Friday, December 27, 2013

Government steals your home under "Free Obamacare"

Fine print: State can seize your assets to pay for care after you’re forced into Medicaid by Obamacare

My, this is an unpleasant consequence of Obamacare. I’m not going to call it unintended because in its current form, it potentially earns a bunch of money for states, so I’m pretty sure that’s intentional. What I think is unintentional is anyone noticing this is what they’re up to.

But the Seattle Times noticed:

It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sophia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.

It was the fine print.

As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form — Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.

She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said.
So, here’s the deal. There used to be a provision whereby the state could recuperate funds spent on a Medicaid patient post-55 years old from whatever assets he owned. So, a low-income individual in nursing home care after age 55 might pass away and his kids would find out the family home or car of whatever he had to his name had to be bought back from the state if they wanted it. It’s called estate recovery, and sounds pretty shady if it’s not boldly advertised as the terms for Medicaid enrollment, which is most definitely is not.

Before the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there weren’t that many people in Medicaid who had much in the way of assets for seizing. But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:

People cannot receive a tax credit to subsidize their purchase of a private health plan if their income qualifies them for Medicaid, said Bethany Frey, spokeswoman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.

But they could buy a health plan without a tax credit, she added.

For someone age 55 to 64 at the Medicaid-income level — below $15,856 a year — it’s quite a jump from free Medicaid health insurance to an unsubsidized individual plan. Premiums in King County for an age 60 non-tobacco user for the most modest plan run from $451 to $859 per month.
The couple in the Times story was able to marry, combine their incomes, and get out of the Medicaid trap. Others will not be so lucky, and may not even read the fine print:

Prins, an artist, and Balhorn, a retired fisherman-turned-tango instructor, separately qualified for health insurance through Medicaid based on their sole incomes.

But if they were married, they calculated, they could “just squeak by” with enough income to qualify for a subsidized health plan — and avoid any encumbrance on the home they hope to leave to Prins’ two sons.
For no one else in the world is it a-okay to give low-income people a loan that might endanger their family’s assets and not even clearly inform them they’re getting a loan.

This Daily Kos diarist has a nice write-up (I know) on the toll this could take on lower and middle-class people looking for relief and getting what amounts to a surprise predatory loan instead:

We haven’t had lots of people younger than 65 on Medicaid, because in most states simply earning less than the Federal Poverty Level did not qualify one for Medicaid.

And we haven’t had many people with lots of assets on Medicaid, because in most places you have to have less than around $2400 to your name before Medicaid will cover you. You can keep your house and your car, but Medicaid reserves the right to put liens on them and take them when you die.

But now we have the Affordable Care Act, and its expectation that everyone in the lower tier of income will end up in the Medicaid system. To accomplish this, they have dropped the asset test. So now we will have lots of people ages 55-64, who have assets but not a lot of income right now, for whatever reason, on Medicaid.

The kicker of it is, if you make the right amount to qualify for a subsidized health insurance plan, your costs are going to be shared and subsidized by the government. But if you go on Medicaid, you owe the entire amount that Medicaid spends on you from the day you turn 55…

How will this play out? No one knows, as far as I can tell. But it is easy to see how this could become a real problem. If someone is low income and goes on Medicaid, will Medicaid put a lien on their house? If they need to sell their house and move, will they then lose all their equity in paying off the lien? Will people get hit with bills and liens for many thousands of dollars, even if they were healthy and hardly ever went to the doctor?
The fact that this is being treated with seriousness at Kos is an indication of how large a liability it could be for this government program. Washington is scrambling to change the law. No doubt other states will start looking at their implementation of this part of Obamacare. But there will be people caught unaware that their houses effectively belong to the government because the government forced them into Medicaid coverage. You’re welcome!

Thursday, December 26, 2013

A must read!

Professor Laura Hollis of Notre Dame ... A MUST READ!

Laura Hollis is a professor at the University of Notre Dame

November 20, 2013/10:42 AM

The unveiling of the dictatorial debacle that is Obamacare absolutely flabbergasts me. It is stunning on so many levels, but the most shocking aspect of it for me is watching millions of free Americans stand idly by while this man, his minions in Congress and his cheerleaders in the press systematically dismantle our Constitution, steal our money, and crush our freedoms.
The President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (with no small help from Justice John Roberts) take away our health care, and we allow it. They take away our insurance, and we allow it. They take away our doctors, and we allow it. They charge us thousands of dollars more a year, and we allow it. They make legal products illegal, and we allow it. They cripple our businesses, and we allow it. They announce by fiat that we must ignore our most deeply held beliefs – and we allow it.

Where is your spine, America?

Yes, I know people are complaining. I read the news on the internet. I read blogs. I have a Twitter feed. So what? People in the Soviet Union complained. People in Cuba complain. People in China complain (quietly). Complaining isn't the same thing as doing anything about it. In fact, much of the complaining that we hear sounds like resignation: Wow. This sucks. Oh well, this is the way things are. Too bad.

Perhaps you need reminding of a few important facts. Here goes:

1. The President is not a king. Barack Obama does not behave like a President, an elected official, someone who realizes that he works for us. He behaves like a king, a dictator – someone who believes that his own pronouncements have the force of law, and who thinks he can dispense with the law's enforcement when he deigns to do so. And those of us who object? How dare we? Racists!

And while he moves steadily "forward" with his plans to "fundamentally transform" the greatest country in human history, he distracts people with cheap, meaningless trivialities, like "free birth control pills"! (In fact, let's face it: this administration's odd obsession with sex in general - Birth control! Abortion! Sterilization! Gay guys who play basketball! -- is just plain weird. Since when did the leader of the free world care so much about how people have sex, who they have it with, and what meds they use when they have it? Does he have nothing more important to concern himself with?)

2. It isn't just a failed software program; it is a failed philosophy. People are marveling that was such a spectacular failure. Well, if one is only interested in it as a product launch, I've explained some of the reasons for that here. But the larger point is that it isn't a software failure, or even a product failure; it is a philosophy failure.

I have said this before: Obama is not a centrist; he is a central planner. And this – all of it: the disastrous computer program, the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, the lies, the manipulation of public opinion, the theft of the public's money and property, and freedom (read insurance, and premiums, and doctors) -- IS what central planning looks like.

The central premise of central planning is that a handful of wunderkinds with your best interests at heart (yeah, right) know better than you what's good for you. The failure of such a premise and the misery it causes have been clear from the dawn of humanity. Kings and congressmen, dictators and Dear Leaders, potentates, princes and presidents can all fall prey to the same imperial impulses: "we know what is good the 'the people.'

And they are always wrong.

There is a reason that the only times communism has really been tried have been after wars, revolutions, or coups d'état. You have to have complete chaos for people to be willing to accept the garbage that centralized planning produces. Take the Soviet Union , for example. After two wars, famine, and the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, why wouldn't people wait in line for hours to buy size 10 shoes? Or settle for the gray matter that passed for meat in the grocery stores?

But communism's watered-down cousin, socialism, isn't much better. Ask the Venezuelans who cannot get toilet paper. Toilet paper. ¡Viva la Revolución!

Contrary to what so many who believe in a "living Constitution" say, the Founding Fathers absolutely understood this. That is why the Constitution was set up to limit government power. (Memo to the President: the drafters of the Constitution deliberately didn't say "what government had to do on your behalf.") They understood that that was the path to folly, fear, and famine.)

3. Obama is deceitful. Just as the collapse of the computer program should not surprise anyone, neither should we be shocked that the President lied about his healthcare plan. Have any of you been paying attention over the past few years? Obama has made no secret of his motivations or his methods. The philosophies which inspire him espouse deceit and other vicious tactics. (Don' t take my word for it: read Saul Alinsky.) Obama infamously told reporter Richard Wolffe, "You know, I actually believe my own bullshit." He has refused to be forthcoming about his past (where are his academic records?). His own pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, told author Ed Klein, that Obama said to him, "You know what your problem is? You have to tell the truth."

Did Obama lie when he said dozens of times, "If you like you plan, you can keep it. Period!"? Of course he did. That's what he does.

4. The media is responsible. And had the media been doing their jobs, we would have known a lot of this much, much h earlier.

The press is charged with the sacred responsibility of protecting the people from the excesses of government. Our press has been complicit, incompetent, or corrupt. Had they vetted this man in 2008, as they would have a Republican candidate, we would have known far more about him than we do, even now. Had they pressed for more details about Obamacare, Congress' feet would have been held to the fire. Had they done their jobs about Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, NSA spying - or any of the other myriad betrayals of the public trust that this administration has committed, Obama would likely have lost his 2012 reelection campaign. (A fact that even The Washington Post has tacitly acknowledged. Well done, fellas! Happy now?)

Instead, they turned a blind eye, even when they knew he was lying, abusing power, disregarding the limits of the Constitution. It was only when he began to spy on them, and when the lies were so blatant that the lowest of low-information voters could figure it out that they realized they had to report on it. (Even in the face of blatant, deliberate and repeated lies, The New York Times has the audacity to tell us that the President "misspoke.") They have betrayed us, abandoned us, and deceived us.

5. Ted Cruz was right. So was Sarah Palin. The computer program is a disaster. The insurance exchanges are a disaster. What's left? The healthcare system itself. and this, of necessity, will be a disaster, too.

Millions of people have lost their individual insurance plans. In 2015, millions more will lose their employer-provided coverage (a fact which the Obama administration also knew, and admitted elsewhere).

The exorbitant additional costs that Obamacare has foisted on unsuspecting Americans are all part of a plan of wealth confiscation and redistribution. That is bad enough. But it will not end there. When the numbers of people into the system and the corresponding demand for care vastly exceed the cost projections (and they will, make no mistake), then the rationing will start. Not only choice at that point, but quality and care itself will go down the tubes. And then will come the decisions made by the Independent Payment Advisory Board about what care will be covered (read "paid for") and what will not.

That's just a death panel, put politely. In fact, progressives are already greasing the wheels for acceptance of that miserable reality as well. They're spreading the lie that it will be about the ability of the dying to refuse unwanted or unhelpful care. Don't fall for that one, either. It will be about the deaths that inevitably result from decisions made by people other than the patients, their families, and their physicians. (Perhaps it's helpful to think of their assurances this way: "If you like your end-of-life care, you can keep your end-of-life-care.")

6. We are not SUBJECTS. (Or, Nice Try, the Tea Party isn’t Going Away). We have tolerated these incursions into our lives and livelihoods too long already. There is no end to the insatiable demand "progressives" have to remake us in their image. Today it is our insurance, our businesses, our doctors, our health care. Tomorrow some new crusade will be announced that enables them to take over other aspects of our formerly free lives.

I will say it again: WE ARE NOT SUBJECTS. Not only is the Tea Party right on the fiscal issues, but it appears that they are more relevant than ever. We fought a war once to prove we did not want to be the subjects of a king, and the Boston Tea Party was just a taste of the larger conflict to come. If some people missed that lesson in history class, we can give them a refresher.

The 2014 elections are a good place to start. Call your representative, your senator, your candidate and tell them: "We are not subjects. You work for us. And if the word "REPEAL" isn't front and center in your campaign, we won't vote for you. Period."

Laura Hollis is an attorney and teaches entrepreneurship and business law at the University of Notre Dame

And this comes from Notre Dame.  What a powerful and true letter!

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Hillary for President?

The Anadolu Agency interviewed wife of Morsi, the ousted president who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood. She is known as Om Ahmad 'Mother of Ahmed".

Interviewer: Do you have ties with Barak Obama?
Om Ahmad: It was the Muslim Brotherhood who helped Barak Obama to win twice.

Interviewer: What about Hillary Clinton?
Om Ahmad: Hillary Clinton relies on us to help her win the presidential election.

Interviewer: Do you stay in touch with Hillary Clinton?
Om Ahmad: Our communications never stopped. She always uses official and non-official brothers and sisters of the Muslim Brotherhood to help her solve problems with the Middle East issues.

Interviewer: Who leads the jihadest (fighters) after the arrest of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Om Ahmad: Their wives.

The whole text of the interview in Arabic:

فى حوار لها مع "وكالة انباء الاناضول"، ادلت السيدة الاولى زوجة الرئيس المصرى "محمد مرسى" بتصريحات هامة، و طلبت ان نناديها باسم ابنها البكر "ام احمد". 
تربطك صداقة عائلية مع ميسز "هيلارى كلينتون"، فهل لا تزال صديقة لك، بعد "الانقلاب العسكرى" ضد زوجك؟! 
"ام احمد": زوجى مختطف منذ شهور، و سيعود من الاختطاف، و يمارس مهامه الشرعية كرئيس للبلاد، قريبا جدا، و اقرب مما تتصورون، و سيدفع الانقلابيون ثمنا باهظا للخيانة، اما ميسز "كلينتون" فتربطنا بها منذ سنوات طويلة، صداقة عائلية، فقد عشنا فى الولايات المتحدة الامريكية، و تعلم ابنائى هناك، و توطدت اكثر بعد ان اصبح زوجى رئيسا شرعيا منتخبا للبلاد. 
هل تراجعت تلك الصداقة بينكما فى الاشهر الاخيرة؟ 
"ام احمد": العكس هو الصحيح، فاتصالاتنا لم تنقطع، و جميعها مسجلة، و هى تستعين باخوة و اخوات من الجماعة، بصورة رسمية و غير رسمية، لمساعدتها فى ادارة الازمات الخاصة بمنطقة "الشرق الاوسط"، بالاضافة الى بعض البيزنيس المشترك، و هى تعتمد علينا بدرجة كبيرة، فى انجاحها فى الانتخابات الرئاسية القادمة، مثلما فعلنا مرتين مع الرئيس الامريكى "باراك اوباما". 
و ماذا عن علاقتك بالسيدة الاولى "ميشيل اوباما"؟ 
"ام احمد": علاقتنا طيبة، لكنها لم ترتقى الى درجة الصداقة. 
"هوما عابدين"، هل هى قريبة لك؟! 
"ام احمد": ارفض التعرض لاسماء بعينها، لكنكم تعلمون ان لنا ابناء و بنات فى "البيت الابيض"، و بعض الاجهزة الحساسة، فى الولايات المتحدة الامريكية، و اكثر من سبعين دولة حول العالم، و املك بين اصابع يدىّ خزينة اسرارهم، و لهذا يخشون غضبتى. 
هل هناك ما يمنع من قيادة النساء للمجاهدين من الرجال؟! 
"ام احمد": على العكس، و انا حاليا اقود المجاهدين، و معى زوجات فضليات من نساء الجماعة، و بعضهن لازواج مختطفين ايضا، و اقول لهن ان الصبر على الحرمان من حقوقهن الشرعية له عظيم الاجر، و لو استشهد ازواجهن، سنزوجهن بمجرد انتهاء فترة العدّة، و سننفق على ابنائهن، كما ان سلطات "الاحتلال"، تخشى التعرض للنساء. 
هل اموال الجماعة على هذا القدر من الضخامة اذن؟ 
"ام احمد": نحن فى حالة حرب و جهاد، و لنا الغنائم، وفقا لشرع المولى عز و جلّ، و ننفق بسخاء لاجل اعلاء كلمة الله و راية الاسلام. 
هل سنرى راية الاسلام ترفرف فى الدول الغربية قريبا؟ 
"ام احمد": ان شاء الله. ان شاء الله. بمجرد ان نطبق الحدود على الكافرين هنا. 
هل تقلقك الحملة الاعلامية الشرسة ضد جماعة الاخوان، ووصفها بالارهاب، و محاولة تشويه صورتها امام العالم؟! 
"ام احمد": مطلقا. فرجالنا يعلمون تماما ما يجب عمله، و لا يدخرون جهدا و لا مالا و لا ابتكارا، و لست اخاف من ان اعلن اننا نعد "لانقلاب ضد الانقلاب"، كما اننا فى حالة حرب و جهاد، و لدينا المام بكل ادوات الحرب، القديم منها و الحديث، و احتفظ لنفسى بالتفاصيل، لان الحرب خدعة، و لن يهدأ بالى الا بتعليق الخونة جميعهم على المشانق

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

He's not just ruthless. He's without scruples and honor.

America has had some great presidents, many mediocre ones and a few bad ones. But we've never had one like Barack Obama. 

He's the first who thinks the job is beneath him.

He's the first who turns political give-and-take into a crisis by refusing to
negotiate with Congress.

He's the first who thinks the way to more power is to inflict pain on ordinary
The move to barricade the World War II memorial reveals the mentality of a tin-pot
dictator. The limited government shutdown did not need to affect the memorial because
it is open 24 hours, without gates and often without guards. 
But to turn public opinion in his favor, Obama's goons trucked in barricades to keep out World War II vets and other visitors. By one estimate, the barricades and workers cost $100,000.

The same punish-the-people attitude led to shutdowns of other parks and historic
sites that get no federal funding.
"We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting," a Park Service ranger told The Washington Times.
The ranger cited the order to close the parking lot at George Washington's home in Mount Vernon so visitors couldn't use it. The cheap trick captured the contrast between a revered
president and the current one.

I've been saying for a while that there is no bottom to Obama. He's not just ruthless. He's without scruples and honor.
Now the shutdown has ended, it will bring only a temporary respite from the crisis
atmosphere in Washington.
When it comes to his countrymen, Obama always chooses conflict over cooperation.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter can rest easy. We have a new worst president.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Barack Obama Identified

DID GEORGE WASHINGTON PREDICT AMERICA’S FALL? Barack Obama Identified in 1st president’s Farewell Address.

by: Benjamin Franklin
george washington snow
(Matt Barber, WND)  America’s reluctant first chief executive sought to forestall the predictably devastating consequences of a national break from America’s Judeo-Christian moorings.
In fact, during his Farewell Address, Washington spoke of exactly the kind of subversive, anti-theist provocateurs who make up the aforementioned ACLU, FFRF, et al. He called them unpatriotic. He underscored the critical role religion and morality play to our national survival and, though he did not specifically identify them as such, warned of secular-”progressives” like Barack Obama – a man who, exposed as a serial liar, would later bring great shame upon the noble office Washington first held.
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,” declared Washington, “Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … [R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Regrettably, Washington’s parting words exemplify, to a great extent, the current state of affairs in the very government he helped to bring about.
“Let it simply be asked,” he warned, “‘where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”
Where indeed? Not only have our courts of justice abandoned any “sense of religious obligation,” they increasingly seek to subvert “we the people’s” very freedom to exercise such obligation.
Is it any wonder, then, that, with a government that weaponizes the IRS, brushes off the gross moral failings of our public servants and facilitates the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of its most vulnerable citizens – security for property, reputation and life has disappeared?
Continued Washington: “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
That “necessary spring” of “virtue and morality” has run dry. A “constitutional right” for sodomy-based “marriage”? – a sin both Washington and the criminal codes called an “infamous crime”? Seriously? A government mandate that Christians fund your abortion homicide, despite a non-negotiable biblical command to do no such thing? Are you kidding?
The foundation has fractured. The fabric has frayed.
In 1788, eight years prior to his Farewell Address, Washington wrote: “[T]he [federal] government … can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.”
We are in danger. As our national virtue melts away, it strains credulity to deny that we are entering, as Washington warned, a dark era of American despotism. Like water to the gulch, such despotism pervades in the absence of religion and morality.
And as history has shown, the despotic nation is not long for the world. Read the full articleby Matt Barber via WND…