OBAMACARE CANNOT BE STOPPED! IT'S A LAW!

THE REAL REASONS REPUBLICANS KEEP BUTTING THEIR HEADS AGAINST A BRICK WALL ON OBAMACARE?
[WELL BESIDES THE FACT THAT A "BLACK MAN" DEFEATED THEIR "WHITE-HORSE CANDIDATE" AND BECAUSE THEIR RICHEST CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS DEMAND THEY SAVE THEM FROM PAYING TAXES LIKE THE REST OF US DO...TO NAME JUST TWO OF HUNDREDS...]
THEY LIKE THEIR CURRENT INSURANCE AND DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO TAKE LESS. THEY WANT US TO CONTINUE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR VERY NICE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE!
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE INSURED LIKE MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS ARE INSURED AND HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT!
AND THEY DON'T WANT THEIR BEST CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS, THOSE BIG CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE BEEN "GANG-BANGING" CONGRESS FOR 100 YEARS OR MORE, THOSE "BASTIONS OF WALL STREET", THOSE WITH OVER 50 EMPLOYEES,  TO HAVE THE EXPENSE OF HAVING TO OFFER HEALTH CARE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. IF THEY FAIL TO SAVE THE "BIG BOYS" SOME $$$. IT WILL MEAN LESS $$$ IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!

BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND ADD TO THIS, THE GOP IS STILL RAW OVER THE MERE SUGGESTION THAT ALL AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE...BECAUSE FEW OF THEM HAVE TO PAY INTO THE SYSTEM LIKE WE "98%" DO.
THEIR HIGH-PRICED ACCOUNTANTS CAN ALWAYS SHOW A LOSS FOR THEM, SOMEHOW, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
[THIS IS ALSO TRUE OF MANY DEMOCRATS, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT.]
CONGRESS HAS BEEN HOPING IT WILL BE EXEMPTED FROM THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT IT VOTED ON AND PASSED.
NO, NOT SO FAST!

Claim: Congress is exempt from the law.
FactCheck.org says: False.
<<Several versions of this claim have been circulating since before the Affordable Care Act was passed. But no matter how many different ways the critics spin it, Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t.
Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.
The claim has persisted even after the provision requiring Congress to get insurance from the exchanges became part of the final law. Fast forward to spring 2013, and the assertion surfaced again when there was concern among lawmakers that the transition to exchange plans — particularly the transfer of the federal contribution toward premiums — wouldn’t go very smoothly. Politico published a piece on April 24 on lawmakers talking about changing the exchange requirement because of this. The headline on the story? “Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption.”
On Aug. 7, the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the FEHB Program, issued a proposed rule saying that the federal government could continue to make contributions toward the premiums of lawmakers and their staffs on the exchanges. The federal government has long made such premium contributions, as other employers do for their employees. OPM said the contribution couldn’t be more than what it is under the FEHB Program. That ruling, perhaps predictably, sparked new — and still bogus — claims from Republicans of Congress being “exempt” from the law.>>
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

SO THEY NOW REALIZE THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE AND ARE SCRAMBLING TO SAVE THEMSELVES (AND, AT THE SAME TIME, THEIR BIG BUSINESS BUDDIES) SOME CASH!

AND THE LIES TO RATTLE ALL OF US INTO HELPING THEM HELP THEMSELVES AND SCREW US OVER AGAIN JUST KEEP COMING!
[LET ME PAUSE HERE TO INFORM YOU THAT I DON'T LIKE 'OBAMACARE'. IT FALLS SHORT OF BEING A REAL SOLUTION FOR THE 47% OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS WHO CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE. IT NEEDS SERIOUS REFORM, BUT THE GOP's, IDEA OF HEALTH CARE FOR THE LESS-THAN-RICH, AS REP. ALAN GRAYSON SO MAGNIFICENTLY POINTED OUT, IS (A) "DON'T GET SICK!" AND (B) "IF YOU DO GET SICK DIE QUICKLY!" EVEN 'OBAMACARE' BEATS THAT HANDS-DOWN!]

WARNING, WARNING! FACTS INCOMING! THOSE IN CONTINUAL DENIAL OF TRUTH, RUN AWAY!

THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE ACT, THE ONE CONGRESS VOTE TO PASS.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/explaining-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare.html
<<By a 5–4 margin, in a decision (surprisingly) written by traditionally conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the health-care law IS constitutional.
The law’s most controversial component, known as the “individual mandate,” requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a “shared responsibility payment” to the government.

On the day the law was enacted, 26 states, several individuals, and others sued to have the law struck down as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.

In its ruling, the court held that the law could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause, which was the government’s primary argument in its support. “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote for the majority.

But wait—doesn’t that mean the law should’ve been struck down?
[NO.]
The Commerce Clause argument was only one of three the government made in support of the law. It also argued that the law could be considered a tax, and this is the argument the court bought.
Specifically, the court held that the individual mandate is not a “penalty,” as the health-care law identified it, but a tax, and therefore a constitutional application of Congress’s taxation power.
In accepting the tax argument, the court relied on the “well-established” principle that “if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”
The court then noted that the government’s argument—that the mandate represented a tax on people who choose not to buy health insurance—“makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.”
The court acknowledged that the mandate “is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage,” and noted that “taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new”—for example, the taxing of cigarettes to discourage smoking.
Finally, the court reasoned, the mandate does not make the failure to buy health insurance unlawful. Beyond the payment to the IRS, the court explains, “neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance.”
BOTTOM LINE TRUTH?
Starting in 2016, when the “shared responsibility payment” is fully in place, the amount you would owe for not having health insurance is the greater of 2.5 percent of your income or $695. There is currently no means to criminally prosecute those who do not have health insurance and also refuse to pay the shared responsibility payment.


IT'S BECOME A BIG JOKE, THE 37 ATTEMPTS TO "DEFUND OBAMACARE"!
IT CANNOT BE DONE.
IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE SINCE CONGRESS CAN ONLY DEFUND "DISCRETIONARY SPENDING" AND 'OBAMACARE IS 90% MANDATORY GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
THE REPUBLICANS KNOW IT'S HOPELESS, THE GOP KNOWS THE LAW ONLY TOO WELL, AND THEY'RE PULLING THE PARTY IN HALF OVER THIS JUST AS KNOWINGLY,  BUT THEIR ANGER OVER THEIR "ULTIMATE WHITE HORSE WARRIOR" BEING DEFEATED JUST GROWS OVER TIME.
THEY ARE NOW RABID OVER THEIR LOSSES.
SUCH MENTAL ILLNESS IN CONGRESS CANNOT BE GOOD FOR "WE, THE PEOPLE"!
May 16, 2013
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/obamacare-repeal-votes/65301/
 <<Later today, the House of Representatives will hold its 37th vote on curtailing the Affordable Care Act. A little clarification about what that means is in order.
The Washington Post compiled the focus and results of each of these votes. If you're interested in the details of what each of those votes has targeted, go take a look. {"Voting to repeal, over and over", May 15, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/15/voting-to-repeal-over-and-over/ ]  
 If you're wondering about data behind the votes, please allow us.
As soon as a Republican majority took control of the House in early 2011, the votes to stem the implementation of the ACA began. On February 19 of that year, a vote on a funding resolution included ten different attempts to restrict funding to components of Obamacare.
Few of the votes were actually votes to repeal Obamacare, as has been suggested. The vast majority were instead attempting to use Congress' preferred tool for blocking legislation: keeping it from being funded. The votes to block funding were rarely to cut all funding; most targeted specific implementations. One vote targeted the staffing needed to implement the policy, a slight variation on an attempt to cut funding.>>

OVER TO A WASHINGTON EXAMINER ARTICLE:July 26, 2013
http://washingtonexaminer.com/no-the-gop-is-not-going-to-defund-obamacare/article/2533518
<<Republicans will not stop Obamacare. They won't defund it. Their last chance to put an end to it was the 2012 election. They lost, and the chance is gone.
Money to fund Obamacare comes from two sources. A relatively small part of it, including some of the funds used to get the program going, comes from Congress' regular yearly appropriations. Congress could raise or lower the amounts without changing Obamacare itself. The defund-Obamacare Republicans in the Senate hope to strip out that discretionary funding from a continuing resolution needed to fund the government that Congress will debate in September.
They know they won't succeed. Democrats, with 54 votes, have enough to pass anything that requires a simple majority, and won't have much trouble getting to a filibuster-proof 60 votes, either. "I could count six or seven Republicans who would vote for full funding of the continuing resolution without breaking a sweat," says one Senate aide who supports defunding. "So they're going to get to 60."
But that's just the discretionary part of Obamacare. The far bigger portions of the program, including the billions and billions of dollars in subsidies that will start going to Americans on Jan. 1, are mandatory spending, an entitlement funded by an automatic appropriation which is written into law and runs without further congressional action. To change that, Congress would have to change Obamacare.

In the Senate, that would take 67 votes -- the amount needed to overcome a guaranteed presidential veto. If the 46 Senate Republicans voted unanimously to end the Obamacare entitlement, they would have to persuade 21 Democrats to go along.
The Senate Republicans advocating defunding know that's not going to happen. And since Senate Republicans are not even united themselves, they also don't have the power to shut down the government.

MANY IN THE GOP HAVE ADMITTED THIS IS ALL FOR SHOW THAT IT'S HOPELESS TO TURN BACK TIME AND ERASE THE HEALTH CARE ACT.
A shutdown would be "madness," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office who opposes Obamacare. "There is no exit strategy. It'll go on for a while, people will say Republicans shut down the government again, Republicans will cave, fund the government, and go on weakened and divided."
Some senators believe that if they could somehow shut off just the implementation funds, there would be no mechanism for the government to spend the mandatory money and, bingo, all of Obamacare would be effectively defunded. But Democrats thought of that back in 2009. A lot of Obamacare's implementation money comes from mandatory spending. It's going to flow no matter what, unless Republicans find those 67 votes.
Of course, just 11 SENATE Republicans -- Rubio, Cruz, Risch, Paul, Inhofe, Vitter, Thune, Chiesa, Enzi, Fischer, and Grassley -- signed Sen. Lee's defunding pledge. That's about one-quarter of the Senate's Republican caucus.
[SO, DID THE OTHER 3/4ths OF THE GOP SENATE DECIDE TO STOP LYING TO US? SURELY NOT!]
House members in the conservative faction say they have about 80 votes to support their position. But there are 233 Republicans in the House. What about the other 153?
There's a difference between killing proposed legislation and stopping a law that is already in effect. And Republicans have run out of ways to stop Obamacare. The only way that will happen now is if the law proves to be a disaster that even its supporters abandon. Like everyone else, Republicans will just have to wait to see what happens.>>

FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS...
GOP REP. ROBERT PITTENGER OF NORTH CAROLINA TOLD THE TEA PARTY FOLKS HE WOULD NOT VOTE TO DEFUND 'OBAMACARE'...
"'While I support efforts to defund Obamacare, the political reality is that goal is not currently achievable. Senator Harry Reid would never let it pass the Senate, and President Obama would never sign it into law.'"
"'If we shut down the government, as some advocate, Obamacare remains in full force.  Most of Obamacare is in the law as mandatory spending, which continues during a shutdown.  What would not continue would be pay for our brave soldiers, treatment for our veterans, and funding for critical services for our seniors.  Voting for this sort of collateral damage is irresponsible and a misguided effort to fight Obamacare.'"
[NOTE: ONE PERSON WHO COMMENTED ON THE REP.'S STATEMENT SAID BY WAY OF INTERPRETING FOR US WHAT THE REP. MEANT...
"I will not, let me repeat, will not give up my healthcare benefits you the Small People are forced to pay for!!"
EXACTLY!!!]

IN AN ARTICLE, "A Friendly Reminder That Defunding Obamacare Won’t Stop the Law", THE NATIONAL JOURNAL, September 17, 2013, http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/daily/a-friendly-reminder-that-defunding-obamacare-won-t-stop-the-law-20130917 WROTE:
<<With Capitol Hill wrapped up in a debate this week regarding looming fiscal fights and the possibility of a shutdown over the health care law, it’s worth remembering that shutting down the government would likely have little impact on the Affordable Care Act. According to a Congressional Research Service report released at the end of July, much of the law’s implementation is separate from annual discretionary appropriations. [SEE THE REPORT HERE: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0af8b42a-b2b9-484b-b0d4-9d27e2b690ac ]
The CRS report was issued at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has not been shy about his opposition to the shutdown strategy. “[A government shutdown] would be committing ritual suicide on an altar of bad strategy,” Coburn’s communications director, John Hart, told National Journal Daily. “The idea that we can fully defund Obamacare through the continuing resolution is a Washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.”

The report substantiates the argument that a shutdown would not be an effective tool to stop the law. This is because much of the law relies on mandatory funding and multiple-year and no-year discretionary funds, which are not beholden to annual budget debates.

 Even some Republicans supporting the strategy of tying Obamacare to the CR debate recognize that it would not have the practical effects they truly want.
“It’s mostly symbolic,” Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said recently. “We want to have something out there so people continue to talk about it.... That’s a way of keeping the issue alive.... It is something you have to keep doing because you have strong beliefs, and even if logically it isn’t going to work out the way you want it, you still try.”

[BWAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAA!
THAT'S RICH, SIN-ATOR!]

ANOTHER GOP NORTH CAROLINIAN HEARD FROM, A SENATOR...
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) slammed a proposal to block a continuing resolution on federal funding unless ObamaCare is defunded.
“I think it’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard,” Burr told journalist Todd Zwilich Thursday. Listen, as long as Barack Obama is president the Affordable Care Act is gonna be law.” …

Sen. Lee’s fellow Utahan GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch is all about the repeal efforts, but thinks that Lee’s “not going to win on that, and that will open the Republicans up to all kinds of false criticism.” Karl Rove, GOP DEMI-GOD,  agrees that it’ll give Democrats another chance to tee off on Republican obstructionism.

Congressman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) is also not going to fall into the defunding trap.
"'Although it is common misconception there is no dedicated funding stream for Obamacare in a CR, CRs only address discretionary appropriations, not mandatory spending, which makes up the bulk of Obamacare spending. In fact a recent Congressional Research Service report determined a government shutdown would not stop Obamacare due to the large amount of discretion the Administration would have.
However, with a federal government shutdown our military members would not receive their pay and certain beneficiaries would experience delays in the processing and payment of their social security benefits. That is just not an acceptable option.'"

SEE ALSO MY PREVIOUS BLOGS...TO WHICH THIS IS AN UPDATE...for more Republicans including Boehner and McCain, who have said nothing can stop Obamacare now that it is LAW and to see what other lies they've told us.
  http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/03/republicans-lie-raising-taxes-created.htmlAND
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/09/government-shuts-down-in-october-we.html

AFTER HIS LAUGHABLE 'FILIBUSTER' RANT LAST WEEK, ON EVERY FACT-CHECK SITE THERE IS, ALL OF THEM, OLD TEDDY CRUZ WAS CALLED A LIAR AGAIN AND AGAIN. (See links below from factcheck.org)
EVEN 'CONSERVATIVE' WEBSITES WERE ADMITTING HE "EXAGGERATED"!
WHY ISN'T HE EMBARRASSED BY THAT?
WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR THE LIES TO SIMPLY STOP?

ROMNEY'S GROSS EXAGGERATION ON 'OBAMACARE'.
POOR OLD ROMULUS, STILL TRYING TO BE NOTICED, STILL HAS NO CLUE ABOUT REALITY!
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/romneys-gross-exaggeration-on-obamacare/
We asked Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom how his boss arrives at 50 percent. In an email, Fehrnstrom said: “The 50% includes total health care expenditures, which will be effectively under government control once Obamacare is fully implemented.”

That’s patently false and misleading. Total health care expenditures include public and private costs — everything from Medicare and Medicaid to private insurance and out-of-pocket expenses for copayments and deductibles. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says national health expenditures in 2009 reached $2.5 trillion — or 17.6 percent of GDP. About 43 percent of that was local, state and government spending. The rest was private.

It’s true that Obama’s health care law will increase the number of people covered by Medicaid, and it will set a minimum benefit standard for health care plans.
But that’s exactly what Massachusetts did under the health care law that Romney signed as governor. HYPOCRISY? FROM THE WHITE-HORSE DUDE?
MORE LIES
In his speech, Romney also restated the misleading Republican claim that taxes on the wealthy are taxes on small businesses.

    Romney: President Obama proposes to raise the tax on small business. He wants to increase the marginal tax rate that the most successful small businesses pay from 35 percent to 40 percent. It’s a throwback to the discredited policies of the past, and it’ll kill jobs.

Romney misleads when he says Obama would raise taxes on “small businesses.” It’s true that Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top two brackets for individual taxpayers, eliminating the current 33 percent and 35 percent tax rates and restoring the 36 percent and 39.6 percent rates. And some of those individuals own small businesses. But the truth is that the vast majority of small-business owners wouldn’t be affected.

JUST CAN'T STOP GOP MOUTHS FROM LYING
Romney also recycles an old claim when attacking Obama’s health care law for creating “an unelected board [that] will tell seniors what treatments Medicare’s gonna cover.” The reference is to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member panel of doctors and medical professionals, economists and health care management experts, and representatives for consumers and seniors established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Its purpose is to find ways to slow the growth in Medicare spending.
Though it feels like we are beating a dead horse with this one, we will continue to reiterate that IPAB is not going to “tell seniors what treatments Medicare’s gonna cover.” The health care law explicitly states that IPAB “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.” (See page 490.) The board’s recommendations, furthermore, will go before Congress, where they can be replaced with alternative cuts or rejected outright by a three-fifths majority.
And while the panel is unelected, the law says the president will appoint the members in consultation with Congress and with consent of the Senate. All three elected bodies of government will have a say in who is on the board.

POOR OLD MITTENS ROMULUS, HE STILL CAN'T JUST ACCEPT THAT HE WAS SEVERELY BEATEN, THAT HE WILL NEVER, EVER BE "THE PREZ", AND I'M SURE IT GALLS  HIM AND ALL THE GOP THAT SOMEONE THEY SEE AS "BENEATH THEM" GOT ELECTED.
HAD RON PAUL WON, IT WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN JUST AS BAD.
R.P. ISN'T WHAT THE GOP SEES AS "THE WRONG RACE", HE'S JUST NOT ELITIST ENOUGH, HE'S NEVER RUN IN THE "RIGHT CIRCLES".
HE'S NEVER BEEN A WHORE TO WALL STREET NOR THE CENTRAL BANKS LIKE HIS 'ILLUSTRIOUS' COLLEAGUES IN CONGRESS.

SO, WITH THIS ABSOLUTELY STUPID MANEUVERING ON THE PART OF THE GOP THEY HAVE ASSURED THAT AMERICA WILL LIKELY NOT SEE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT FOR DECADES!
THEY'VE CUT THEIR OWN THROATS AND THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET.
I NEVER VOTE A "PARTY", BUT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MAN OR WOMAN.
I WEIGH THEIR LIES AGAINST THEIR TRUTHS.
I LOOK AT THEIR HISTORY, THEIR "TRACK RECORD".
i HAVE NEVER CARED IF A CANDIDATE WAS GOP OR DEMOCRAT OR GREEN PARTY OR WHATEVER.
SHOW ME THE INTEGRITY THE HONOR, THE TRUTH!

YES, BOTH 'PARTIES' LIE, SO WHY 'PARTY' WITH LIARS?
BUT AFTER 50+ YEARS OF WATCHING FOR LIES, I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THE GOP IS, HANDS-DOWN, THE KING OF LIARS AMONG POLITICIANS, GLOBALLY AND NATIONALLY.
NOW THEY'LL PAY FOR THAT...THEY'VE KILLED THE REPUBLICAN HOPES FOR PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOTICING THE LIES, THE DAMAGE THEY'RE DOING TO MIDDLE-CLASS CITIZENS AND TO THE POOR, AT LAST!
THE 'GRAND OLD PARTY' HAS LOOKED DOWN THEIR PATRICIAN NOSES AT "JOE Q. CITIZEN" FOR DECADES NOW AND OLD JOE HAS HAD ENOUGH.
THEY'VE SHOWN US AT THEIR LAST CONVENTION THAT THE GRASSROOTS REPUBLICANS GET THROWN OUT AND SHOUTED DOWN AND IGNORED, LITTLE REALIZING THAT THE GRASSROOTS MEMBERS ARE WHO GOT THEM ELECTED THE FIRST TIME.
NEXT ELECTION, REMEMBER THIS!
REMEMBER WHO SOLD OUT AN ENTIRE 'PARTY' JUST TO SERVE THEIR CAMPAIGN-FUNDING BIG BUSINESS BUDDIES AND KEEP THEIR CUSHY INSURANCE.
REMEMBER THAT, UNLESS YOU'RE A HUGE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR, YOU DON'T MEAN SQUAT TO THE BIG DOGS RUNNING AROUND UP ON "THE HILL".
JUST ONCE, AMERICA, REMEMBER THE LIES YOU WERE TOLD...
BY ALL THE LIARS...BY THE 'PARTY', 'RED' AND 'BLUE'.
'MYTHS' BECOME LIES, THEN MORE LIES
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/
Falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act are still swirling -- and the intensity of the claims is rising as the insurance exchanges are set to launch.
Posted on September 16, 2013
<<So, more than three years after our last health-care-whoppers piece (published just before the law was signed in 2010), we’re giving readers a rundown of the top claims.

Some have been around for years, and others are relatively new.
Most touch on three topics: jobs, premium costs and medical care.

CLAIM: Republicans have made the overblown claim that the law is a job-killer.
FACT: FALSE!
Experts predict a small impact on mainly low-wage jobs. The Republican National Committee says 8.2 million part-timers can’t find full-time work “partly” due to the law. NOT TRUE! That’s the TOTAL number of part-time workers who want FULL-time jobs, and there’s no evidence from official jobs figures that the law has had an impact.
    Proponents say premiums will go down, while opponents say they’ll go up. In general, employer plans won’t be affected much, and a price change for individuals seeking their own insurance will vary from person to person. Obama claimed that all of the uninsured would see lower premiums than what they could get now (before accounting for federal subsidies), but that’s not the case.
    Critics continue to make scary claims about the government coming between you and your doctor, but the law doesn’t set up a government-run system. If anything, the law comes between you and your insurance company, forbidding them from capping your coverage or charging you more based on health status. Meanwhile, Obama can’t promise you can keep your plan. Employers are free to switch coverage, just as they were before.

Claim: 8.2 million Americans can’t find full-time work partly due to Obamacare.
FactCheck.org says: False.

Claim: The law is a job-killer.
FactCheck.org says: Overblown.
This claim made our “Whoppers of 2011” list, and it has continued to be pushed in various forms — with the latest being the claims about part-time work. Mainly, the “job-killer” claims severely distort a 2010 nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that said the law would have a “small” impact on jobs
The CBO report said this decrease in the amount of labor in the economy would amount to one-half of 1 percent, which Republicans quickly translated into a loss of actual jobs. But, as we said, CBO clearly explained this would come about “primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”
In July, claims about the law killing jobs took the form of a “mis-tweet” from several congressional Republicans, who wrongly tweeted “74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under #Obamacare.” But the online, opt-in survey from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the law, found no more than 13 percent of the small businesses that responded said that.

Claim: Premiums are going up because of the law.
Premiums are going down because of the law.
FactCheck.org says: It depends.
Politicians have been making these claims since before the law was passed — it was the first item on our list of whoppers back in 2010. Both sides have a penchant for misrepresenting studies on the matter to support their point. Our short answer — “it depends” — may be unsatisfactory to readers, but whether you’ll pay more or less than you would have without the law depends on your circumstances.Are you uninsured and have a preexisting condition? You’ll likely pay less than you would have otherwise. Are you uninsured but young and healthy? You’ll likely pay more (without accounting for any subsidies you may receive). Are you insured through your employer? You likely won’t see much change either way.
The growth in national health spending (that’s spending from the government, businesses and individuals) from 2009 to 2011 also has been at around 4 percent, the lowest level since such spending was first measured in 1960.

Claim: You won’t be able to choose your own doctor.
Claim: The government will be between you and your doctor.
FactCheck.org says: False.
These claims are variations on the fear that the government will be taking over health care — choosing your doctor, telling him or her what treatment to administer, etc. But the law doesn’t create a government-run system, as we’ve said many times. It actually greatly expands business for private insurance, by about 12 million new customers, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. And individuals will choose their own doctors, just as they do now.
These type of fear-mongering claims appear to have quieted a bit in 2013 — along with the more extreme death-panel-type hysteria — but they’re still percolating.
As for the government-coming-between-you-and-your-doctor claim, the law’s regulatory provisions are more like putting the government between you and your insurance company — and in a way that brings added benefits to consumers. The law says insurers can’t have caps on coverage, turn down customers based on preexisting conditions (or charge them more), and can’t spend more than 15 percent or 20 percent on non-medical-related costs (see Obama’s rebate claim above).

Claim: Those applying for federal subsidies can lie about their income without facing verification.
FactCheck.org says: False.
The Obama administration gave the insurance exchanges some leeway in how they verify income eligibility for federal subsidies in the first year. That prompted Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt to claim that the administration had “waived the income verification requirement” and that applicants can “say what you think your income’s going to be with no way to verify that.” Not true. The exchanges will compare applications with federal information — such as previous tax returns — and ask for additional information if the person has no previous tax filings.



OTHER FACTS
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/warren-buffett-on-obamacare/  
Lying about what Buffet said
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/29/fact-check-ted-cruz-obamacare-health-care/2890995/
Fact Check Cruz & Paul...LIARS, LIARS PANTS ON FIRE
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/25/cruz-fact-check/2873439/
CRUZ'S TALL TALES

OTHER FALSE CLAIMS PROVEN TO BE FALSE
~NO RFID CHIPS WILL BE IMPLANTED INTO HUMANS.
[NOTE: THAT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO DO THAT! EVERYTHING FROM OUR DRIVERS LICENSES TO OUR CELLPHONES, "DISCOUNT GROCERY CARDS", AND PET "ID CHIPS", PLUS EVERY BAR CODE OUT THERE CAN TRACK US AND GATHER INFO QUITE NICELY AS THINGS ARE NOW.]
[THAT'S ALSO BECAUSE OUR 'PUBLICANS ADDED THAT TO 'IMMIGRATION REFORM' BILLS.]

~NO 'DEATH PANELS'.
UNLESS YOU COUNT CONGRESS, THE FEDERAL RESERVE  AND THE SUPREME COURT. THEY'RE ALL KILLING US ALREADY!BOTH MEDICARE AND PRIVATE INSURANCE SINCE ABOUT 2 OR 3 YEARS BACK HAVE MADE "END OF LIFE COUNSELING MANDATORY (WELL YOU CAN OPT OUT, BUT THAT FLAGS YOU.)
BESIDES, ,WHO NEEDS DEATH PANELS WHEN 45,000 AT LEAST DIE EACH YEAR BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO HEALTH INSURANCE!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/27/because-fox-asked-here-are-examples-of-people-w/196139

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/15/1144844/-CDC-Reports-45-000-Americans-Die-Each-Year-From-Lack-of-Health-Care~IRS WILL NOT PUT A LIEN ON YOUR BUSINESS OR PROPERTY IF YOU DON'T VOLUNTARILY BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.
THEY CAN WITHHOLD YOUR TAX REFUNDS TO COVER THAT COST.

~ Just tossing this link in so you can see that Boehner doesn't discipline racists in his Congress, no sir no way! He should explain that.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/politicians-made-racist-remarks/story?id=18841740  


AFTER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN OVER THIS UNCUT CRAPOLA THE CONGRESS HAS ORCHESTRATED, REMEMBER WHO DID IT WHEN YOU'RE PAYING BACK THE $2 BILLION+ IT WILL COST US TO RESTART THE BLOODY THING!

THANK A CONGRESSMAN...AT THE POLLS!
VOTE THE LIARS OUT!