Thursday, June 28, 2012

ObamaCare is Still an Issue! (Part 2)

*******

*******
Obama's Health Care Plan Will Not Improve the Ailing System
Alexis Garcia
July 02, 2012
Fox News Latino
And thanks to the Supreme Court, President Obama's centerpiece legislation now amounts to the largest tax increase in history on the middle class.
While Republicans are right to bemoan this fact, the tragedy of Obamacare goes far beyond massive tax hikes. The real failure of this legislation is that it will do nothing to fix the ailing health care system it was designed to save.
The President promised Americans that his plan would decrease premiums by double digits. But his estimates have been proven to be exaggerated and incorrect.
Two years into Obamacare, premiums continue to rise and are likely to keep increasing thanks to the court's recent decision.
"Many of these regulations are going to increase the cost of premiums. Six in 10 Americans have already seen a hike in their premiums since the law was passed," stated Tevi Troy, former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush. "I think this is bad news for consumers overall. They're going to be suffering the brunt of this."
The Congressional Budget office confirms Mr. Troy's sentiments. The nonpartisan agency has said that annual premiums for individual plans in 2016 would be $5,800 compared to the $5,500 an individual would pay without reform. And a 2011 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that the average annual premium for family coverage increased 9 percent in the first year under Obamacare.
Many families and small businesses have already been warned higher health payments are on the way.
Small business woman Victoria Asness just received notice that her insurance company was seeking to increase premiums by 20 percent.
The popular Herbfarm Restaurant located north of Seattle, has also gotten notice from their insurer demanding a 30 percent increase on all of their employee health care plans. Even though the restaurant employs 25 people and technically qualifies for the small business tax credit under health reform, the IRS has required them to calculate their earnings in a way which disqualifies them from receiving the benefit.
In addition to increased premiums, Obamacare also adds 17 additional taxes to help finance expansion of the Medicaid program and subsidies to purchase health insurance. The total cost of Obamacare taxes reaches well over $500 billion dollars in the next decade. Add to this the court's decision to classify the individual mandate as a tax and the tab increases for the American taxpayer.
Despite all this added revenue, the Affordable Care Act does not make health care more affordable. In fact, costs appear to be rising at a faster pace under Obamacare. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has said the law will add $478 billion to health care costs over the next decade, increasing average spending by one-10th of a percent faster than if the law had never existed.
Thursday's health care ruling was a major victory for President Obama, but it was a huge defeat for Americans. Consumers are now saddled with higher premiums and higher taxes to fund a dysfunctional government program that does nothing to make the health care system more effective and efficient.
Alexis Garcia is a political producer and correspondent for PJTV.com. She also worked as a communications aide for the Giuliani and McCain-Palin 2008 presidential campaigns.
*******
*******
*******
The Liar’s Tax
It is a liar’s tax. It is a liar’s penalty. It is a liar’s plan to further bankrupt the nation
Alan Caruba  
Saturday, June 30, 2012
The most singular aspect of Obamacare is the way Democrats, from the President on down, consistently lied about the fact that it was a tax. Interviewed by George Stephanopolos on ABC News, September 2009, Obama was asked if he rejected the criticism that it was a tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” was his reply.
No need to quote the others. They all lied. It took the Supreme Court and, in particular, Chief Justice Roberts, to call Obamacare a tax in the process of eliminating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a justification for imposing this burden on Americans.
As CNBC’s Larry Kudlow was quick to note, “Twenty new or higher taxes across the board are bad for economic growth, bad for job hiring, bad for investors, and bad for families,” adding that when “you tax something more, you get less of it.”
Most Americans have been repeatedly told that Obamacare would ensure more care for more people, but the fact is, with or without health insurance, Americans receive health care, even if the hospital emergency room is their last resort, even if they are homeless, and even if they have no way to pay for it.
The multi-millionaire former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who told Americans that we would have to wait to know what was in Obamacare until after it was passed, reacted to the Supreme Court decision saying, “Call it what you will.” That is the equivalent of “Let them eat cake”, Marie Antoinette’s famed statement before the enraged citizens of France separated her head from her body.
Obamacare just became the single most important element of the November 6th national elections, followed by the economy. Both stink! Both are the direct result of Obama’s declared intention to “fundamentally transform America.” If he had even a schoolchild’s grasp of American history, he would know that Americans hate taxes. They declared their independence from England over the issue of taxation without representation.
What will emerge in the months between now and the elections is the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the implementation of Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, an increase of $820 billion over the initial estimate when it was first signed into law. A nation already $17 trillion in debt can hardly welcome such news, nor absorb such costs.
For most Americans, though, the realization that Obamacare contains twenty-one new taxes will likely tip the scales in November to the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who has promised to begin the repeal of the law the first day he takes office. Yes, it is an irony that he introduced Romneycare in Massachusetts when he was Governor there, but that is not going to affect the outcome of the election.
Among the many new taxes buried in the 2000-plus pages of Obamacare, there’s a 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that observers believe would prove to be a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs an estimated 400,000.
There’s a 3.6% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends on those earning more than $250,000.
Obamacare imposes a $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new “community health assessment needs”, whatever they are.
There’s a $2.6 billion-a-year tax on drug companies. A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons. An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.
Between now and November voters are going to be reminded that Obama promised to fix the economy and then spent the first two years getting Obamacare through Congress. No Republican voted for it and, in 2010, voters replaced some sixty representatives and senators with Republicans.
Obama promised to create jobs. Instead he gave us a multi-billion “stimulus” that utterly failed. He promised to cut the deficit in half. And he promised that Americans could keep their current health insurance plans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as twenty million will lose theirs.
Lies! Lies! Lies!
In a thoughtful analysis of Obamacare, two senior fellows at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution were joined by the dean of the Columbia Business School who concluded that “In upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has allowed the President and Congress to put the country’s health policy on a path that will restrict individual choices, stifle innovation and sharply increase health-care costs.”
As that sinks in, the November elections will end the tyranny of Barack Obama and his minions in Congress. If you wonder what will replace it, just ask Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WIS) who has a plan in place to reform Medicare and Medicaid. If you haven’t heard much about it, you can thank the mainstream media and its slavish adoration of the President.
It is a liar’s tax. It is a liar’s penalty. It is a liar’s plan to further bankrupt the nation.
Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs.
Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com
*******

*******
Obama to Soldiers: Pay Up
Threatens to veto bill unless it hikes health care fees for service members
By: Washington Free Beacon Staff
June 29, 2012
*******
*******
The Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.
“The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.
President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.
Some fear the administration’s proposal is an effort to increase enrollment in the state-run insurance exchanges mandated under the president’s controversial health care law.
The administration urged the House to “reconsider” the fee increase, arguing they are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs.”
The House bill has significant bipartisan support, and easily passed by a margin of 299 to 120.
*******
While We Were Sleeping
Stealth State of Emergency
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Friday, 29 June 2012
While the entire country was riveted to the news that Obamacare—the most expensive and freedom robbing tax bill in U.S. history—was upheld by the Supreme Court, the President was busy driving in the last nail in the coffin of liberty.
It is not the first time the media helped in the deception of Americans and in hiding the truth.
We were so preoccupied with the looming health care insurance premium that is really a tax for the privilege of living in the U.S., the upcoming health exchanges, Obama’s domestic of IRS health insurance enforcement agents, more growing on the horizon, and a dim economic future, that we overlooked the national emergency declared by President Obama.
President Obama sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate on June 25, 2012, announcing his declaration of national emergency.
According to Kenneth Schortgren, “the United States is seizing assets and property owned or managed by the Russian Federation relating to nuclear items and tied to Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU).” (examiner.com, June 26, 2012)
“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in view of the policies underlying Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, and Executive Order 13085 of May 26, 1998, and the restrictions put in place pursuant to Executive Order 13159 of June 21, 2000, find that the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”
The ramifications of this national emergency are quite complex, given the fragile state of the global economy, the unstable Middle East, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the weak dollar, our huge national debt as the one threat to national security, the 257 Foreign Trade Zones in the U.S., the insolvency of the euro crisis born by the socialist welfare states in the euro zone, huge unemployment across Europe, bailouts and insolvencies, military posturing by Iran, China, Russia, and Korea, the touted Arab Spring/Winter, and the subsequent takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s recent election. We can speculate but we will certainly be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat since only progressives and Democrats are opinion makers and the arbiters of truth. Any advanced by other Americans would be met with incredulity and derision. At a minimum, it would be seen as hate speech or racism.
We were also oblivious to today’s strike down of the Stolen Valor Act. Using indefensible judgment, the Supremes said that it is now acceptable to lie about military service. Apparently, the First Amendment protects the Americans’ right to lie, even if that lie involves a person’s military service, and awards received. (Lee Ferran, abcNews, June 28, 2012)
The decision vindicated Xavier Alvarez who was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The bill made it illegal to claim ownership of or to wear and ribbons, which were not earned. Alvarez never received the medals claimed nor served in the military. He was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine, and community service. His convinced the Supreme Court that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and it violated his right to lie.
SCOTUS, through Justice Kennedy, defended its 6-3 decision in Alvarez’s favor that the Stolen Valor Act is “too broad and ignores whether the liar is trying to gain anything through his or her false statement.” A lie by any other name is still a lie. People lie to gain influence, access, and positions of power.
While cowardly Americans exercise their SCOTUS-decreed right to lie about military accomplishments, the true heroes who receive medals and ribbons do so by sacrificing their lives, limbs, blood, treasure, and precious time with their families.
Driven into oblivion, the state of Realityville is becoming stranger by the day – the loons and the corrupt are running the asylum.
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative, usactionnews.com), author, radio commentator (Silvio Canto Jr. Blogtalk Radio, Butler on Business WAFS 1190, and Republic Broadcasting Network), and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. A second book, “Liberty on Life Support,” is also available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com. Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana@canadafreepress.com
*******
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want
by Mike Adams
Thursday, June 28, 2012
http://www.naturalnews.com/036329_Obamacare_Supreme_Court_economic_freedom.html
(NaturalNews) Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.
"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a "tax."
Economic freedom crushed by Supreme Court
This article is not an argument so much about Obamacare itself, by the way; it's a red alert about a fundamental loss of economic freedom -- a shifting of private purchasing decisions to Washington D.C. Now, buoyed by the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. government can (and will) create new mandates that, for example, would force Americans to buy all the following:
• A new car each year from Detroit, in order to "boost the U.S. auto industry."
• War bonds to "support the war effort."
• A year's supply of vaccines.
• Life insurance from the government's "approved" sources.
• Lawn fertilizer (the "lawn health care mandate").
• Intellectual property such as patented human genes already in your body.
There is no limit to the reach of the Supreme Court's wild misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems. So now, all Americans can expect to get ready for the federal government to start laying out a long list of products and services we will all be taxed into buying from the crony capitalist buddies of those in power.
Government hands economic monopoly to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry
Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn't really about health care at all. It's about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural remedies or the healing arts.
If Obamacare actually offered consumers a free market choice of where to get services, it would be a lot more balanced and effective. Instead, it forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery that would flat-out collapse if not for the monopolistic protections granted to the industry by the government itself.
If given a free choice, most consumers prefer complementary medicine than straight-up "drugs and surgery" medicine, but complementary medicine isn't covered under Obamacare. The law is really just another corrupt, criminal-minded handout to the drug industry. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't even opt out!
Abuse of power by the federal government knows no bounds
That's the real kicker in all this: No more opting out of the private purchasing demands of the federal government! Americans are being pick-pocketed at an alarming rate, and it's only going to get worse now that this power has been unwisely handed to the federal government by a short-sighted Supreme Court.
Because long after Obama is gone, other Presidents -- from any political party -- will abuse this precedent to force Americans into buying any number of products, services, or even intellectual property that we don't want. There is now no limit to what the federal government can force you to buy by calling it a "tax."
Note, carefully, there is NO LIMIT to this "taxing" power. If you bring home a monthly paycheck of, for example, $3,000, the U.S. government can now mandate that you spend $2,999 of that on various products and services that it deems you must have "for your own protection." You no longer control your own take-home pay! The government can force you to spend it on things you don't want or even need!
America, it seems, is starting to sound a whole lot like England under King George. Soon, we'll be living under our own modern Stamp Act from 1765, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Learn your history! As Wikipedia explains: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765)
The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money. The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years' War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.
The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent -- consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.
Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" by also passing the Declaratory Act. There followed a series of new taxes and regulations, likewise opposed by the colonists.
The episode played a major role in defining the grievances and enabling the organized colonial resistance that led to the American Revolution in 1775.
*******
*******
Why the Supreme Court will Uphold the Constitutionality of Obamacare
Robert Reich
Nationofchange/Op-Ed
28 June 2012
Predictions are always hazardous when it comes to the economy, the weather, and the Supreme Court. I won’t get near the first two right now, but I’ll hazard a guess on what the Court is likely to decide tomorrow: It will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) by a vote of 6 to 3.
Three reasons for my confidence:
First, Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The 5-4 decision in Citizen’s United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the Court’s notorious decision in Bush v. Gore.
The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government: As Alexander Hamilton once noted, the Court has neither the purse (it can’t threaten to withhold funding from the other branches) or the sword (it can’t threaten police or military action). It has only the public’s trust in the Court’s own integrity and the logic of its decisions — both of which the public is now doubting, according to polls. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a particular responsibility to regain the public’s trust. Another 5-4 decision overturning a piece of legislation as important as Obamacare would further erode that trust.
It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?
Second, Roberts can draw on a decision by a Republican-appointed and highly-respected conservative jurist, Judge Laurence Silberman, who found Obamacare to be constitutional when the issue came to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The judge’s logic was lucid and impeccable — so much so that Roberts will try to lure Justice Anthony Kennedy with it, to join Roberts and the four liberal justices, so that rather than another 5-4 split (this time on the side of the Democrats), the vote will be 6 to 3.
Third and finally, Roberts (and Kennedy) can find adequate Supreme Court precedent for the view that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress and the President the power to regulate health care — given that heath-care coverage (or lack of coverage) in one state so obviously affects other states; that the market for health insurance is already national in many respects; and that other national laws governing insurance (Social Security and Medicare, for example) require virtually everyone to pay (in these cases, through mandatory contributions to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds).
Okay, so I’ve stuck my neck out. We’ll find out tomorrow how far.
This article was originally posted on Robert Reich's blog.
ROBERT B. REICH, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
*******
What Just Happened to the Rule of Law?
Obamacare has now transformed the United States into a police state
Alan Caruba
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Following the Obamacare decision, The Heartland Institute’s Maureen Martin, a Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs, said, “Today’s decision will go down in infamy. It marks the moment when we all lost our freedom because the Supreme Court drew a road map to guide those dedicated to imposing a totalitarian, statist government on the American people.”
A Heartland colleague, Peter Ferrara, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court and a Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy, said “The Supreme Court of the United States just endorsed the most fundamental dishonesty of our politics today. The President intimidated Chief Justice John Roberts like Hugo Chavez intimidates the Venezuelan Supreme Court. The rule of law is now dead. The American people have only one more chance now to save their country.” Heartland is a non-profit, free market think tank.
A lot of Americans may begin to feel like the Jews who lived in Nazi Germany. On September 15, 1935, the Nazi government passed the Nuremberg laws. They were intended to make life in Germany so unpleasant that it would force them to emigrate. Those who could escaped what would later materialize as the Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of all the Jews of Europe. One of them was Albert Einstein who found sanctuary in the United States.
To give you a taste of what it was like, the Reichstag’s Nuremburg laws prohibited marriage between Jews and Aryan Germans. Intercourse between Jews and “subjects of German or kindred blood” was forbidden. Jews were forbidden to fly the Reich and national flag. It did not take long for Jewish teachers, lawyers, and physicians to be stripped of their right to work.
What does that have to do with Obamacare? Americans who could rely on the political system to moderate and even reduce taxation now know that the December 28, 2012 Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may tax anything, including behavior. Americans no longer are free to determine what they wish to purchase or not. Either they follow the dictate of the federal government or they will be fined.
Obamacare has now transformed the United States into a police state.
Twenty-seven U.S. States joined together to oppose Obamacare and they and the other twenty-three now know that they are no longer separate and sovereign republics, but must yield to the federal government’s demand that they create “exchanges” where health insurance must be purchased.
Arizona has already discovered that the federal government will not permit its law enforcement authorities to participate in protecting its border with Mexico despite the havoc illegal immigration has wreaked on that State. Other States have encountered the same response.
America’s older generation, covered by Medicare, will discover that panels of bureaucrats will determine the extent of the health care they can receive. They will discover as those in England’s health system that the wait to be admitted to a hospital can result in death.
The younger generation will suffer as well. As Paul T. Conway, the president of Generation Opportunity, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to mobilize young adults who are dissatisfied with the status quo to create a better future for themselves, has said:
“President Obama’s health care law stands as one of the largest tax increases in American history. It will be paid by young Americans whose dreams and plans for the future have already been derailed by failed policies that have denied their access to full-time, meaningful jobs in their chosen career paths.”
“Young Americans,” said Conway, “know they will pay the true costs of President Obama’s legislation—over a trillion dollars more in federal spending, more waste and fraud, increased American debt, and the inability to keep or choose healthcare plans that best suit their needs as individuals.”
Young, old, and all other Americans will wake now to an America that they have not known, nor ever conceived could exist; a nation in which the rule of law no longer is a guarantee of the Constitution’s limits and separation of powers.
Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com
*******
Also See:
ObamaCare - Health, Euthanasia, Life in Jeopardy!
(Part 1)
20 July 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/07/health-care-obama-style.html
and
(Part 2)
10 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/obamacare-health-euthanasia-life-in.html
and
(Part 3)
27 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/obamacare-health-euthnasia-life-in.html
and
The Last Word on ObamaCare - Maybe!
20 March 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/03/last-word-on-obamacare-maybe.html
and
Coming Soon - Death Panels!
23 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/coming-soon-death-panels.html
and
How is Obama's Healthcare Working Out?
14 October 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/10/how-is-obamas-healthcare-working-out.html
and
More about ObamaCare!
24 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/01/more-about-obamacare.html
and
ObamaCare is Still an Issue!
(Part 1)
03 April 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/04/obamacare-is-still-issue.html
*******