Northern Illinois Patriots

 Having concluded that the truth will not set them free or secure a reelection, President Obama and his strategists have decided to make their lies the new truth. They believe that if they tell the same lies often enough they will be perceived as the truth.

Now that Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate, Democrats have decided that Representative Ryan’s stance on reform of Social Security will be his Achilles Heel. A complicit media will help drive home the lies. But they are under the mistaken impression that Americans are uninformed and out of touch, that they will believe anything the President has to say.

While they would want us to believe that Ryan’s plan would eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid it is really a bald faced lie. Nowhere in the Ryan are there any such provisions. People currently receiving benefits and those within 10 of receiving benefits would not be affected. Beyond 10 years they would have a choice including the current Social Security program. The same would apply to Medicare benefits.

Under Obama Care, Medicare would be gutted. Benefits would be reduced by $50 to $70 billion per year. An “Oversight Committee”, better known as the “Death Panel” would determine what procedures and services seniors would be allowed to have.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are in a death spiral. Ryan’s plan would preserve these programs for future generations and allow participants options other than poorly run government programs. The President’s plan cannot be criticized because he has no plan. If the truth be told, it is not Ryan’s proposed plan but Obama Care that is Grandma’s Real Threat.

What a week.

Islamo-fascists got a big victory in Egypt's first (and last) "democratic" election, and so Obama's efforts just created another Iran (just like T.W.O. - The Worthless One - Jimmy Carter).

Then we were assaulted with two losses due to a wishy-washy, spineless Chief Justice.  Some say he's trying to keep the court from more controversy, but why does that always happen at the expense of liberty?  

Thanks to Justice Roberts:

Mexican drug lords now have an open border with Arizona.

And Hitler is laughing in his grave at Senator Robert's creation of a tax-based health care law.

He had to re-write the bill so he could uphold it.   A new government post - Senator/Judge.  Sanity anyone?

It was such a weak stretch, it's embarrassing to say that he's one of our finest, or the Supreme Court is a "high" court.  (Makes Robes-Pierre look level-headed).

We have one thin thread to end the insanity - win Congress and win the Presidency.  And then hope they remember to actually repeal Obamacare.  If they don't, we are all dead folks walking.

It's up to us.  We have to get motivated as never before and work as if our life depends on it . . . . because it does.

With all of the talk about repealing Obamacare, or the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional, all of the focus is on the mandate to purchase insurance.

In the meantime, Obama & his surrogates have proceeded to implement as much of his plan as possible, the most dangerous being the establishment of his death panel .

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is 15 non-medical members appointed by the president.  Its recommendations for cuts in Medicare services or for reductions in reimbursement were not subject to congressional approval but took effect immediately by administrative fiat.

They not only regulate the budget for Medicare, but decide on which treatments to allow based on COST-EFFECTIVENESS, not effectiveness.

Obama already stripped 500 billion from Medicare (retired PROVIDERS) gave it to Medicaid (non- or never- working TAKERS), thus throwing all hard-working grannies over the cliff. (And they DARE to accuse Ryan).

But the real chill settled in with a story I heard a few weeks ago.  Can't get it out of my mind.

An extremely fit 78-yr-old man in England who is on a rowing team developed bladder cancer. The British healthcare board ruled him too old for treatment - even denying him pain-killing medication. His daughter fought the government but lost. She then spent 3,000 British Pounds of her own money to get treatment for her father. The cancer was cured, and he's rowing again.

The difference with Obama's death panel is that it is ILLEGAL to pay cash for denied treatment under Obamacare.

This panel tried but failed to set limits for mammograms, and is now attempting to eliminate PSA tests for men.

So the big question for our upcoming meeting (SOMEBODY PLEASE FOCUS ON THIS) is not whether the mandate to pay will be struck down, but whether the death panel will be eliminated.  I fear the Ruling Class RINOs and extreme lefty Democrats in the Federal government when they talk about looking at the plan and adjusting it.

The death panel MUST BE ELIMINATED COMPLETELY before starting over with a common-sense plan.

If the death panel is not eliminated, all us seniors (and all who will become seniors, you young 'uns) are doomed, as I firmly believe that most in Congress will find this panel a convenient way to dispose of baby boomers and eliminate all those greedy geezers (who paid the bill, by the way) so as to balance the budget.

OBAMA - DON'T KILL SENIORS ! ! !

Watch for this in the future.  I will be surprised if anyone in Congress  or any news outlet even mentions elimination of the death panel.  After all, to them, you & I are only “the masses”.

via FreedomWorks

Live Webcast: ObamaCare at the Supreme Court

Health care has emerged as one of the most important policy battles of our time. The Supreme Court's ruling in the historic ObamaCare case is expected sometime between June 25 and July 4.

FreedomWorks is hosting a two-part series on the historic ObamaCare lawsuit (HHS vs. Florida).

In the first webcast on May 10th from 7-7:30pm ET, health care policy expert and DC veteran Dean Clancy will outline the main issues and potential outcomes in the case. He'll also explain what the various outcomes might mean for the Tea Party and the patient-centered care movement. The event will be livestreamed on our FreedomWorks Facebook page.

Click here for more information, or RSVP below:

If the government can force you to buy health insurance, what can't they force you to do or buy?

That was the question posed by a number of Supreme Court justices throughout today's oral argument on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. And that was the question President Obama's lawyers couldn't seem to answer.

That question didn't seem to bother the four liberal justices, who appeared ready to uphold the law. At one point, Justice Breyer suggested that the government could force you to buy things such as cellphones and burial insurance. The remaining justices, however, appeared highly skeptical of the government's argument. Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, largely believed to be the "swing votes" in this case, pressed the administration's lawyer hard for any kind of limit to the President's theory.

The government's best argument, that health care is a special case because nearly everyone will use it at some point, didn't attract a lot of support. Justices Scalia and Alito, for example, criticized the government's lawyers for defining the market too broadly. Chief Justice Roberts harshly noted that the type of insurance ObamaCare forces people to buy was completely different from the type of health care these people actually use. Justice Kennedy countered the administration's argument by saying that the government will say that every market is "unique."

The fact that the Obama administration didn't have a good answer for these questions could spell doom for the President's signature legislation. That doesn't mean the law will ultimately be struck down. After all, the government needs to convince only one of the conservative justices. But today's hearing illustrated just how uncomfortable they are with a law that, as Justice Kennedy proclaimed, "changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way." The Supreme Court may uphold the law, but President Obama's lawyers made clear that if the justices were looking for a limiting principle, they'd have to find one themselves.

If you missed yesterday's arguments, you can catch up on what happened by reading our coverage. You can also hear the audio or read the transcript for today's arguments on the Supreme Court's website.


Jonathan Ingram
Health Care Policy Analyst
Illinois Policy Institute

by Hadley Heath

The heated public debate about the HHS mandate requiring employers to cover contraception has brought out the worst in “feminist” organizations. It’s time to blow the whistle: They’ve resorted to creating outright fiction in order to fundraise and fear-monger.  Sadly, upon examination, many of their claims go beyond the usual political spin, to outright untruths that are actually destructive to women’s empowerment.

Lie #1:  Women don't have access to birth control.  This time last year, did you know that American women faced such a crisis in accessing contraception?  No, you didn’t, because there simply is no crisis.  Any woman in the United States can get her hands on birth control.  In fact, as Planned Parenthood points out, 98 percent of all American women who’ve had sex have used contraception.  To get the pill, a woman needs an appointment at her doctor’s office or a local health clinic.  But women can also buy condoms, which are available at practically every drugstore and gas station, as well as at hundreds of public schools in the U.S.

Lie #2:  Contraception is prohibitively expensive.  Many women in the U.S. qualify for free birth control, even without health insurance.  If you don’t qualify for free birth control, here’s one good low-cost option: Wal-mart offers some oral contraceptives at $9 a month.   And the American Pregnancy Association says condoms cost 20¢ to $2.50 each.

Lie #3:  Without the HHS mandate, employers will drop contraceptive coverage.  This one is just plain odd since, as of today – without a mandate in place – 90 percent of employers who offer health insurance offer a plan that covers contraception.  Yes, that's without a mandate forcing them to do so.   Twenty-eight states also already have rules that require employers to cover birth control in the company’s insurance plan, with the statutes varying on what kind of exemption is offered to religious employers.

Lie #4:  Opponents of the mandate want to impose their religious views on others.  The Daily Kos likened opposition to the mandate as support for a “Christian Sharia Law!” And NOW president Terry O’Neill said, “…Opponents of birth control coverage are opponents of birth control, period.”  These claims are patently false.

Most people who oppose the mandate oppose it simply because it is a mandate.  At its core, this is a debate about the role of government.  It's particularly appalling for government to force those with religious convictions to violate their beliefs, but more broadly many Americans object to government setting these kinds of dictates, period.  Even beyond the consequences for individual liberty, there are economic consequences to such regulatory mandates as well.

Lie #5: This mandate is critical for women's health.  Feminists focus on women enjoying the benefit of “free” oral contraceptives, but there are reasons for concern that this policy could backfire in terms of women's health.  Condoms are the only form of birth control that prevents the spread of STDs, but oral contraceptive subsidies could lead to many forgoing condoms for the pill, putting women's health in jeapordy.   Each woman should decide which form of contraception is best for her, without the government skewing the market in favor of one form over another.

Furthermore, if oral birth control pills for females will be available to every American woman “free of charge,” why would scientists continue to develop an oral contraceptive for men?  In fact, instead of blindly supporting this mandate, feminists should ask why the Obama Administration wants to make contraception officially a “women’s issue” in the first place, when it should be a shared responsibility with men. 

Lie #6:  Women are so helpless, we can't take care of ourselves.  Ok, that's not how feminists put it exactly, but they certainly paint women as victims in need of government intervention, lest their bodies be “at the mercy of men” because they lack birth control.  Aren’t we stronger than this?  Can’t we be responsible for our own care, for our own actions?  Truly independent women who want to be in control of their own contraception and reproductive future should oppose the HHS mandate and stop arguing for Uncle Sam to intervene.   

Susan B. Anthony said, “There is not a woman born who desires to eat the bread of dependence,” but left-wing self-described “feminists” now seem exceptionally hungry for that costly bread.  So hungry, they are willing to hamstring employers, cheat the Constitution, and lie to the public.  American women shouldn’t buy these tired lines, and this out-dated brand of feminism.

X-posted from Townhall.com

By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.

Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.

The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare plans that add onto what Medicare won’t cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies’ biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.

Though the White House and HHS dismiss allegations of political favoritism when it comes to who’s getting exceptions from the new health care regulations – such as in the recent uproar over the disproportionate number of Obamacare waivers that went to companies in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district — Obamacare critics say the mere appearance of the administration helping friends is disturbing.

The appearance of favoritism exists with the new AARP exemptions, too. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sens. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, wrote to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last October asking her not to do what HHS just finalized today – that is exempt Medigap policies from rate increase oversight.*

“While Medicare Advantage premiums are declining, we are hearing disturbing stories from beneficiaries across the country about excessive premium increases for Medigap supplemental insurance policies,” Reid, Baucus and Kerry wrote to Sebelius on Oct. 6.

“For example, some beneficiaries enrolled in the United of Omaha Life Insurance Company will see their Medigap premiums increase by approximately 40 percent between 2010 and 2011,” the letter read. “An increase of this magnitude raises serious concerns about premium-setting practices and rate review procedures in place for Medigap policies.”

Instead of listening to three top Senate Democrats, the Obama administration decided to go ahead anyway with the Medigap exceptions from rate increase reviews.

The AARP was a driving force behind getting Obamacare through Congress, contributing a large sum to the $121 million advertising campaign pushing it, and spending millions more lobbying for it on Capitol Hill.

The senior citizen advocacy organization stands to make huge profits from Medicare Advantage cuts and from the exemptions it will benefit from when it comes to the Medigap plans sold under what AARP CEO A. Barry Rand calls the AARP’s “for-profit side.”

The AARP’s support of Obamacare during the debate over the legislation raised lots of eyebrows nationwide, as President Obama called for $313 billion in cuts to Medicare to push the plan through. Seniors weren’t happy about it, and many ripped AARP representatives at town hall meetings nationwide.

Now, though, it’s clear that the AARP is set to make millions, if not billions, of extra dollars in Medigap plan sales moving forward because they’ve effectively knocked out their biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage, through Obamacare.

UPDATE 2:43 p.m.: AARP spokesman Jim Dau responds to TheDC’s story:

“AARP supported the health care law’s provisions to review insurance premium increases, just as we supported the law itself.  And we agree with Senators Reid, Kerry and Baucus that more consumer protections are needed in the Medigap market, which was not addressed in the law. It’s why we’ve endorsed Sen. Kerry’s bill to ensure people in Medicare can’t be denied a Medigap policy because of their health history.

“But this story’s mischaracterization of the senators’ letter and the new rules is inexcusable.  In fact, the senators acknowledged that Medigap rates are regulated at the state level and encouraged Secretary Sebelius to work with governors and state insurance commissioners to build new consumer protections.  Nowhere do the senators ask the Secretary to include Medigap in the regulations issued this week because they know states regulate rates for these insurance policies, not the federal government.

“To be clear, AARP is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with a membership. While there are insurance products that carry the AARP name, they are underwritten by insurers such as Delta Dental, UnitedHealth Group, and Aetna and others—not AARP.  We work to ensure those products meet our standards and provide value to our members.

“We would applaud members of Congress from either side of the aisle who put forward legislation to strengthen consumer protections in the Medigap market, just as we welcomed Sen. Kerry’s common sense legislation.”

*This sentence has been corrected.

 Apparently the GOP plan to replace Medicare with vouchers will have to wait.  Party leaders are pursuing a deal to allow more government borrowing in exchange for big spending cuts; translation: very few cuts and a lot more borrowing and spending.

I’m still waiting to see when old guard Republicans will finally get the message sent by voters in the 2010 elections. They cave in and wait for the next important battle. We are running out of battlegrounds and battles. When will they make a stand, draw a line in the sand, and stand firm?

 The Ryan plan will not kick in for another 10-12 years and will not affect current recipients or those about to go on to Medicare, while Obamacare cuts $500 billion and a provision in the bill will cut another $70 billion per year. Other than Paul Ryan, Republicans seem either unable or unwilling to articulate their plan. It appears as though they are going to kick the can down the road one more time.

Maybe it’s just me but didn’t the Republicans just win the 2010 elections? They act like they lost. Maybe it’s time for another house cleaning. Boehner has been thus far a big disappointment. While he has stated that he in only one half of one third of the government, he is the big dog. All financial bills originate in the House that he controls. He controls the purse strings. Rather than operate from a position of strength he is operating from a position of weakness.

Rather than caring about Medicare and its eminent demise Democrats and Republicans alike could Medi Care Less.

By Erick Erickson