Posted on 06/10/2012 10:48:56 AM PDT by wagglebee
In two short minutes, you can find out even more things than you’ve heard before about what’s wrong with ObamaCare. (And this doesn’t even cover it all, folks.) We knew it was bad – we knew it was really bad – but did we know it was this bad? I mean, seriously, $100-a-day fines for each employee? If this isn’t an extreme violation of personal, constitutional, and conscience rights, I don’t know what is.
Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised at all the things that can hide in a nearly 1,000 page law, with even more pages of regulations implementing that law. In 2011, John Vinci of NetRight Daily wrote (footnotes omitted):
If you thought that Obamacare was long, it is only a fraction of the length of the regulations.
Obamacare contains over 700 directives for HHS and other agencies to implement Obamacare.
We went through and counted all of the Obamacare regulation documents published so far. We found that the number of pages in regulations are already 114 percent as long as the number of pages in the Obamacare statutes! The statutes contain 961 pages compared to 1,093 pages of regulations … What is more telling is the word count comparison. The Obamacare statutes together contain 425,116 words. Compare that to 1,147,271 words published so far in Obamacare regulation documents. The regulations are 270 percent as long as the statute itself.
Alliance Defense Fund, the organization who created the video at the beginning of this article, has also designed an easily sharable collection of facts about ObamaCare. You can share the fact sheet with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, and more. ADF has done a well-researched job of explaining just what ObamaCare means to everyday Americans. And they reveal multiple hidden facts that must be brought to light.
For example:
Employees who don’t purchase ObamaCare will be fined up to 2.5% of their salary.
Some ObamaCare plans can take $ straight out of your paycheck and put it in an abortion-on-demand fund.
The U.S. Department of Labor reports that there are approximately 154,000,000 people in the U.S. labor force. If only half of plans include the Abortion Premium, at only $1 per month, the yearly income into this fund would be $924,000,000.
On average, an abortion costs $450. At the above rate, this fund could completely subsidize 2 million abortions per year. Currently, there are 1.2 million abortions per year in the U.S.
The employee will discover that their plan contains an abortion premium either by seeking it out in the fine print once they have enrolled, or noticing the separate surcharge taken from their paycheck.
ADF provides sources for the claims made in its fact sheet. The facts are chilling, but they must be studied, understood, and broadcasted by every American. Clearly, President Obama has used ObamaCare as an avenue to give a committed Planned Parenthood associate and abortion advocate – HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius – free rein to impose conscience violations and abortion funding on millions of Americans who are pro-life or who simply do not desire to fund someone else’s abortion.
As ADF correctly states, “[f]orced purchase is usually called ‘coercion’ rather than ‘commerce.’”
Know the facts, and speak out, America.
YouTube: ObamaCare Mandate Is Worse Than You Think
I received the following e mail from a Doctor this morning:
Don’t say you were not told!
-
For those of you who are on Medicare, read the following. It’s short, but
important and you probably haven’t heard about it in the Mainstream News:
“The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present
Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to:
$104.20 in 2012
$120.20 in 2013
And
$247.00 in 2014.”
These are Provisions incorporated in the Obamacare Legislation, purposely
delayed so as not to confuse the 2012 Re-Election Campaigns. Send this to
all Seniors that you know, so they will know who’s throwing them under the
bus.
Peggy Riehle
Internal Representative
Network Contracting
205-220-6778
**The U.S. Department of Labor reports that there are approximately 154,000,000 people in the U.S. labor force. If only half of plans include the Abortion Premium, at only $1 per month, the yearly income into this fund would be $924,000,000.**
Atrocious!
June 11 would be a good day for the US Supreme Court to rule this thing unconstitutional...
HusseinCare has got to go.
Every politician that voted for ObamaCare must be voted out in November and the remaining ghouls voted out in all the subsequent elections. They willingly voted for Death Panels aka the next Holocaust IMO.
Yeah, if having the main-parties running the father and grandfather of ObamaCare doesn't get you mad, what will?
You're far kinder than I; the proper legal solution would be to charge them with conspiracy against rights... or maybe just exercise the right/responsibility mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
How many more Mondays are we going to have to wait for the SCOTUS?
I’m on the verge of picking back up a habit that I kicked nearly 13 years ago. Nail biting.
In a contest between Obama any one of those three you've addressed, who is your choice? Are you saying you prefer Obama to Palin, Cain, or Bachmann?
If your “point” is that Romney is an imperfect candidate, please tell us who the “perfect” candidate would be. If your simply here to disparage anyone but an imperfect candidate I wonder if you would have disparaged Reagan. I don't think we've had a better president in the past century. But there are areas of policy where I think Reagan was horribly wrong. So even he wasn't “perfect” in the eyes of many conservatives (I'll assume you believe you're conservative for the moment).
Obviously, your “perfect” candidate is either someone who got his/her butt kicked in the primaries, or someone who didn't throw their hat into the ring at all. If he/she got beat out in the primaries by someone you seem to consider to be not particularly strong, that invites questions about the strength of the person you prefer. If you're “perfect” man/woman didn't even try to run, I wonder if trashing the best of our two imperfect choices is smart, from a pragmatic point of view.
As many of us see the country headed in what we believe to be a completely destructive direction, a logical thinker should have no trouble seeing that even a candidate who we agree with on 80% of the issues is a far better choice than is Obama. So this American “ship” we see heading off the wrong direction needs to be turned back in the right direction. Yet you disparage a person who we can hope will turn that ship back within 20 degrees of it's correct heading because he's not “perfect,” and in doing so condemn ourselves to go in a direction we know to be 100 percent wrong?
Romney isn't my “perfect” pick, either. But I'm mature enough to realize that I have two choices to support with my vote in November. I pick the one who I believe will turn the country back in a direction I consider to be far closer to the right direction, knowing Obama is guaranteed to take us in the worst possible direction.
I don't see the positive impact of tearing down the best of the two choices we have, unless your interest is to see four more years of the “progressive” march to tyranny.
Should have read, “disparage anyone but a perfect candidate...”
Fair 'nuf.
In a contest between Obama any one of those three you've addressed, who is your choice?
I would choose any of the three, but it's moot since I won't have that choice, unless one gets chosen as Romney's running mate.
Are you saying you prefer Obama to Palin, Cain, or Bachmann?
No. I thought it was clear, and it was certainly more clear than that. I saw them as our best choices at the beginning of the primaries, and thought this would be a great year. Then, Palin didn't run, Cain either couldn't control himself or backed down over false charges, and Bachmann gaffed herself out of contention.
If your “point” is that Romney is an imperfect candidate, please tell us who the “perfect” candidate would be.
There is no perfect candidate, but he was the last of my choices.
If your simply here to disparage anyone but an imperfect candidate I wonder if you would have disparaged Reagan. I don't think we've had a better president in the past century. But there are areas of policy where I think Reagan was horribly wrong. So even he wasn't “perfect” in the eyes of many conservatives (I'll assume you believe you're conservative for the moment).
There is a big difference between Reagan and Romney. I agreed with Reagan on the fundamentals. I can't say the same for Romney, because I'm not even sure what his fundamental beliefs are.
Obviously, your “perfect” candidate is either someone who got his/her butt kicked in the primaries, or someone who didn't throw their hat into the ring at all.
You think I don't know that? That doesn't mean I have to fall in line behind Romney, when there is still five months until the general elections.
If he/she got beat out in the primaries by someone you seem to consider to be not particularly strong, that invites questions about the strength of the person you prefer.
I never said Romney wasn't a strong candidate. Hillary and Obama were strong candidates in 2008. That doesn't mean I agree with them on the issues. I thought Bachmann was the strongest candidate based on the issues, but her gaffes nullified that (and fast).
If you're “perfect” man/woman didn't even try to run, I wonder if trashing the best of our two imperfect choices is smart, from a pragmatic point of view.
What you call trashing I call vetting. Hoping that if we don't vet him the MSM won't either isn't very smart.
As many of us see the country headed in what we believe to be a completely destructive direction, a logical thinker should have no trouble seeing that even a candidate who we agree with on 80% of the issues is a far better choice than is Obama.
You agree with Romney 80% of the time? I suspect it's more like 50%.
Besides, if I did agree with Romney on 80% of the issues, I'd probably be able to look past the other 20%.
Romney isn't my “perfect” pick, either. But I'm mature enough to realize that I have two choices to support with my vote in November. I pick the one who I believe will turn the country back in a direction I consider to be far closer to the right direction, knowing Obama is guaranteed to take us in the worst possible direction.
"In November" is the key. If, in November, it's apparent that the only outcome will be Romney or Obama, I'll vote for R... Rom... Romn... uh ABO. Hopefully, he'll chose a running mate that will make it eaier to do, but if not we can still turn from the trainwreck we're heading into now and hope for a real Conservative in 2016.
I don't see the positive impact of tearing down the best of the two choices we have, unless your interest is to see four more years of the “progressive” march to tyranny.
If you think we're tearing him down now, wait until you see what the MSM does after his nomination is official. "White and delightsome", 24/7. If the MSM gets its way, many will be embarrassed to vote for him.
Besides, "tearing down" Romney's record won't change the only reason many will vote for him, which is that he isn't Obama.
Again, you have two choices. Romney's record is already pretty clear. And the MSM have had numerous opportunities to “take their shots.” The weapons of class envy and name-calling aren't working for Obama.
As for your suspicion that I'd agree with Romney on 50% of issues, you may be right. But again, if we can even turn the country half way back toward sanity and a constitutional government we're moving the right direction. We know the alternative.
Remember, Reagan had a bit of “history” to him, too. And while you say you agreed with Reagan on the fundamentals, I would have to ask if you agreed with him on giving amnesty and citizenship to illegal aliens... He did that...remember?
Ronald Reagan as a five-term president of the Screen Actors Guild. He was considered a liberal Democrat until the 1950s, and he supported FDR's New Deal, and Truman's “Fair Deal.” He even campaigned for the New Deal. Did you agree with that? As Governor of California Reagan signed the “Therapeutic Abortion Law” in 1967, greatly increasing the availability of abortion to millions of women. Do you agree with that?
Reagan was in his 50s before anyone began thinking of him as something of a “conservative,” and he was about 60 before I think he really evolved into the “Reagan” we all remember him as.
Sure, Romney has a history, and not all of it is attractive to conservatives. But I think Romney is evolving into a more conservative man, as many conservatives do through their lives as they become more experienced, more educated, and more mature. This is what happened with Reagan, and I suspect it's what you might see in Romney if you keep your eyes and mind open to the possibility that he, like many educated and capable American men, is growing more conservative as he gains more experience.
Going by age, Romney is at about the point in his life where Reagan was when he was elected Governor of California. So one could make a good argument for the possibility that Romney is ahead of Reagan in his development as a conservative.
Certainly, Romney's recent speeches reflect much more of a conservative mindset than he did when he was running for Governor. I'm hopeful, and I've decided to look at our “glass” as half full. While I plan to voice my opinion on all topics and try to push my party's leadership in what I consider to be the correct direction, I'm going to support Romney 100%, because the alternative is 100% sure to destroy us.
I respectfully suggest you consider doing the same. Even if we can just turn “this ship” back half way toward the correct direction we're one hell of lot better off than we'll be if we leave Obama at “the wheel.”
No, the purpose is to find out what the Democrats and MSM will find out, and either come up with a defense or make it clear to the GOPe that his weaknesses can't be defended.
Do you honestly believe that if we say "Romney has his weaknesses, but he's better than the alternative", that the MSM will leave it at at that. No. The MSM will find out what they can. It will be "white and delightsome" and anything else they can find 24/7. Assuming there is an answer for any of this, open discussion is the only way to come to that answer, and FR is the only forum I know of where we can have that open discussion.
Again, you have two choices. Romney's record is already pretty clear.
The only thing clear to me is that Romney isn't as far to the left as Obama. Apart from that, I'm not sure.
As for your suspicion that I'd agree with Romney on 50% of issues, you may be right.
I was referring to his flip-flopping.
But again, if we can even turn the country half way back toward sanity and a constitutional government we're moving the right direction. We know the alternative.
Very good point, and I expect to go with that in November because I doubt there will be an alternative that can win. But if the MSM has its way, Romney won't be able to win either. Again, asking me to hold off on criticizing Romney won't do a bit of good, because you know as well as I do that as soon as his nomination is official, the MSM will dig up any dirt they can. We'd better be ready, and the GOPe better know who they're nominating before they make it official.
As you said, the liberals will provide plenty of attention to Romney's previous weaknesses and failings. Reagan was something of a “flip-flopper,” too, if you recall. Some of those things he's done that I listed previously are things he said he regretted doing. So as I said, Reagan developed into a conservative over time.
I hope the same thing is happening with Romney. As long as his “flip-flopping” is toward favoring the more conservative point of view I'm happy, and it's just as possible for me to be correct about Romney today as it would it have been about Reagan if I were having this same conversation with you about Reagan about 35 years ago.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Romney's only positive at this point is that he isn't Obama. That's good enough for me, but it may not be good enough for the Independents who will vet him and also want answers.
you're not helping anyone by raising Romney's negatives.
I'm not hurting anything either, as his negatives are going to come out anyway. By forcing the conversation, we either address and answer the issues, or drive the point home to the GOPe that they can't answer these issues.
As you said, the liberals will provide plenty of attention to Romney's previous weaknesses and failings.
But will we provide answers? Not if we sweep all of this under the rug, where the MSM will dig it out anyway.
Reagan was something of a “flip-flopper,” too, if you recall. Some of those things he's done that I listed previously are things he said he regretted doing. So as I said, Reagan developed into a conservative over time.
But Reagan was a Conservative when he ran. I'm not sure Romney is. Care to convince me?
I hope the same thing is happening with Romney. As long as his “flip-flopping” is toward favoring the more conservative point of view I'm happy, and it's just as possible for me to be correct about Romney today
If that's actually happening, great, but I'm not sure it is anything but pandering.
as it would it have been about Reagan if I were having this same conversation with you about Reagan about 35 years ago.
Reagan was a Conservative in 1980. I'm not sold Romney is now.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
You're welcome.
You could have easily argued that Reagan was pro-union, pro-abortion, pro-welfare, and an advocate of the big government approach to every problem. Certainly, he invited such comments right up to when he was in his 60s.
I think Reagan would even agree that he was still evolving into the conservative Reagan we knew right up to that last year or two prior to his election.
Some might make a strong argument that in consideration of the amnesty bill he signed in the White House he never was a true conservative.
I know it is snopes, but they would have a hard time fudging this. It doesn’t make the conservatives look good to pass on out right lies.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/medicare.asp
You also don't have to convince me because at this point, anyone is better than Obama.
I only want you and the GOPe to see the risk in nominating Romney, which is that the MSM will have a field day with his religion. Fair or not, that's how it will be. If we're going with Romney, then we need to be ready to defend him against attacks we know are coming. If we can't defend him...
Agree or not, thanks for the civil discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.