Aprils Fool's Day

Today's is the day where all the pranksters and other people that you would like to see boiled in oil and smothered in honey and dripped in fireants have their day starting workplace rumors and causing chaos where they go.

     And to the biggest joker that resides in the white house, there was some presser where the president was touting that 7.1 million people have signed up for obunglercare. ...He is doing this to settle down the democrats that supported this train wreck and are afraid of the bloodbath in November.

  I have several salient points I would like to make.

  

  1.  You know when Obama is lying.....When his lips are moving.   His credibility is zip.

  2.  How many of the 7.1 million that signed up lost their original plan due to Obunglercare?

  3.  Wasn't there 32 million uninsured people out there....how many of them are covered now...?

  4.  How many of the people that signed up get their premiums subsidized by the tax payer thereby

       creating another entitlement program?

  5.  How many people had their hours cut and changed to part time because of the onerous cost of 

        Obunglercare?

April Fools' Day (sometimes called All Fools' Day) is an informal holiday celebrated every year on April 1. Popular since medieval times, the day is not a national holiday in any country, but it is widely recognized throughout European cultures and celebrated as a day when people playpractical jokes and hoaxes on each other, called April fools. Hoax stories are also often found in the press and media on this day.
     Precursors of April Fools' Day include the Roman festival of Hilaria, held March 25, and the Medieval Feast of Fools, held December 28, still a day on which pranks are played in Spanish-speaking countries.

In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (1392), the "Nun's Priest's Tale" is set Syn March bigan thritty dayes and two. Modern scholars believe that there is a copying error in the extant manuscripts and that Chaucer actually wrote, Syn March was gon. Thus, the passage originally meant 32 days after April, i.e. 2 May, the anniversary of the engagement of King Richard II of England to Anne of Bohemia, which took place in 1381. Readers apparently misunderstood this line to mean "March 32", i.e. April 1 In Chaucer's tale, the vain cock Chauntecleer is tricked by a fox.

In 1508, French poet Eloy d'Amerval referred to a poisson d’avril (April fool, literally "April fish"), a possible reference to the holiday. In 1539, Flemish poet Eduard de Dene wrote of a nobleman who sent his servants on foolish errands on April 1. In 1686, John Aubrey referred to the holiday as "Fooles holy day", the first British reference. On April 1, 1698, several people were tricked into going to the Tower of London to "see the Lions washed".

In the Middle Ages, up until the late 18th century, New Year's Day was celebrated on March 25 (Feast of the Annunciation) in most European towns.In some areas of France, New Year's was a week-long holiday ending on April 1.  Many writers suggest that April Fools originated because those who celebrated on January 1 made fun of those who celebrated on other dates.  The use of January 1 as New Year's Day was common in France by the mid-16th century,  and this date was adopted officially in 1564 by the Edict of Roussillon.

     

     According to Yahoo News, there is a conversation surrounding whether the apostrophe should be placed between the l and the s (as in "April Fool's Day"), or after the s (as in "April Fools' Day"). It argues that the latter is the common consensus, though adds that there are arguments either way.

     

• Spaghetti trees: The BBC television programme Panorama ran a hoax in 1957, showing Swiss harvesting spaghetti from trees. They had claimed that the despised pest, the spaghetti weevil, had been eradicated. A large number of people contacted the BBC wanting to know how to cultivate their own spaghetti trees. It was, in fact, filmed in St Albans. The editor of Panorama at the time Michael Peacock gave the go-ahead to the idea which was pitched by freelance camera operator Charles de Jaeger. Michael Peacock told the BBC in 2014 how he gave Charles de Jaeger a budget of £100 and sent him off. Mr Peacock said the respected Panorama anchorman Richard Dimbleby knew they were using his authority to make the joke work. Mr Peacock said Mr Dimbleby loved the idea and went at it with relish.  Decades later CNN called this broadcast "the biggest hoax that any reputable news establishment ever pulled".
• In 1962, the Swedish national television did a 5-minute special on how one could get color TV by placing a nylon stocking in front of the TV. A rather in-depth description on the physics behind the phenomenon was included. Thousands of people tried it.
• Smell-o-vision: In 1965, the BBC purported to conduct a trial of a new technology allowing the transmission of odour over the airwaves to all viewers. Many viewers reportedly contacted the BBC to report the trial's success. In 2007, the BBC website repeated an online version of the hoax. As did Google in 2013, in tribute.
• In 2008, the BBC reported on a newly discovered colony of flying penguins. An elaborate video segment was even produced, featuring Terry Jones walking with the penguins in Antarctica, and following their flight to the Amazon rainforest

     Here are the quick penalties of Obunglercare that you have to deal with the IRS, you know the most
caring agency in the federal government.  You know the one that likes to presume you guilty first in their court?   The same one that was sicc'ed on conservative and tea party groups by supporters of the President?
    

Mainstream Media kisses Obama's Posterior

I am vary busy right now so I can't do a rant myself, but I ran across this one from Neal Boortz and shamelessly ripped it off.  The pictures are compliments of my folder of political pics.

Right now the media owes 0bama and the Democrats.  Considering the scope of the 0bamacare roll-out cluster&#@k the media simply had to report on it or all semblance of credibility would be lost.  Now it’s payback time.  Now it’s time for the media to pay 0bama and the Democrats back for this insurrection, and they’re coming around big time.
            How?  Just how is the media paying 0bama back for their offensive 0bamacare reporting?  How do we know the media is back on track promoting the Democrat big-government mantra?  Look at the reporting on income equality --- and there you have it.
            Virtually everywhere you turn you’ll see stories in newspapers, on television and on radio about the scourge of income inequality.  Toss in the mindless Hollywood crowd and academia – professor-types generally unprepared to earn a living in the private sector – and you have one of the most intensive efforts to carry the Democrat’s message I’ve seen in decades.

            And why have the Democrats turned to this income inequality message?  Why do millionaire Democrat Senators and Congressmen stand in the well of the Senate and the House to piss and moan about how bad inequality is?  Come on now, this isn’t all that hard.  They are doing this for two reasons:  First, it gets the conversation away from the disaster that is 0bamacare.  Secondly, it works; and it works very, very well.
            Now we know the Democrats plan for this year’s mid-term elections, and we know just how the media is going to do what it has done for decades – help the Democrats add up the votes.   The dumb masses are going to be told that the reason they don’t have as much money as they might like is because evil rich people – who vote Republican – are taking all the money for themselves.  They will be told that the only way they’re ever going to have more money is if they elect more Democrats so that the Democrats can beat down these evil, greedy Republicans in congress and take more of that money away from the rich – money that was stolen from “working class” Americans – and give it to the poor.  One way to do this will be to raise the minimum wage.  These rich bastards are keeping that money for themselves when they should be paying it to their workers – and if you just elect enough Democrats they’ll put a stop to this greedy behavior.

            Again … let’s get back to education.  If it weren’t for the hideous quality of our state schools, this line of economic Bolshoi would never work.  Democrats absolutely depend on the economic ignorance of their voters to maintain power.  Right now you should be saying “Ah ha!  Of course!  THAT’S why Democrats are so dedicated to government education!”  See how easy this is to figure out when a little logic is applied?
            Here’s how easy this is.  There’s an economic pie out there.  A big pizza.  Some people have a bigger slice of that pizza than others.  The people with the smaller slices want more pizza.  That’s understandable.  Who doesn’t want more pizza?  Here’s where it gets so hard for the dumb masses.  Just how do you get more pizza?  Well … you could take pizza away from the people with the bigger slices and give it to the people with the smaller slices.  That way you get rid of all this pizza slice inequality.  One of the problems there might be that those people with the bigger slices might not work as hard to be able to afford their pizza if they’re just going to have it taken away from them.  Maybe they should just sit on their butts and wait for someone to take pizza away from someone else to give to them!
            But consider this!  What would happen if you just baked a bigger pizza?  If you had a bigger pizza then everyone could get a bigger slice!  What’s more, you could get a bigger slice without asking the government to take pizza away from someone else!
            The pizza, of course, is our economy.  If you want the poor to have more money you can either seize and redistribute income, or you can build a bigger economy.   The fact is that Democrats just suck at building a bigger, more prosperous economy.  They sick at the local level – most (if not all) cities in bankruptcy are Democrat-run.  They suck at the state level – states with the strongest economic growth by and large do not have Democrat legislatures and governors.  And they suck at the federal level.  0bama has been a complete and unmitigated disaster when it comes to economic growth.  Even with the growth in our population there are fewer people in this country with jobs right now than there were when 0bama took office.  I guess that’s the price we pay when we elect an anti-capitalist to be our Dear Ruler.

            But … these facts are lost on the dumb masses, and the media is going to make sure they don’t learn all that much between now and the election.  Sure, there are some outlets – Fox News, for instance – and talk show hosts who might try to spread the painful truth, but the Democrats and their media myrmidons will simply brand them as racists and brush them aside.
            In the meantime the voters are going to continue to be savaged by 0bamacare.  They’re going to face increases in their health insurance premiums for the government’s “one size fits all” medical insurance policies, and then they’ll pay their $5000 (or more)deductibles.  The outrage is going to grow, but the media will work to calm things down by hammering the income inequality line. Yeah … the dumb masses voters will love this income inequality campaign.  They’ll sit back in their government-educated stupor and vote for the politicians who tell them that they’re going to take money away from those hated rich people and give it to them.
            The media will make it so.

Hitler Lost his Dr due to Obamacare.

This is a continuation of the "Hitler" parodies that I had used last week.  I am still working on my Veteran post and that will be up tomorrow(pics on another computer).  

"Hitlers Health insurance gets cancelled......"

I saw this on another blog and went "youtube surfing".  The Hitler parodies have been very popular for the past few years depending on the cause.  I have seen some real good ones and some that were...ehhh...OK.  This is one of the good ones.

Voters Remorse and Obamacare

I pulled this stuff off several sources including the LA times, the NY Post, Drudge Report and other places.   Obamacare was never intended to be an insurance program, it is designed to control the populace.  The people that pushed this pile of crap on us made sure that they are exempt from the laws and penalties of Obunglercare.  The bad thing is that I don't know if it can be repealed if the republicans are able to get the presidency and both chambers of congress.  Quite a few people believe that this is a massive attempt to kill the middle class, have only the elitist and the poor since they will be depending on the government for benefits, it will guarentee democrat control for generations until the whole system collapses and a democratic based dictatorship starts up since the democrats already believe that they know what is best for you, to get a dictatorship at the end with them in control isn't much a stretch.
     The middle class is what made America unique in the world, other countries had rich and poor, no middle ground, basically the rulers and the serfs.  The middle class is what took power away from the elitist, check out European history and see what it did to the rule of the kings and barons.
     This program is designed to bankrupt the middle class kinda like what Stalin did to the kulaks in Russia in the 30's, the Kulaks were the landowning peasantry and they had the rule of law to an extent, well the era of the strongman or Stalin wiped them out, Stalin killed millions on engineered famine and cost controls,  He basically seized the wealth of the Kulaks to finance the heavy industry that the Communist loved.
     Think about it, the rich have their own program and the poor get subsidized, whereas the middle class pay for all the increases out of their own pocket.  The middle class will bear the brunt of Obamacare.  The government wants more people to depend on them for basic needs, easier to control a dependent population.

New York doctors are treating ObamaCare like the plague, a new survey reveals.
A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan.
Another 33 percent say they’re still not sure whether to become ObamaCare providers.
Only 23 percent of the 409 physicians queried said they’re taking patients who signed up through health exchanges.
“This is so poorly designed that a lot of doctors are afraid to participate,” said Dr. Sam Unterricht, president of the 29,000-member organization. “There’s a lot of resistance. Doctors don’t know what they’re going to get paid.”
Three out of four doctors who are participating in the program said they “had to participate” because of existing contractual obligations with an insurer or medical provider, not because they wanted to.
Only one in four “affirmatively” chose to sign up for the exchanges.
Nearly eight in 10 — 77 percent — said they had not been given a fee schedule to show much they’ll get paid if they sign up.
The survey invited doctors to anonymously share opinions about the new health care law, and many took time out of their busy days to vent.
“Obama Care wants to start right away, but who see all these new patients???? Not me,” e-mailed one doc.
Another said, “I plan to retire if this disaster is implemented. This is a train wreck.”
“I refuse to participate in the exchange plans! I am completely opposed to this new law,” said a third respondent.
One doctor recycled the mantra used to attack addictions: “The solution is simple: Just say no.”
One physician was so disgusted, he threatened to taken only cash patients going forward.
“I am seriously considering opting out of all insurance plans including Medicare because of [ObamaCare].”
Some physicians said the pressure on insurance carriers to control costs is leading to rationed care.
“OBAMACARE is a disaster. I have already seen denial of medication, denial of referrals,” one doc said.
And they worry that stingy payments for medical services offered by insurers could put some doctors out of business and force others into retirement.
“Any doctor who accepts the exchange is just a bad businessman/woman. Pays terrible,” argued one doctor.
Said another MD, “Can’t imagine any doctors would be willing to work for so little money? All doctors should boycott.”
Doctors complained they’ve gotten the shaft for years even before ObamaCare.

Photo: AP/Charles Dharapak

“She said, ‘I was all for ObamaCare until I found out I was paying for it.’ ”
— The president of Anthem Blue Cross in California,
, talking about a woman who wrote the insurance company to complain about a 50 percent hike in her plan because of ObamaCare

“I get screwed from insurance companies already. I refuse to get screwed any longer,” one doctor said.
Others said they don’t have enough information to make an informed choice.
“This is a joke. We are flying blind,” said one doctor.

WASHINGTON — The White House finally admitted Monday that President Obama is breaking his promise that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it under ObamaCare.
“It’s true that there are existing health-care plans on the individual market that don’t meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, referring to plans nixed under the sweeping new law.
NBC News reported Monday that sources deeply involved in ObamaCare concede that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to have coverage canceled in the next year.
One expert said the figure could be as high as 80 percent.
Obama administration officials knew when the regulations were written in 2010 that 40 to 67 percent of consumers on the individual market would lose coverage, NBC said.
Carney insisted Monday that only “substandard” plans would be yanked under ObamaCare.
“There are some that can be grandfathered if people want to keep insurance that is substandard,” Carney added.
“What is also true: Americans who have insurance on the existing individual market will now have numerous options available to them, and six out of 10 will pay less than $100 per month in premiums for better insurance.”
Obama has repeatedly pledged that his overhaul of the health-care system wouldn’t deprive Americans of their current insurance plans or doctors.
“We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period,” he declared on June 15, 2009.
The admission that some will, in fact, lose the plans they’ve got comes amid mounting ObamaCare headaches, including a day-long crash of the glitch-plagued Web sites where Americans are supposed to sign up for mandatory health-insurance plans.
What’s more, a growing number of consumers are shocked to discover that the law has caused them to get hit with massive premium increases, lose their doctor or simply get dropped by their insurance company.
Elderly New Yorkers were left reeling when they received notices that insurance companies were booting their doctors from the popular Medicare Advantage program because of ObamaCare, The Post recently revealed.
“Obama had said I could keep my doctor. Now they’re doing away with my doctor. They kicked him out! After 20 years, that’s not right,” said Alfred Gargiulio, who has cerebral palsy and has been seeing the same doctor in Brooklyn since 1993.
Nearly 900,000 elderly New Yorkers are enrolled in Advantage plans, which are Medicare HMOs run by private insurers.
Other New Yorkers were floored when they learned they would have to pay 100 percent of the bill if they used a doctor outside their plan’s network — a harsh penalty not imposed by most plans before ObamaCare.

The ObamaCare pain is throbbing in other states, as well.
In Florida, at least 300,000 people have lost health coverage. And just one insurer in California, Kaiser Permanente, canceled policies for 150,000 people, CBS News reported.
HealthCare.gov, the online federal exchange, crashed before dawn Sunday and didn’t come back online until 7 a.m. Monday.
The outage affected not just the 36 Web sites run by the federal government, but also the 14 sites run by states.
The crash occurred about a week after the administration promised a “tech surge” of the nation’s best computer geeks to fix glitches that have hobbled the Web site since its Oct. 1 launch.
Officials said the site would be fixed by the end of November.
The Department of Health and Human Services blamed the latest crash on an outage of a data-service hub run by Verizon Communication’s Terremark unit.
Other glitches persisted, such as an agonizingly long wait for people trying to set up an account on the Web sites.
“We are committed 24/7 to having our team dedicated to putting those fixes in place and moving forward,” said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs HealthCare.gov.
     

   
    
Insurance companies aren't sending out cancellation letters, they're helping people "transition" into Obamacare, according to a top Democrat.
"If [the companies] changed [the insurance plans] then they have to notify the people who have to have the opportunity to have another policy," said House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sander Levin, D-Mich.
In fact, according to Levin, the "so-called cancellation notices" merely "help people transition to a new policy."
Levin cited comments made by Florida Blue CEO Patrick Geraghty, the insurance company executive who originally floated the "transitioning" talking point on Sunday's Meet the Press.
"We're not cutting people, we're actually transitioning people," Geraghty told NBC's David Gregory. "What we've been doing is informing folks that their plan doesn't meet the test of the essential health benefits, therefore they have a choice of many options that we make available through the exchange."
Geraghty's argument may exonerate Florida Blue, but the fig leaf doesn't cover Obamacare nearly as well as Levin suggested, given that "the test of the essential health benefits" comes from Obamacare and invalidated the previously acceptable insurance policies.

    
There's no doubt congressional investigators have their hands full probing allegations the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofit groups. But now a different IRS scandal -- involving the chronic, ongoing, mind-bogglingly wasteful mismanagement of a popular tax credit program -- demands Congress' attention because it has taken on new importance with the arrival of Obamacare.
The program is the Earned Income Tax Credit, through which the federal government gives out between $60 billion and $70 billion to low-income working Americans each year. It's known as a "refundable" tax credit, but it is basically a transfer payment, in which the IRS sends a check — perhaps even $5,000 every year — to workers who have little or no tax liability.
The problem is, the IRS does little to determine whether recipients actually qualify for the money. A recent report by the IRS inspector general says the agency has given out somewhere between $110 billion and $132 billion in improper Earned Income Tax Credit payments in the last decade. In that time period, between 21 and 30 percent of tax credit payments went to people who didn't qualify for them.

That is bad enough. But what infuriates lawmakers is that the IRS refuses to do anything about it. Agency officials told the inspector general they couldn't fix the problem because the tax credit program is very complicated, and also because they are afraid vigorous enforcement would discourage legitimately qualified recipients from applying for credits. And the IRS is not only not working to reduce improper payments, it is refusing to report those payments to Congress as required. The bottom line, in the words of inspector general Russell George: "The IRS is unlikely to achieve any significant reduction in Earned Income Tax Credit improper payments."
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has heard that before. "The IRS has repeatedly ignored the fraud and abuse in the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which has already cost Americans over $100 billion," Camp said in a statement Monday. "Americans should be confident that their tax dollars are being used properly, but that confidence has been shattered by the blatant disregard this agency has shown for monitoring refundable tax credits and better protecting taxpayers."
The flow of money has continued despite the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act, which Congress passed and President Obama signed in 2010. The law "requires agencies to achieve an improper payment rate of 10 percent or less for each high-risk program," says a recent compilation of IRS reports prepared by the Ways and Means Committee. "The Earned Income Tax Credit's improper payment rate has been above 20 percent since 2003."
And now comes Obamacare. In the new national health care scheme, the IRS will do basically what it does with the Earned Income Tax Credit: It will determine Americans' eligibility for subsidies, to be paid in the form of tax credits, and then hand those tax credits out. And that has lawmakers concerned.
"Considering the IRS’ failure to address the Earned Income Tax Credit problem," says Camp, "there is no reason to think the agency will somehow do a better job administering the refundable tax credits included in Obamacare."
Indeed, it is easy to imagine the IRS arguing that it simply cannot prevent improper Obamacare tax credits because the health system is so complicated and because it does not want to discourage legitimately qualified Americans from receiving health care subsidies. If the fraud level is anything like the Earned Income Tax Credit program, improper Obamacare payments could soar into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
And what will Congress do about it? Maybe not much. Hill sources say the Ways and Means Committee is "evaluating" the latest tax credit figures and might possibly schedule a hearing. But one source adds, "We have brought this up with IRS officials in the past, but without much impact, as they tend to talk but not act."
So doesn't Congress have anything to say about that? If the IRS thumbs its nose at lawmakers, do lawmakers have to take it? Of course not. Congress has broad powers to oversee federal agencies; if lawmakers wanted, they could knock some heads and get the IRS' attention.
Whether Congress will exercise that power is another question altogether. It certainly hasn't in the past. But with the arrival of Obamacare, the question of improper payments by the IRS, already an ongoing scandal, might soar to a new level, finally demanding action.

Obamacare data to be used to create a defacto database on firearm possession.

I got this from JPFO, there are more concerns that Obunglercare will be used to continue the endrun around the 2nd Amendment.  From Obunglercare computers stating that all information that you input belongs to the government from your personal financial data to your medical data from your Dr, will be available to any government agency that desires access to it.  Many people are concerned that this is a back door gun registry.  Remember the company that got the no-bid contract to build the database is the same Canadian company that screwed up a gun registry in Canada and got booted off the contract.   Ain't crony capitalism great!  I wonder how much they "donated" to the coffers of the democrats, the pay to play Chicago politics that the Obama Whitehouse is known for.    Also the data would be used to strip people of their 2nd amendment rights by imperial fiat.

By Rachel Alexander, October 21st, 2013
Article Source

What does gun control have to do with health care? As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD - from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient's firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it.
However, the provision does not go as far as prohibiting doctors from asking their patients if there are any firearms in their home. In January, Obama issued 23 executive actions and orders regarding firearms. Order 16 stressed that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about their firearms, and the fact sheet includes, "Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence." What constitutes a "threat of violence" could be very arbitrary. This puts doctors in a difficult position by suggesting they act as pseudo-law enforcement agents. It is damaging to doctor-patient privilege. If doctors have a patient with PTSD or mental illness, and they fail to ask the patient about their firearms, or report them to law enforcement, they could be on the hook later. It encourages them to err on the side of snooping into their patients' guns. This is especially troubling considered the definition of mental illness keeps expanding.
The state of Florida implemented legislation that would have severely restricted a doctor's ability to ask a patient about guns at home, but a federal court struck it down as unconstitutional. After the NRA got that provision added, the organization backed off on pressing for further changes, no doubt because trying to get more changes done at that time would have been impossible with the Democratic-controlled Senate and presidency. But there are still areas within our healthcare laws that could prohibit Americans from owning firearms – specifically our veterans.
In the 1990s, the Clinton administration ordered the Department of Veteran Affairs to share information about 90,000 veterans considered "mentally defective" by the VA to the FBI, so they could be added to the national instant check system (NICS) as prohibited possessors. To be declared "mentally defective" by the VA does not require an adjudication; it could be a doctor merely finding that a veteran has a mental illness and "lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." That could easily be held to apply to a veteran with PTSD who is simply in a wheelchair. The definition of "mental defective" by Veteran Affairs expanded under Clinton in 1999. The number of Americans now in the prohibited possessors database has increased to over 550,000 and 11 percent of them are veterans. Nearly 40 percent of veterans are believed to have PTSD.
Under Obamacare, federal agencies like the ATF can still pore over health records and determine who has mental issues or PTSD. There is nothing in Obamacare that prohibits another federal agency from compiling a database of gun owners.
Gun Owners of America warns that the next step will be linking insurance with gun ownership. Some private insurers, including State Farm and Prudential, drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or not using trigger locks. It's not difficult to see how this could be adopted as a requirement of Obamacare in the vague name of "health."
The problem with linking gun control with health care is that everyone knows gun crimes are almost always caused by criminals who illegally obtained the weapons, not law-abiding gun owners. Painting all veterans who have PTSD as potential criminals isn't going to stop the real criminals. There are hundreds of shooting and hunting excursions available for veterans today to specifically help them cope with PTSD. To arbitrarily exclude all of these patriots from rehabilitation with proven results is political manipulation at its worst. Taya Kyle, the widow of the American Sniper who was shot by a mentally ill veteran while helping him shoot for rehabilitation, now speaks out against restricting Second Amendment rights. It wasn't the killer's PTSD that caused the murder, he had a much more troubled history than just PTSD.
Organizations like the NRA and Gun Owners of America continue to expose these sneaky backdoor attempts at gun control. There are plenty of health-care groups clamoring to have Obamacare limit gun ownership, like the American Academy of Pediatrics. They're not going to stop, as revisions can still be added to Obamacare to tweak it. David Satcher, a surgeon general under President Bill Clinton, who headed the Centers for Disease Control in the 1990s, is blatantly open that the goal is to create a national database of gun owners through Obamacare. "Privacy needs to be protected, but it's important that this kind of data be gathered," he said. These feel-good measures actually endanger safety, not promote it. As the NRA's Wayne LaPierre says, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Trump on Obamacare

I don't always agree with Donald Trump.... But he seems to have hit the nail on the head with ObamaCare Health Care

"NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year"

This is our future under Obunglercare, the progressives are enamored with the British NHS.  Remember the claim of death panels?   

     I saw this on another of the foreign newspapers that I read since they are not beholding to the ChicagoJesus and will print stuff that is critical of his and the DNC's policies

Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year

• Professor says doctors use 'death pathway' to euthenasia of the elderly
• Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
• Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial 'care pathway'
• Pensioner admitted to hospital given treatment by doctor on weekend shift

By Steve Doughty
PUBLISHED: 18:08 EST, 19 June 2012 | UPDATED: 09:14 EST, 20 June 20, 2012

Worrying claim: Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial 'death pathway' into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly

NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.
Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.
He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.
It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.
There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.

He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.

Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.

He said this showed that claims they had hours or days left are ‘palpably false’. 
In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift.

 

• Nine out of 10 NHS Trusts are 'rationing operations'

Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the LCP.
‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance,’ he said.
‘His seizures came under control and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family,’ he said.
Professor Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

Distressing: The professor has claimed an approved technique of looking after the terminally ill is not being used in all hospitals

He said: ‘The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.

‘Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.
‘Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.
‘Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically.

This determination in the LCP leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The personal views of the physician or other medical team members of perceived quality of life or low likelihood of a good outcome are probably central in putting a patient on the LCP.’
He added: ‘If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths.’
The LCP was developed in the North West during the 1990s and recommended to hospitals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2004.
Medical criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway were voiced nearly three years ago.
Experts including Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, Surrey, warned of ‘backdoor euthanasia’ and the risk that economic factors were being brought into the treatment of vulnerable patients.
In the example of the 71-year-old, Professor Pullicino revealed he had given the patient another 14 months of life by demanding the man be removed from the LCP.

Professor Pullicino said the patient was an Italian who spoke poor English, but was living with a ‘supportive wife and daughter’. He had a history of cerebral haemorrhage and subsequent seizures.
Professor Pullicino said: ‘I found him deeply unresponsive on a Monday morning and was told he had been put on the LCP. He was on morphine via a syringe driver.’ He added: ‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance.’
The patient’s extra 14 months of life came at considerable cost to the NHS and the taxpayer, Professor Pullicino indicated.
He said he needed extensive support with wheelchair, ramps and nursing.
After 14 months the patient was admitted to a different hospital with pneumonia and put on the LCP. The man died five hours later.
A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘The Liverpool Care Pathway is not euthanasia and we do not recognise these figures. The pathway is recommended by NICE and has overwhelming support from clinicians – at home and abroad – including the Royal College of Physicians.
‘A patient’s condition is monitored at least every four hours and, if a patient improves, they are taken off the Liverpool Care Pathway and given whatever treatments best suit their new needs.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yM7pWJ00

The whole truth..

I got a link to a video that a bunch of doctors put out that explained some of the flaws of Obunglercare.  It is a good video and worth a look.