Mr VJP

http://www.speroforum.com/a/30215/Now-we-know-what-is-in-Obamacare Democrats expected opposition to subside as Americans grew to appreciate its merit. But nearly a year after Obama signed the bill, a recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows that 56 percent want Obamacare repealed. Twenty-six states filed lawsuits arguing that Obamacare violates the Constitution, specifically the mandate that requires every American to purchase heath insurance. The now GOP-controlled House voted 245-189 to repeal it, with more voting for its repeal than voted for its passage. The number of Obamacare waivers given to companies and organizations recently passed 900. In his recent testimony before the House, Medicare's chief actuary called it "false, more so than true" that Obamacare will decrease medical costs. As for Obama's assertion that if people like their current health insurance they could keep it, the Medicare official called this "not true in all cases." So, what to do about "Obamacare," an expensive, unpopular, legally dubious piece of legislation that most voters oppose? Why, change its name, of course. Why not use an expression that most voters hope accurately reflects its fate? How about "toast"?

IRS Requests Army of Bureaucrats to Facilitate Obamacare Implementation By Lachlan Markay | February 16, 2011 | 15:42 Obamacare will not be fully implemented for another three years, but the Internal Revenue Service is already requesting money for the legion of bureaucrats required to oversee its implementation. The IRS has requested funds for an additional 1,054 employees in 2012 alone, hirings that would cost taxpayers $359 million.

I can think of no quotation more appropriate than this one: "Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” - From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (1957) The proliferation of regulations (and the punishments associated with even unintentionally breaching those regulations) associated with Obamacare is designed to make of the medical profession and the private sector providers of all health care services into a class of people essentially subject to penal servitude, with no doctor, no nurse, no medical technician, no hospital administrator in this country capable of resisting the imposition of coercive command by politicians and bureaucrats of the federal and state governments. The objective of Barry Soetoro (who never did legally change his name back to “Barack Hussein Obama” after having been adopted by Lolo Soetoro and becoming a citizen of Indonesia in his childhood) and the rest of the National Socialist Party has been to conscript the entirety of the health care sector of the U.S. economy into a regimen of dirigisme guaranteed to simultaneously bankrupt the nation and deliver the American people into the same kind of medical care enjoyed by the proletariat in the old Soviet Union.

AAPS Executive Director, Jane Orient, M.D. also read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and summarizes her findings in an upcoming article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Download the pre-publication version: www.jpands.org/vol15no3/orient.pdf.

In her new book, The Truth About Obamacare, Sally C. Pipes—president of the Pacific Research Institute and an acknowledged expert on health care reform— (How's that for a knowledgable unbiased source Virgil?) - reveals what Democrats in Congress and President Obama don't want you to know: Obamacare is even worse than most critics suspect. Debunking the myths that the current administration has touted, Pipes shows exactly what the new health care law will mean for you, your family, your doctor, and your wallet. She also reveals how, contrary to its promises, Obamacare will make health care more expensive, limit your options, lead to deteriorating medical care, and weaken America’s already frail economy. From the Inside Flap This is going to hurt. On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law a bill that will lead to the largest expansion of government in the history of the United States. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was more than 2,400 pages long and will reportedly cost a cool $1 trillion over ten years, give or take a few hundred billion. But sticker shock is just the beginning. In The Truth about Obamacare, Sally Pipes shows how Obama’s health care “reform” will crash into our economy and culture with a tidal wave of regulations that, taken together, will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and see our doctors. How will all those changes affect you, your family, and your fellow Americans? Pipes goes over the bill with a fine-tooth comb, laying out the specifics of how and why Obamacare: * will drive the country’s health care bill ever higher, according to the government’s own economists * empowers bureaucrats to deny coverage of cutting-edge medicines in order to save the government money * will exacerbate our nation’s shortage of doctors—and in fact, is already causing many to close up shop * will make health care less affordable by forbidding insurers from offering inexpensive, bare-bones policies * ratchets up Medicare payroll taxes—and adds brand new taxes on income—interest, capital gains, and dividends * achieves every penny of its supposed “savings” through a series of legislative and accounting gimmicks * creates a huge new enforcement bureaucracy—including 16,000 new IRS agents and an astounding 159 new boards and commissions—to hound taxpayers, businesses, hospitals, doctors, and insurers into compliance * will still leave 23 million Americans uninsured by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Is it too late to stop Obamacare? By no means, argues Pipes—who shows how Americans can, and must, force its repeal. Then, she offers ten principles for real reform that would make health care accessible and affordable for all without destroying individual freedom, quality treatment, medical innovation, and the economy.

You see those page numbers Virgil, those are facts. Pull the bill up yourself and prove me wrong. You are claiming the facts I post are only opinion, yet you have posted nothing but opinion. I think we can all see who's posts are inaccurate on this thread. Post something from the bill to prove I'm inaccurate about anything if you can. Oh wait, you just admitted you don't even know what the bill even says, yet you feel you have the evidence to claim I'm inaccurate in my posts. Does anyone else see the fallacy in this guys posts? Post some proof for once.

Virgil, your entire block of posts on this thread amounts to calling everyone else innaccurate and presumptuous, without offering a single shred of factual evidence to back up your opinion. So I can only assume you are suffering from a superiority complex or delusions of grandeur. You really expect us to believe you have any idea what is in this healthcare bill? Perhaps you should do some research before you decide you have it all figured out. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS: ObamaCare Highlighted by Page Number [table][tr][td] THE CARE BILL HB3200 THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious Please read this..... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59 JUDGE KITHIL wrote: ** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. ** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. ** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). ** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) ** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. ** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospitals will ration care according to the patient's age. ** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. ** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..) ** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on: "Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare.[/t][/t][/td][/tr][/table]

I'll ask nicely again..... Please be so kind as to enlighten all of us to an unbiased, non-partisan source that will prove your opinion!

If you read what I attached you will see those articles are stating FACTS, not opinions! You think the CATO institute is biased and right wing? : Please be so kind as to enlighten all of us to an unbiased, non-partisan source that will prove your opinion!

Editorial Exegesis Maybe there's a reason for being aware of radical Islam "Rep. Peter King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, will hold hearings this week on Muslim extremism in the United States. The Obama administration and other pro-Islamic activists argue that because the vast majority of American Muslims aren't violent extremists, Congress has no business examining the growing numbers who are. This redirection is tantamount to saying that because most people are law-abiding, the police should ignore the study of criminal psychology. Mr. King's planned hearings will shine a bright light on a challenge the Obama administration has studiously ignored, with fatal results. Overlooking the motives of Muslim terrorists has become an O Force obsession. ... The Obama administration persistently has stricken the concept of Islamic extremism -- whether foreign or domestic -- from U.S. public policy. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security drafted a Domestic Extremist Lexicon that listed Jewish extremism as a threat and described various strands of purportedly dangerous Christian extremism but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. This document was pulled along with other questionable Homeland Security publications once their contents became public. The February 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discussed terrorism and violent extremism but didn't refer to radical Islam in any context. Likewise, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review avoids any terminology related to Islam. Mr. King's hearings are a useful step toward opening up the debate on the pressing problem of domestic Islamic extremism. Mr. Obama's inexplicable tendency to turn aside from the question has harmed the ability of the United States to deal with this threat." --The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/ http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf

And you will enumerate the facts for us so we can all learn how you come to such a ludicrous conclusion? http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/examiner-editorial-obamacare-even-worse-critics-thought http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms You claim I'm not citing facts, which I am, but I don't see anything in your posts but opinion.

Not true at all. The US doesn't have to employ the healthcare providers to take over the system. A government takeover of the American healthcare system is exactly what Obamacare is. The government will now force everyone into the US healthcare system, decide what the costs of all medical procedures will be, decide what insurance companies will exist and what they can charge, decide what procedures you will be entitled to regardless of what your Doctor says, decide how much the doctor gets paid, decide who gets money to go to medical school, decide what you will practice when you get out of medical school, decide who will get donated organs, who will get end of life care and who will not, decide how much prescription drugs will be, etc., etc., etc. The government will also decide who gets FREE medical coverage (at taxpayers expense) like illegal aliens, the poor, criminals, unemployed, homeless and welfare recipients. It will also decide who is exempt from the system. Muslims are exempt on religious reasons because insurance is gambling to them and forbidden by Islam. Many thousands of businesses have been granted waivers and will be allowed to opt out of the system. This is just some of what the bill says. There is not one single area of the American healthcare system left untouched or unregulated by Obamacare. How can anyone even remotely schooled in this bill believe it isn't a take over of the American healthcare system by the government?

It's interesting to see where our money goes, even if no one seems to know why, or is willing to say. There's 192 Countries That Exist In The World & We Give Foreign Aid To Over 150 Of Them!" Rep Poe We don't have the money any more, but it still goes out??

$3.27 in Edison, NJ this morning.

"So in this country we have the liberals -- the progressives -- and their new ideas to change the country and lead us forward. And not just lead us forward, but win the future. Their obstacles are the conservatives who are scared of change and stuck in their old ways of thinking. ... At least that's the conventional wisdom.... Which leads me to what seems to be a really obvious question: What, if any, of the ideas of liberals these days are new? ... With the economy hurting and people crying out for change, what brand new revolutionary idea did they get to first? Have the government spend lots of money. I'll let that sink in for a moment. It's a really new idea; it might take some time to comprehend a concept so novel and revolutionary as that one. I mean, it's not like it's the same solution the Democrats have had for everything for the past one hundred years. Maybe we should tell Europe about this brand new idea; let's get this revolution of government spending lots of money to really spread. And that wasn't the only new idea the liberals had. They also had another innovative idea to save the failing car companies and fix health care. What was it? Well hold on to your hats, because it's pretty crazy and fresh: The government could take over private industry. What a new idea! What a groundbreaking way of looking at things! ... But the new ideas don't stop there. Have you heard of President Obama's latest idea to really get the economy going? Build fast trains. What an insane new idea! I mean, it's totally something innovative that will 'win the future' and not an economic solution that would seem more in place in the late 1800s. Some of you may have been confused by those last few paragraphs; what I was doing was being insincere in a humorous way. It's a brand new thing called 'sarcasm' -- just as new as all those liberal ideas. Seriously, though, shouldn't 'liberal' or 'progressive,' when used to describe the left, be in scare quotes, because what exactly are they pushing that isn't some old, failed idea of the last century?" --humor columnist Frank J. Fleming

"In fiscal year 2010, according to a recent report from The Heritage Foundation, the Obama administration adopted regulations that will cost more than $26.5 billion a year. The nanny state isn't just a nagging do-gooder -- it's a costly scold. ... In a free market, insurers compete for your business. ... But with the array of new rules we now have, courtesy of President Obama's signature health bill, Washington isn't making it easy for you. A laundry list of new regulations are decreeing what insurance companies can offer, including coverage for dependent children up to age 26, no coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and no co-pays or deductibles for preventative services. ... Fuel economy standards are no better. By increasing the cost of new cars, they cause more drivers to stick with older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. And research shows that by lowering the per-mile cost of driving, fuel standards actually induce people to drive more -- defeating the purpose of having the standards in the first place. Tax bills are just part of what you pay for government. Federal regulations cost the average American household some $17,500 per year. It's time Congress put a stop to this expensive meddling. Rolling back the $26.5 billion in rules added just last year would be a good start." --Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner

Driving laws require all vehicle operators to be in full control of their vehicles at all times. Therefore operating a vehicle under the influence of booze, pot, prescription drugs, or anything like that, is already illegal. Using any distracting device, like a cell phone or GPS, is also currently covered under the careless driving laws. Legalizing anything in society does not mean it would be legal to use while driving. People that are responsible drivers will not get behind the wheel if they are not in control. People who are not responsible drivers are already out there on the highway with you. BTW, one of the biggest threats to drivers on the road today are tired drivers who fall asleep.

Hey Doc, Welcome Back! I think the law specifies it must be a "detachable" magazine as well. So a tube feed rifle is OK to have.

Sent you a PM

A similar bill was proposed in NJ two months ago. It never even got to the floor. There was such an outcry the woman who proposed, it pulled it. These bills do serve as evidence of the tax, spend and control attitude of the Democrats. These oppressive bills always come from that party. How can people not see they want to be King.

Ask your Grandpa to help you do it. He can just watch you and instruct you. I think he'll be happy you want to do it. If he knows how to do it, he can tell you how to do it. We do it with all the hunters in the group helping out. Only takes about 1 hour from the start and we have a good time telling stories and joking around while we do it. It can be a good time. Most times we butcher two or three deer in a night when we have a good season. Everyone gets their share of the meat to take home.

$85 a deer?? You need to learn how to do it yourself so you can save that cash and put more meat in the freezer. I never paid to have a deer cut up, cause my mentors showed me how to do it when I was 15. That was 40 years and at least 30 deer ago. I'm not saying pot can't be a gateway high, but it isn't always a gateway high.

That's OK antler, but if it were true that pot absolutely leads to harder drug use, how could any state allow it to be used for medicinal purposes? It's not the pot itself that makes a person use other drugs, it's the person's desire to abuse drugs. Data proves there are millions of pot smokers in America that have smoked it for decades, but never even tried any harder drugs. Imagine if the government wanted to ban hunting and said that hunting animals eventually leads to the killing of people. It's propaganda and not verifiable from any actual data. Although you may see murderers often killed a lot of animals prior to killing their first human. The other paragraph about the lower use of hard drugs where pot is legal comes from data that is currently being collected from areas in the country where pot has be legalized for medicinal use, or where the possession laws are not being enforced. BTW, I do not smoke any pot or use any type of drugs, I don't even drink to excess, as I'm a fitness buff. No one in my family does either and most are in law enforcement or the military. I just have to throw down a flag whenever I see the government lying to the public about anything for it's own oppressive reasons.