The Obama Administration, the Health Care Law, and Double Counting, Again?

Back in November of 2010 Reason.com noted that Donald Berwick refused to comment when confronted during a Senate hearing about the administration's claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act extends the Medicare Trust Fund.  It seems that Donald Berwick is standing by the Obama administrations double counting of savings in the new health care law.

From Reason.com:

For those in need of a refresher, here’s Medicare’s actuary:

In practice the improved (Medicare hospital insurance) financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.

And here’s CBO:

To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings.

Now you see that both the CBO and Medicare actuary's analysis of savings from the health care law differ from that of the Obama administration.  So, basically, both the CBO and medicare actuary findings conclude that the Obama administration's wrong. Maybe, that's why Berwick refused to answer the question?

Recently, Rep. John Shimkus pointedly forced Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius to admit to the fact that the Obama administration is double counting the savings from the health care law.  The Obama administration is using trickery to give the appearance that there can be savings in the budget while using that same savings to fund another program - "the $500 billion cut in Medicare that supposedly goes for both cost control and to fund other parts of the program."   



From HotAir.com:

In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee since the health-care law passed, Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

In other words, money can only be used once. Since the Medicare savings is being spent elsewhere on expanded health care coverage, it is not really being employed to extend Medicare solvency. To claim an improvement in Medicare financing is to mislead about the effects of recent legislation.

A couple days ago I received an email from my Congressman, Rep. Tim Murphy, that reveals more double counting in the health care law -  an $86 billion Ponzi scheme in the health care law.

"Efforts to calculate the true cost of the healthcare law continued at the Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, where a hearing explored the financial integrity of a new long-term insurance “benefit” called the Community Living Assistance Services & Supports (CLASS) program. Intended to provide spending cash to workers who become disabled, CLASS has been characterized by accountants, and even the Administration’s own Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, as “totally unsustainable.”

"The CLASS program is a new government entitlement established by the healthcare law that would be funded with premiums deducted directly from workers’ paychecks. If a worker became disabled and had paid into the program, they would collect $50 a day from the government. But the Congressional Budget Office has suggested that the CLASS program will attract the sickest and most at-risk beneficiaries, therefore requiring massive taxpayer subsidies to keep CLASS afloat beyond ten years.

"During questioning by Rep. Murphy at Thursday’s hearing, a senior Administration official admitted that instead of using premiums paid into CLASS to pay benefits, the government was using the premiums to pay for the healthcare law.

“If any insurance company began collecting premiums and then tried to spend $86 billion before paying out a single penny in benefits, it would rightly be prosecuted,” said Murphy. “Last time I checked, such Ponzi schemes are illegal in this country, and this is just the newest in a long string of programs that will have to be de-funded or repealed outright.”  

Privacy Alert! - Obama Administration Planning To Implement Internet ID for Americans

PRIVACY ALERT!!!! PRIVACY ALERT!!!!!  

Geesh... The Obama administration has been progressively attacking our privacy rights for the last two years.  Now, they want to take away our internet privacy by creating internet ID for all Americans. "Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Chamber of Commerce authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today."  This invasion of our privacy must be stopped!! 


"The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)" 

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke says "We are not talking about a national ID card," But then for what other reason - good reason - is this being implemented?  "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."  I don't buy this. 

There is no good reason for internet ID to be created.  It is my suspicion that this has everything to do with monitoring our every move on the internet.  This is an invasion of privacy, is unconstitutional, and must be stopped from ever being implemented. 

H/T Privacy Inc 

Catholic Colleges Very Identity Threatened by Obama Administration

So much for religious freedom at Catholic colleges.  The Obama administration is now targeting them. This has me fuming mad!  The Obama administration has issued new federal regulations which threaten Catholic colleges right to religious freedom and also threatens their right to be able to teach according to the Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.  This attack on our religious freedom must stop!!  In Chicago Obama was very chummy with Cardinal Bernardin who was the person who developed the seamless garment of life philosophy which "holds that issues such as abortion, capital punishment, militarism, euthanasia, social injustice and economic injustice all demand a consistent application of moral principles that value the sacredness of human life (as defined by the Catholic Church)."  This philosophy has done a great injustice to the pro-life community and is false when equating abortion with that of a public execution since the Church has officially declared Dogma declaring abortion to be intrinsically evil but not in the case of capital punishment, which, according to longstanding Church tradition, the state may justly apply when bloodless means will not protect society as effectively.  So, this "seamless garment" philosophy was a perversion of Church Teachings IMO. Obama was good friends with Cardinal Berdardin and I am going to speculate that that is when he and other Marxists started infiltrating the Church and using their community organizing efforts to teach Church members their Marxist ways while perverting the true meaning of social justice and making into some political philosophy of zealotry.  I am positive that this type of thing didn't just happen in Chicago where I am sure Obama had a hand in it.  It was and is widespread, and others like Obama did their part.  That is at least in part how I believe that the whole perversion of social justice got out of hand within the Church and why church members today feel that it is okay to dissent from certain Church Teachings such as abortion and contraception.  The Catholic colleges need to fight this and take the Obama administration to court for violating their religious freedom.

Here is the article from The Cowl:

"New federal regulations issued by the Obama administration a few weeks ago threaten not only recruitment for Catholic colleges, but more importantly, their very identity. The new regulations increase oversight for colleges through either state chartering or licensing, which are necessary for colleges to obtain federal aid. While states have always had to approve colleges that receive aid, the new law mandates that states approve colleges by name. States will also have greater power to act on complaints pertaining to colleges.



So why is this a problem? New regulations represent a federal encroachment on the independence of private institutions and especially religious schools. Even the Department of Education itself admitted that "a state's role may extend into defining, for example, curriculum, teaching methods, subject matter content, faculty qualifications, and learning outcomes." Catholic colleges that incorporate religious teaching in their curriculum may risk losing federal funding if state governments don't approve of the content.


All sorts of controversial issues come to mind that could be forced into the curricula of Catholic colleges by state governments as a condition of federal aid. Schools like Providence College might have to teach that it's acceptable to get an abortion or that creationism is a myth propagated by religious wackos.


We're not safe from a repeat of what happened at Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina. At this Catholic school, the administration issued a statement that employee health insurance would not fund contraceptives and abortions because it violated Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life. However, eight dissenting faculty members appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which responded by accusing the college of discriminating against women.

Unfortunately, federal regulation is already trying to undermine key precepts of the Catholic faith, which should be actively promoted by Catholic schools across the country. The scary thing is that even federal officials admit these new regulations do "not limit a State's oversight of institutions." In other words, states have total authority to rule against a school whose curriculum it deems "discriminatory" for promoting life.

Catholic schools that aren't approved by state governments will lose funding, which will hurt enrollment. Although enrollment obviously matters, what's at stake is greater. These new federal regulations threaten the responsibility of Catholic schools to spread their missions unimpeded by politically correct legislation, aimed at enforcing secularism—or even atheism."

IRS Discriminating Against pro-Israel Groups?

A Pennsylvania group has made the claim that the Internal Revenue Service is targeting Pro-Israel groups. Well…. Could discrimination against Israel be possible? Well, let’s take a look at the Obama administration’s track record of their treatment (mistreatment?) of Israel and Israel’s Prime Minister. . Let’s take a look at some of this administration’s anti-Israel policies.

Nile Gardiner of The Telegraph points out Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel:
1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House
In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington. As The Telegraph reported, “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family”, after being presented with a list of 13 demands.

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel
In contrast to its very public humiliation of close ally Israel, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to establish a better relationship with the genocidal regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which continues to threaten Israel’s very existence. It has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.

3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians
In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:
“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

4. Obama’s attack on Israeli “occupation” in his speech to the United Nations
In his appalling speech to the UN General Assembly last September, President Obama dedicated five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without once referring directly to Palestinian terrorism by name, but declaring to loud applause “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza. The speech served as a ghastly PR exercise aimed at appeasing anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East, while bashing the Israelis over the head.

5. Obama’s accusation that Israel is the cause of instability in the Middle East
As The Wall Street Journal noted, “the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East”, citing a recent press conference where he stated:
“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

6. The Obama administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria
While actively appeasing Iran, the Obama administration has also sought to develop closer ties with the other main state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, Syria, establishing diplomatic relations with Damascus in February. Syria remains a major backer of Hamas and Hizbollah, both responsible for a large number of terrorist attacks against Israel.

7. Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu
As The Telegraph reported, Hillary Clinton sought to dictate terms to Israel in the wake of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem:
“In a telephone call, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, ordered Mr. Netanyahu to reverse a decision to build 1,600 homes for Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem that sparked the diplomatic row. She also instructed him to issue a formal pledge that peace talks would focus on core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the borders of a Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli prime minister was urged to make a substantial confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton suggested this could take the form of prisoner releases, an easing of the blockade of Gaza and the transfer of greater territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control.”
Last time I checked, Israel was still an independent country, and not a colonial dependency of the Obama White House. Yet that still hasn’t stopped the Secretary of State from acting like an imperial Viceroy.

8. David Axelrod’s attack on Israeli settlements on “Meet the Press”
It is extremely unusual for a White House official to launch an attack on a close US ally on live television, but this is exactly what the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod did in an interview in March with NBC’s Meet the Press, designed to cause maximum humiliation to Israel, where he stated in reference to new settlement construction in East Jerusalem:
“This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive.”

9. Hillary Clinton’s call on Israel to show “respect”
As The Telegraph revealed, the Secretary of State lectured the Israelis at a dinner attended by the Israeli ambassador and the ambassadors of several Arab states in mid-April, urging Israel to “refrain from unilateral statements” that could “undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks”. In Clinton’s words:
“Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.”

10. Robert Gibbs’ disparaging remarks about Israel
Not one to shy away from criticizing America’s friends when the opportunity arises, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs entered the fray in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in March where he attacked the Israeli government for weakening “the trust that’s needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East.” In condescending terms he stated that Benjamin Netanyahu should start “coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward.”

It would seem that the Obama administration has indeed shown some anti-Israel tendencies. The Obama administration has consistently displayed antipathy toward Israel and other allies of the United States while being quite cordial and accommodating to those countries we both named and treated as our enemies prior to Barack Hussein Obama taking Office. So, with knowing this information do you think its possible that the Obama administration would use the IRS to marginalize, pretty much blackball, and maybe even blackmail those companies who support Israel?  Is the Obama IRS demanding that these organizations renounce their support of Israel in exchange for gaining or keeping their tax-exempt status?


As part of the IRS’s consideration of the organization’s tax exempt status IRS agent Tracy Dornette asked these two questions of Z Street: "Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?" and "Describe your organization's religious belief sytem toward the land of Israel."  Z Street claims that the IRS is "carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel" and that "a special unit" is determining whether its activities "contradict the Administration's public policies.'"

Ben Smith of The Politico points out that the “IRS can deny tax exempt status to groups that work against "established public policy," a precedent established in its denial of a tax exemption to Bob Jones University over racial discrimination, and Z Street is suggesting that the IRS has begun applying some such policy to pro-Israel groups.”

 Does the Obama administration’s "established public policy," consist of hostility to Israel, along with impeding both Israel’s right to exist and Israel's right to defend itself against its enemies?  It sure seems so. It is extremely scary when our President reverses sensible foreign policy initiatives with regards to both our closest allies and some of our most contentious and/or volatile enemies, destabilizes and causes tensions with our allies, while at the same time naively reaching out and negotiating with our enemies.