called on states and the insurance industry to allow people to keep their existing plans for an additional year. While many states agreed, it left the administration with a dilemma.


A one-year moratorium pushed the deadline beyond the midterm election, but insurers must send out cancellation notices 90 days in advance. That would mean notices in the mail by Oct. 1, five weeks before voters go to the polls.


The administration’s decision to pursue another extension was confirmed by insurance sources who predicted a public announcement would be “imminent.” It is unclear how long the extension will be, though one source believed it could last to the end of Obama’s second term, and perhaps beyond.
This issue is sure to be discussed during the 2016 presidential race, in which Hillary Clinton is expected to run.


In November, amid the rash of health plan cancellations, former President Clinton said Obama should allow people to keep their current coverage.


“I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got,” Clinton said at the time.


Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare.
It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law.
Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essential.


Some of the services are popular, such as prescription drug coverage, but others, such as maternity and pediatric care, have been criticized as expensive as well as being unnecessary for many policyholders, such as older people.


Read more: New ObamaCare delay to help Democrats in midterm elections | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Of course seeing as how most of us have already had our old plans canceled I fully expect people to still be pi$$ed about it in November. But hey, I can't wait to get my first mammogram and pap smear.

[smoothy]

Says it all.

[speechlesstx]

The dismantling of obamacare continues, this time secretly.

ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption - WSJ.com

[talaniman]

As more and more right wing horror stories get DEBUNKED!!

Woman in debunked Obamacare horror story finally speaks ... to Fox News#

Obamacare horror story debunked by Seattle Times columnist | The Raw Story

“So here's a family that was totally uninsured for 15 years because it had always cost at least $500 to $600 a month for skimpy policies to cover them both. And what they can get now is full coverage for $30 a month for the son and scantier coverage in the $250 to $300 a month range for the mom. How is that a horror story?”

[speechlesstx]

Nice diversion, which is the official Democrat strategy, change the subject. Tell me, what's the point of "the law of the land" now that he's virtually rendered it pointless?

[tomder55]

He's trying to save his reign from his own party's revolt. Yeah that's right . The Repubics were never on board . It's his own ranks that are threatening to leave like rats off a sunken ship. His extra-Constitutional decrees are an attempt to save his shrinking coalition.

[talaniman]

Accommodating the fears of a few scared ducks isn't pointless. Gives them time to get their own facts for themselves. He only waived the deadlines and give them the reasons for a waiver, but any scared duck will realize they better at least look before they quack.

In a year we may not be talking about a million people, let alone in two, so what's the harm?

[tomder55]

so what's the harm?

gee think about it ... a President who can change the law any time he deems it suitable. All hail emperor Barakus Obamanum !

[talaniman]

I see you guys didn't miss the 50th repeal vote, and hear the 51st isn't far behind. You should try the green tomatoes and eggs, you might like it.

[paraclete]

round and around and around we go and where we will come out, noone knows

[tomder55]

“What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?”

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked this question in the Q&A at SCOTUS of the 'Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius' cases. Unless Chief Justice Roberts decides that violating the mandate from HHS is a tax , it's looking good that the mandate forcing them to cover abortafacients will be overturned.

[smoothy]

Here is a picture of the very few people that still think Obamacare is agood idea.

[paraclete]

got a few of them have you?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

“What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?”

Unless Chief Justice Roberts decides that violating the mandate from HHS is a tax , it's looking good that the mandate forcing them to cover abortafacients will be overturned.

Nahhhh. I read Kennedy's comments differently..

I believe he's saying that NO agency of government can grant or deny a religious exemption. It's just not within their Constitutional purview to do it. That's WHY tax books begin with the words, "Church's are exempt". They make NO effort at defining a church. That's because the First Amendment says the government cannot establish a religion. And, if the government can't tell you what a religion IS, then it can't tell you what it ISN'T either. So, it stays OUT of that bailiwick altogether. I believe it will continue to do.

Therefore, irrespective of their claim, the agency has NO Constitutional authority to grant it or even consider it.. The claim of exemption MUST be denied.

excon

[talaniman]

Are You There God? It's Me, Hobby Lobby | Mother Jones

On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue......

So all of a sudden this is an issue when it wasn't an issue before??

The fact that Hobby Lobby once covered the drugs it now objects to is "evidence that these cases are part of a broader effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act, and push new legal theories that could result in businesses being allowed to break the law and harm others under the guise of religious freedom," says Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel and director of state reproductive health policy at the National Women's Law Center.

And then there is the real science that has been totally ignored,

The company argues that emergency contraception pills, such as Ella and Plan B, destroy fertilized eggs by interfering with implantation in the uterus. Hobby Lobby's owners consider this abortion. But the pills don't work that way. When Plan B first came on the market in 1999, its mechanism for preventing unplanned pregnancies wasn't entirely clear. That's why the FDA-approved labeling reflected some uncertainty and said that the pills "theoretically" prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. Since then, though, there has been a lot of research on how these pills work, and the findings are definitive: They prevent pregnancy by blocking ovulation. In fact, they don't work once ovulation has occurred. As Corbin recently wrote in a law review article, "Every reputable scientific study to examine Plan B's mechanism has concluded that these pills prevent fertilization from occurring in the first place…In short, Plan B is contraception."

I actually hope they win, so the employees of these religious beliefs companies denied reproductive health care can sue for discrimination, and more money.

[tomder55]

Recently, after learning about the nationally prominent HHS mandate controversy, Hobby Lobby re-examined its insurance policy to ensure they continued to be consistent with its faith. During that re-examination, Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs -- Plan B and Ella -- that could cause an abortion. Coverage of these drugs was not included knowingly or deliberately by the Green family [members of which own the company via a trust]. Such coverage is out of step with the rest of Hobby Lobby's policies, which explicitly exclude abortion-causing contraceptive devices and pregnancy-termination drugs. Hobby Lobby therefore immediately excluded the inconsistent drugs from its policies.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/...-0001-0001.pdf (page 14 #55)