What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Busybody]

That's why we have abortion.

Fordham University Professor: Babies Can Be Aborted As “Unjust Aggressors”…




OK, that is seriously f*cked up.

Via LifeNews:


The Fordham University theologian who hosted pro-abortion ethicist Peter Singer on campus last year is now asking whether direct abortion to save the life of a mother could be justified, if the unborn child is deemed “an unjust aggressor.”

Writing at the Catholic Moral Theology website, Fordham theology professor Charles Camosy criticizes Bishop Thomas Olmsted’s 2010 declaration of excommunication of Mercy Sister Margaret McBride for approving an abortion in a Phoenix hospital. Camosy writes that the moral issues in the case were “complex,”making Bishop Olmsted’s decision “inexplicable.”

“The Church can do better,” he writes. If Catholics want to appear “coherent and sensitive” when arguing against abortion, he argues, they should “revisit some ideas that have been largely unexplored, and perhaps prematurely shut down”—such as whether a child in the womb can be regarded an “unjust aggressor,” which might justify the use of lethal force to protect the mother when her life is in danger.

Camosy does not offer a firm answer to the moral question. In fact, in response to a reader’s comment, he writes:

“I am not ‘arguing for the direct targeting of the unborn child as an aggressor.’ I’m asking us to explore why, if at all, we should treat the cases [of unjust aggression]… differently from a prenatal child who threatens her mother’s life.”

 

[Busybody]

HEY, THEY’RE JUST BEING ENTRUSTED WITH YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION: No Background Checks For ObamaCare “Navigators.”

 

[Busybody]

CBO Report: Deficit Was $1.087 Trillion In 2012, All Four Years of Obama’s First Term Saw Deficits In Excess of $1 Trillion…




Quite the achievement, Barack.

Via CNS News:


The Congressional Budget Office last week released updated historical budget data for the federal government, reporting a deficit of $1.087 trillion in fiscal 2012.

2012 marked the fourth straight year—and the only four years in the history of the nation–when the federal government’s deficit topped $1 trillion.

Last year’s $1.087 trillion deficit was even greater in inflation-adjusted dollars than the peak World War II deficit of fiscal 1943—which was $54.554 billion in 1943 dollars and $723.8714 billion in 2012 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics online inflation calculator.

The deficit has also remained at a higher percentage of GDP over the last four years than at any time since the conclusion of World War II (which ended during fiscal 1946, which began in June 1945).

In February, the CBO had initially calculated that the deficit for fiscal 2012, which ended on Sept. 30, 2012, had been $1.0894 trillion. That was based on an estimation that the federal government had taken in $2.4491 trillion in taxes during the year and spent $3,5385 trillion.

 

[Busybody]

Editorial: How President Obama is flouting Obamacare

More reasons to delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law




August 18, 2013



Democrats strong-armed Obamacare into law three years ago. Now they're busy flouting it.

The mandate that employers provide insurance next year or pay a penalty, as the law requires? Delayed for at least a year.

The law's dictate that people applying for federal subsidies to buy insurance provide proof that they're eligible for the government aid? Scaled back.




Sharp limits on Americans' out-of-pocket costs for health care? Suspended for a year.

Providing members of Congress and more than 10,000 staff members with federal health care subsidies that the law does not allow? Done, via a deal brokered by President Barack Obama.

And on and on.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a hugely complex law that sets up online health insurance marketplaces, requires people to have coverage or pay penalties, and doles out subsidies and incentives to nearly everyone in health care. Doctors, hospitals and insurers have spent large sums to gear up for its requirements. Employers are mulling: Hire? Fire? Cut workers' hours?

Millions of Americans, that is, stand to gain or lose from how this law is enforced — with the Obama administration bending that enforcement in ways that test, and arguably exceed, the boundaries of lawful conduct.

Every time the White House undercuts one provision of Obamacare, there is a massive ripple effect on other provisions. It's generally a zero-sum game: When someone gains, someone else loses. Example: When employers are relieved of their mandate to provide insurance, taxpayers risk having to subsidize more of those companies' employees.

The administration asserts that it can make these changes under the president's broad executive authority. Yet critics make a compelling argument that the president is stretching the limits. Former federal appellate Judge Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, writes in The Wall Street Journal about a different sort of mandate: the mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the president "'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' This is a duty, not a discretionary power. ... As the Supreme Court wrote long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes 'would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of Congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'"

Like most issues of presidential authority, this isn't cut and dried. Presidents do have broad discretion on how laws are enforced. But they're on shaky ground when they decide whether to enforce a law. It's not hard to understand why: Imagine the outcry if President Mitt Romney refused to enforce, say, Obamacare.

Granted, any president may decline to enforce statutes he believes are unconstitutional. But Obama is making no such claim here. Basically, he is admitting that parts of law are impossible to enforce on the deadlines imposed by Congress — deadlines he signed into law. He's also admitting he doesn't want to have Congress make these changes, for fear that if lawmakers get their mitts on this unpopular program, they would at least debate far more extensive changes than he'd like.

Congressional Democrats, and some Republicans, may agree with the numerous delays, changes and special favors. But the president invites chaos when he picks which parts of Obamacare to enforce, and which, in retrospect, he has decided are unworkable or unwise.

In a recent news conference, Obama acknowledged that congressional modification of the law is preferable to these White House fiats: "In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up (House Speaker John Boehner) and say, 'You know what? This is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law. ... Let's make a technical change of the law.' That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do, but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to, quote-unquote, 'Obamacare.'''

Tweaks? Obama isn't making tweaks. He's trying to circumvent major flaws that began flaring when the law was enacted. Hence the many carve-outs, delays and special deals that have been piling up since he added his signature to Obamacare on March 23, 2010.

The president crusaded for this law and has embraced its nickname. But he did not write the law. Congress did. Major changes are necessary — he has stipulated by his actions that this law as constituted cannot work — and Congress should legislate them for his review.

Bottom line: Let's delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law. Congress need not start from scratch. Lawmakers can build on what all of us have learned from three years of painful trial and error. Three years of attempting, but failing, to make this clumsy monstrosity work for the American people.


Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

 

[Busybody]

I WONDER WHY IT’S UNPUBLISHED? Unpublished Congressional Research Service Report: Obama Administration Has Missed Half Of Obamacare’s Legally Imposed Implementation Deadlines. Deadlines are for the little people.

 

[koalabear]

I WONDER WHY IT’S UNPUBLISHED? Unpublished Congressional Research Service Report: Obama Administration Has Missed Half Of Obamacare’s Legally Imposed Implementation Deadlines. Deadlines are for the little people.

A few missing minor details, tsk, tsk.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The Derp-twins Dizzy and Koala have been busy. That means it's a great day for America and a bad day for conservative racist shit-stains.

 

[Busybody]

The Derp-twins Dizzy and Koala have been busy. That means it's a great day for America and a bad day for conservative racist shit-stains.

Oh look, the MAGGOT is no quoting Lawn Jockey

 

[koalabear]

The Derp-twins Dizzy and Koala have been busy. That means it's a great day for America and a bad day for conservative racist shit-stains.

Look! The MorbidlyObeseJanitor is back.

 

[koalabear]

Oh look, the MAGGOT is no quoting Lawn Jockey

He's on a break from his job, blowing union janitors.

 

[richard_daily]

you are incorrect

Prove it, dude.

Otherwise, you're just another lying wingnut.

Which of course, you are.

 

[richard_daily]

He's on a break from his job, blowing union janitors.

Don't talk about your boyfriend that way.

 

[koalabear]

Don't talk about your boyfriend that way.

Stick to answering 4 day old posts from jen, lil fag chihuahua.

 

[richard_daily]

Stick to answering 4 day old posts from jen, lil fag chihuahua.

is "he" your boyfriend now?

 

[koalabear]

is "he" your boyfriend now?

Your desperate search for ken is getting pathetic lil fag chihuahua.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Derp-twins Dizzy and Koala have been busy. That means it's a great day for America and a bad day for conservative racist shit-stains.

Preach it, brother!

 

[Busybody]

Over 100K New Jersey Residents to Lose Health Plan Under Obamacare





The latest casualty of Obamacare may be a low-cost New Jersey healthcare policy. Though President Obama has promised, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period,” that will not be the case for approximately 106,000 New Jersey residents whose plans will disappear under the law.

Known as the “basic and essential,” or B&E, health-care plans, the policy costs as little as a couple hundred dollars per month and is the choice of 71 percent of New Jersey residents covered by the individual healthcare market. It provides minimum coverage for things like doctor’s visits and procedures that don’t involve a hospital stay. According to the Newark Star-Ledger, B&E policy holders will, under Obamacare, “be left with may be a choice among pricey, pricier and priciest” plans.

So what will happen to the B&E plans? As it turns out, they do not meet the regulations imposed by the Affordable Care Act because they do not cover services deemed essential under the law. The Star-Ledger warns that B&E customers who don’t qualify for a federal tax credit to purchase insurance can likely expect an three or fourfold increase in the cost of their next plan. According to Rutgers University’s Center for State Health Policy director Joel Cantor, the monthly plans of $150 for a 25 year-old male or $1,100 for a family with parents in their 40s would “easily” be three or four times more for a standard policy on the individual market.

Last year, about a quarter of those enrolled in B&E plans were under the age of 24. The plan is also popular among those who retire early and are looking for a cheap alternative to healthcare before qualifying for Medicare.

 

[Busybody]

Dem Sen. Mary Landrieu “Embarrassed” To Be An American When She Goes To Europe Because Some People Here Lack Health Insurance…


http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Mary-Landrieu-550x229.jpg

Typical lib.

Via TWS:


shuld be embarressed looking like a PIG

Democratic senator Mary Landrieu says she’s embarrassed to go to places in Europe like France and Spain because some Americans do not have health insurance. Landrieu, who is up for reelection in 2014, represents the state of Louisiana.

“People are scared when they’re sick, and they’re much stronger when they’re well,” Landrieu said at a Friday lunch, according to the American Press. “It’s embarrassing to me to go to places like France and Spain … and their workers all manage to have health insurance that can’t be taken away.”

 

[koalabear]

Dem Sen. Mary Landrieu “Embarrassed” To Be An American When She Goes To Europe Because Some People Here Lack Health Insurance…


http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Mary-Landrieu-550x229.jpg

Typical lib.

Via TWS:


shuld be embarressed looking like a PIG

Democratic senator Mary Landrieu says she’s embarrassed to go to places in Europe like France and Spain because some Americans do not have health insurance. Landrieu, who is up for reelection in 2014, represents the state of Louisiana.

“People are scared when they’re sick, and they’re much stronger when they’re well,” Landrieu said at a Friday lunch, according to the American Press. “It’s embarrassing to me to go to places like France and Spain … and their workers all manage to have health insurance that can’t be taken away.”

Weight Watchers may help her with that embarrassment.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you have health insurance?
Does your family?

 

[Busybody]

NEWSPAPER THAT ENDORSED OBAMA ADMITS THE TEA PARTY WAS RIGHT: Chicago Tribune: How President Obama is flouting Obamacare: More reasons to delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law. “Granted, any president may decline to enforce statutes he believes are unconstitutional. But Obama is making no such claim here. Basically, he is admitting that parts of law are impossible to enforce on the deadlines imposed by Congress — deadlines he signed into law. He’s also admitting he doesn’t want to have Congress make these changes, for fear that if lawmakers get their mitts on this unpopular program, they would at least debate far more extensive changes than he’d like.”

 

[Busybody]

Do you have health insurance?
Does your family?

STFU with BO GASS Strawmen

 

[RobDownSouth]

Afraid to answer, kosher chicken? Hmmm?

 

[Busybody]

White House Launching Video Contest Where Participants Will Sing About The Joys of Obamacare…




Nice to see the White House outsourcing their Obamacare propaganda efforts.


WASHINGTON — With precious time remaining before the health care exchanges established by the president’s health care law are up and running, the Obama administration is rolling out new initiatives to encourage enrollment.

The latest of these is set to be unveiled on Monday, when the Department of Health and Human Services will debut a video contest — complete with cash prizes — designed to persuade younger consumers to get insurance.

The administration will partner with Young Invincibles, a non-profit youth issues organization, to run the contest, with the goal of reaching those younger Americans who are skeptical of the need for health coverage.

Participants will be encouraged to submit three different types of videos advertising the benefits of the exchanges: a song, an animated short, or a video designed to convince viewers that they aren’t invincible. Using funds from the Affordable Care Act’s education and outreach budget, HHS will award $3,000 each to the creators of the three most popular and persuasive videos, while second and third place winners will get $2,500 each.

 

[Busybody]

Afraid to answer, kosher chicken? Hmmm?

everyone in America that wants health insurance

HAS it or can GET IT!