On October 15, 2013, I posted Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems
On November 6, 2013, I followed that up with Wikipedia’s Obamacare article continues to be a heavily biased and censored puff piece
Now, on November 30, 2013, I am writing part 3 of this series.
Video shows Syrian terrorist, funded with U.S. tax dollars, cutting out and eating the heart and liver of his dead enemy
The video at this link is very graphic, but it’s good that someone has documented it.
Actually, the link is a news article with an embedded video. You can read the article without actually watching the video if you want.
The first minute of the video is Glenn Beck criticizing Republicans and Democrats for funding this atrocity. The next 10 seconds is a warning about how graphic the video is. The graphic part starts at about the 1:10 point.
Beck warns us of the war that we are getting into. He urges all U.S. citizens – regardless of their political party – to show this video to other people, and to oppose U.S. involvement in this war.
Here’s another reason why the “education” major should be abolished. Over at UCLA, approximately 25 “education” majors staged a sit-in, after accusing their professor of racism because he corrected their spelling and grammar.
Whatever happened to liberals’ love of racial diversity?
I’ve updated my list of Obama criticisms. The list can be found at https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/
I’ve updated my list of Obamacare criticisms. The list can be found at https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/obamacare-59/
In March 2010, President Obama signed the Obamacare bill into law.
I guess this makes me a “bad” libertarian, but here’s my proposal for universal health care. It includes 33 things.
This proposal requires that each and every one of these 33 things all be included in one bill – all in the same bill – so that the only way to pass any one of these things is by passing all 33 of these things at the same time.
In front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama administration argued that Obamacare is a tax.
According to the Obamacare calulator, Obamacare places an annual tax on married couples for being married instead of single. The amount of this tax depends upon the ages, incomes, and parental status of the married couple.
According to the Obamacare calculator, the extreme case of this tax occurs with a 60-year-old married couple with no children, where the two spouses have identical incomes totaling $62,041 per year. Under this scenario, according to the Obamacare calculator, Obamacare gives them an annual tax of $11,028 for being married instead of single.
Why did Democrats give Obamacare this marriage tax?
Everyone knows that whatever you tax, you get less of. For example, after the Democrats increased the cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack in 2009, John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, said:
“Raising the price of tobacco products is one of the most effective approaches to encouraging people to quit and preventing kids from picking up the deadly habit in the first place.”
Mr. Seffrin’s comment makes perfect sense. Everyone knows that whatever you tax, you get less of, which is why Democrats have never, and will never, create an abortion tax.
So, why did Democrats give Obamacare an annual marriage tax of up to $11,028 per couple?
I am not a Democrat, so I cannot answer that question with 100% certainly. However, I can take my best, educated guess.
The only explanation that I can think of is that Democrats want to discourage people from being married. They want to discourage single people from getting married, and they want to encourage married people to get divorced.
If that’s not their reason, then what else could their reason possibly be?
The Washington Post reports:
Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition.
The fight over how to define the new health law’s success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?
Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they’ve submitted a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.
When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.
This is absolutely despicable.
I could go to amazon.com and fill my shopping cart with 1,000 different magazines without paying for them, but amazon has enough decency, honesty, and common sense not to report these things as actual “subscriptions” or “enrollments.”
But Obama is a serial liar, so I’m not surprised that he would do this. I’m disgusted – but I’m not surprised.
Also, what will happen to these people regarding the IRS penalty for people who don’t “enroll” in Obamacare? If people put an insurance plan in their shopping cart but they don’t actually pay for it, and Obama counts them as being “enrolled,” does that mean they won’t have to pay the IRS penalty for people who don’t have insurance?
Uh, that question is rhetorical – of course they’ll have to pay the penalty!
Because just like any other corrupt, lawbreaking criminal, Obama is keeping two different sets of books.
Darn. I wish I had come across this article two weeks ago – it would have come in really handy when I went trick or treating disguised as a giant squid.
Yahoo News reports:
How to Fake Bigger Eyes
November 11, 2013
Whether it be restless nights, allergies making eyes puffy or naturally small eyes (the list goes on and on) we all want our eyes to appear larger. This can seem hard to accomplish but with a few tricks and tips, you can achieve a larger looking eye in no time. From eye liners to sleeping habits, we’ve covered the basis of getting those beautiful eyes to pop. Take a look at the tips below and enjoy your bigger eyes!
White eyeliner: When applying liner to the water line, you want to opt for a white or blush toned liner to make the eye appear brighter and bring more light to that part of the face.
Eye cream: It’s never too early to start applying eye cream underneath eyes before you sleep. This will help to treat and hydrate the delicate tissue underneath the eyes, allowing you to wake up with fresh, de-puffed eyes. Puffiness can make your eyes look smaller, so de-puffing is always a plus.
Concealer: Try using a salmon pink color concealer under the eyes. This will work better to neutralize out those blues and purples that naturally come with the area under your eyes, and neutralizing these colors will help to brighten up, and therefore widen, your eyes.
Curl lashes: It may seem the oldest trick in the book, but there’s a good reason for that! Curling lashes before applying mascara helps to open up the eye, then once mascara is applied it accentuates the bigger, wider lashes.
Double coating: Don’t be afraid to double up on your mascara and apply two coats from the lash root to end. Mascara works to brighten and open up the eye, drawing more attention to them, and two coats of a mascara that won’t clump helps to really make your eyes look huge.
Follow the crease: When applying eyeshadow, follow the natural shape of the eye and you’ll notice dramatic results. Place the darker color in the crease of the eye and lighter shades on the lid for optimal results.
Brows: Bold brows aren’t just a huge trend because Cara Delevingne looks amazing. Filled in, strong brows frame the face and make your eyes pop, so skip the tweezing and opt for a brow pencil instead.
On October 15, 2013, I wrote this blog entry, titled “Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems.”
Well it is now November 6, 2013, and I am writing this new blog entry on the same subject.
As of November 6, 2013, more than a month after the Obamacare website went online, wikipedia’s Obamacare article still includes absolutely zero content on the problems of the Obamacare website, Obama’s false promise that people could keep their insurance, or the rate shock that people felt when they saw their new, higher premiums.
I’m glad that that Bush article is there. That was a notable lie that Bush told, and it deserves its own wikipedia article. The fact that wikipedia won’t allow any mention at all of Obama’s broken promise about letting people keep their insurance is a sad reflection of the bias that exists at wikipedia.
Self described “big proponent” of Obamacare says he is “surprised” that his family’s premium and deductible went up
The notice from Kaiser came in the mail about ten days ago.
Luke Donavan’s health insurance premiums were going up. A lot.
Donavan, 41 of San Francisco, is self-employed and buys his own health insurance. Currently he pays $841 per month for insurance for himself, his wife and three young children. But, Kaiser is canceling that policy and offering him a new one that fully complies with the Affordable Care Act. Effective Jan. 1, his family’s premium is going up to $1,000, with a higher deductible.
Donavan says he voted for Obama in both elections and calls himself a “big proponent” of the health law. He has a pretty calm demeanor and says he was “surprised” by this news from Kaiser.
“I just keep coming back to the name ‘Affordable Care Act,’” he said. “I thought I’d pay the same or less for better coverage.”
Mr. Donavan is self employed, seems to earn a good living, and had the common sense to buy a good health insurance polocy for this family. So he’s probably pretty intelligent.
But – he voted for Obama in both elections, supports Obamacare, and is surprised that Obamacare caused his premiums to go up. Those things suggest that he’s not intelligent at all.
Why is it that people who are otherwise highly intelligent support Obamacare?
Why would someone who is smart enough to support himself by starting his own business, simultaneously be so dumb that he’s actually surprised that government interference in something would make that thing more expensive?
Here’s another article about a different family. Pro Publica reports:
San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.
Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietitian and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me.
The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.
They do not qualify for premium subsidies because they make more than four times the federal poverty level.
The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month.
And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible, a higher out-of-pocket maximum, higher hospital costs, and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.
So, Mr. Hammack’s premiums have gone up, and his benefits have gone down.
Surely, he must have changed his mind about supporting Obamacare. After all, he is an architect, so he must be good with math and logic. He must be intelligent enough to realize that Obamacare is a fraud.
But no, he hasn’t changed his mind. He still supports Obamacare.
However, Mr. Hammack did say that he wants an exemption for himself. The same article from Pro Publica continues:
He’s written to California’s senators and his representative, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asking for help.
“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote.
He still supports Obamacare – but wants an exemption for himself.
Does Mr. Hammack really think that Nancy Pelosi is going care about his situation?
Obamacare has already been passed by Congress and signed by the President. Why should Nancy Pelosi care how much it hurts Mr. Hammack?
In reference to both of the above articles, Mr. Donavan and Mr. Hammack both blindly supported the passage of a 2,600 page bill that no one had read. And now – more than three years after the law was passed – they have the nerve to act surprised at what is actually in the law?
The opponents of Obamacare have been talking about this “rate shock” since before Obamacare was even passed. So how can these two people claim to be surprised that their rates have gone up?