Republican Sen. Steve Daines to Make Democrats Vote on Government Run Single Payer

INTERESTING MOVE BY SEN. DAINES TO GET DEMOCRATS ON RECORD FOR GOVERNMENT RUN SINGLE PAYER …

There actually is a Republican senator with a brain. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) is proposing an amendment to the Republican healthcare bill that would implement a government-run, single-payer insurance system in the United States. This is what Barack Obama and Democrats wanted all along. Obamacare was set up to fail, as it has, and destroy the private healthcare insurance industry so that single payer would take over. Thanks to some ignorant, selfish, cowardice and gutless RINO’s, it actually looks like that is where we are headed. Sen. Steve Daines looks to put Democrats on record for single payer. However, Democrats will probably vote against it as they could care less whether they are on record or not. This has all become one big game at the expende of the American people.

Take a good listen to what Obama had in store all along and the Republicans were played like a fiddle. Long before he ever became president, he was a proponent of government run single payer. Because the VA, Medicaid and Medicare are so well run and financially solvent. This is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people as Democrats told We the People we could keep our insurance plans, doctors and hospitals if we likes them. It was all an effort to get to single payer and it appears that most of the GOP could care less.

Sen. Steve Daines is proposing an amendment to the Republican healthcare bill that would implement a government-run, single-payer insurance system in the U.S.

The Montana Republican doesn’t support single-payer healthcare. But in a bit of political gamesmanship often seen in Congress, Daines wants to force vulnerable Democratic senators running for re-election in red states in 2018 to take a position on the liberal healthcare policy, which is gaining currency on the Left.

The Senate is considering legislation to partially repeal Obamacare. The floor debate process is poised to enter the amendment phase, during which senators can offer hundreds of proposals to alter the underlying bill. Daines’ single-payer amendment is a carbon copy of one offered in the House by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

The Conyers bill, with more than 100 Democratic cosponsors, proposes to create a program the legislation describes as “Medicare for All.” According to the bill’s language, “all individuals residing in the United States would be covered.” To pay for the program, Conyers proposes raising income taxes on the top 5 percent of earners, plus hiking taxes on payroll and self-imployment income, unearned income, and stock and bond transactions.

Democrats who support the bill might vote against the amendment anyway on the grounds that it’s a political stunt. Republicans continue to struggle in their effort to pass an Obamacare repeal bill. Their legislation, being considered under special rules that prevent it from being filibustered, can only lose two Republicans and still advance.

Obamacare Premiums to Rise Almost 25% and Some Consumers Down to One Insurer … What Happened to the $2500 Premium Reduction?

HOW THAT “UNAFFORDABLE” AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT WORKING OUT FOR YOU AMERICA?

As stated at Town Hall, just days after Barack Obama gave Obamacare a ringing endorsement, it is now confirmed that consumers will be feeling the wrath of Obamacare premiums rising as much as 25%. As reported by the AP, as per the administration, Obamacare premiums will go up sharply next year under President Barack Obama’s health care law, and many consumers will be down to just one insurer. According to CNN, the average premium increase masks wide variation among the states. In Arizona, the benchmark plan’s average premium will increase 116% in 2017. Remember this when you go to the polls America. I can’t say we did not warn you and tell you this from day one. You were lied to America by the current president, do we really want 4 more years of Democrat lies?

Remember when this liar told you Obamacare would reduce your premiums up to $2500 a year?

Premiums will go up sharply next year under President Barack Obama’s health care law, and many consumers will be down to just one insurer, the administration confirmed Monday. That’s sure to stoke another “Obamacare” controversy days before a presidential election.

Before taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some states will see much bigger jumps, others less.

Moreover, about 1 in 5 consumers will only have plans from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.

“Consumers will be faced this year with not only big premium increases but also with a declining number of insurers participating, and that will lead to a tumultuous open enrollment period,” said Larry Levitt, who tracks the health care law for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. [...]

In some states, the premium increases are striking. In Arizona, unsubsidized premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old buying a benchmark “second-lowest cost silver plan” will jump by 116 percent, from $196 to $422, according to the administration report. [...]

Dwindling choice is another issue.

The total number of HealthCare.gov insurers will drop from 232 this year to 167 in 2017, a loss of 28 percent. (Insurers are counted multiple times if they offer coverage in more than one state. So Aetna, for example, would count once in each state that it participated in.)

FRAUD ALERT: 6.5 Million Active Social Security Numbers Belong to People Who Are at Least 112 Years Old

WOW, WHO KNEW THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE OVER 100 YEARS OLD …

Once again we are witness to more government waste and a system that is too big to succeed. As reported at the WAPO, a recent watchdog review found that at least 6.5 million active Social Security numbers belong to people who are at least 112 years old and likely deceased. CAN YOU SAY FRAUD? The findings of this report was that SSA did not have controls in place to annotate death information on the Numident records of number holders who exceeded maximum reasonable life expectancies and were likely deceased. Come on man, really? Do you know how simple it is with database administration to red flag something like this? Having done data analysis, it is even more simple to write queries that look for such outliers as that is what one does when looking for fraud. Sorry, but one would almost not want to find the fraud to have something like this happen.

Senator  Ron Johnson (R-WI) who head the Senate committee that oversees the Social Security Administration said the following, “It is incredible that the Social Security Administration in 2015 does not have the technical sophistication to ensure that people they know to be deceased are actually noted as dead.” Ya think? It makes one think, what does our government do to protect tax payers money? Do they just not care? Stuff like this is simple to fix, not difficult. Sadly, we have a government that would just rather raise taxes on workers than fix the obvious fraud.

Thousands of workers over the age of 100 applied to verify their employment eligibility through the U.S. government in recent years.

It’s not a trend toward an older workforce, but a sign of identity fraud, according to federal auditors.

A recent watchdog review found that at least 6.5 million active Social Security numbers belong to people who are at least 112 years old and likely deceased.

But only 35 known living individuals worldwide had reached that age as of October 2013, according to the Gerontology Research Group.

The Social Security Administration’s inspector general said in a report on Monday that the questionable identification numbers put the government at risk of fraud and waste.

The review found that one individual opened bank accounts using Social Security numbers for individuals born in 1869 and 1893.

The official database of active Social Security numbers showed that both beneficiaries were alive, meaning they would be older than 145 and 121 years, respectively.

Auditors also discovered that nearly 67,000 Social Security numbers in recent years were used to report wages for people other than the cardholders. The workers reported about $3 billion in earnings between 2006 and 2011.

EXIT QUESTION: What are the odds that many of these active social security numbers of people between the age of 121 and 145 is identity theft by illegals? This incompetent and apathetic government can’t handle this type of fraud and yet they want to provide illegals with tax refunds for past work under the guise that they have to prove some type of income, REALLY? REALLY!

Johnathan Gruber Apologizes … Rep. Trey Gowdy Grills Gruber: Did You Apologize Because You Said It Or Meant It?

YESTERDAYS MENU: GRILLED GROUPER GRUBER …

Following Jonathan Gruber’s apology yesterday for his mean and insulting Obamacare comments during the during the House Oversight Committee, Gruber was grilled, baked and fried by House members on both sides of the aisle. Gruber apologized for his glib comments and used the defense during the hearings that he was not a politician. Of course Jonathan Gruber never thought his comments were inappropriate until the video came out. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled Gruber and said the following, “The pervasiveness of your quotes is so much that it has to be more than that. It has to be more than an episodic mistake that you made… What did you mean when you said you wish that you had been able to be transparent, but you’d rather have the law than not?… Did you apologize because you said it or meant it?”

How comical is it that they are now trying to make MIT economist Jonathan Gruber look like Sgt. Schultz, I know nothing.

Below is Johnathan Gruber’s lame attempt at an apology for his plethera of “stupid” comments. Gruber apologized for making “uninformed and glib comments” about the political process behind health care reform and used the defense he was not a politician. HUH? Now one of the architects of Obamacare is claiming he is not an expert and is using the Sgt. Schultz defense … He knows nothing.

VIDEO APOLOGY

The Blaze:

“I would like to begin by apologizing sincerely for the offending comments that I made,” Gruber said in prepared remarks before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

He said in some cases he made “glib comments” about the process, and said his tone implied he’s an expert on healthcare, “which is wrong.” Gruber acknowledged his “insulting and mean comments” were uncalled for.

“I sincerely apologize for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion,” he said. “It is never appropriate to try to make oneself seem more important or smarter by demeaning others. I knew better. I know better. I am embarrassed, and I am sorry.”

GRUBERGATE:The Liar in Chief President Obama Says Regarding Gruber’s Remarks, “No, We Did Not Mislead to Get Obamacare Passed”

GRUBERGATE … THE GREAT OBAMACARE HOAX, LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.

Yesterday in Brisbain, Australia Barack Obama finally was asked the question, did you misled the American people with regards to Obamacare. Wouldn’t it have been amazing id he said, YES, you caught me. But, in typical Obama fashion, he denied the allegation and then went off on a tangent explaining away the accusation and never really providing any valid facts to support his denial. All you have done in your six years in office is mislead the American people. President Obama, you have already lied about you can keep your insurance plan and doctor, if you like them … why wouldn’t we think you lied about everything else to pass Obamacare?

Ed Henry – Fox News: At you Burma town hall a couple of days ago you tried to inspire young leaders by saying governments need to be held accountable and be responsive to the people. I wonder how you square that with your former adviser Jonathan Gruber claiming that you were not transparent about the health law, because in his words, ‘the American people, the voters, were stupid’ (VIDEO). Did you mislead Americans about the taxes, about keeping your plan, to get the bill passed?

Barack Obama: No. I did not. I just heard about this. I get well briefed before I come out here. The fact that some adviser, who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion, that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, is no reflection of the process that was run. We had a year long debate Ed. Go back and look at your stories. The one thing we cannot say is that we did not have a lengthy about health care in the United States of America. Or that it was not adequately covered. I would just advise every press outlet here to go back and pull up every clip, every story, and I think it is fair to say that there was not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and fully transparent.

First, Obama just heard about this? You mean he can’t remember one of the many meetings with Jonathan Gruber in the White House? Good grief, Obama is using that tired response of he just learned about the issue from the news?  Where have we heard that before, maybe in the following VIDEO.

Second, Just curious, does it make an adviser less credible if he did not work directly on Obama’s staff? There are these people called consultants Barack. Who would actually believe that the architect of Obamacare, also the architect of Romneycare, would actually work directly for the President? This sounds an awful lot like the Cheers episode when Cliff was on Jeopardy answering the final Jeopardy question … “who are three people who have never been in my kitchen.”

Third, read the following quote from Obama, “The fact that some adviser, who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion, that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, …” All Obama disagrees with is Gruber’s remark that the American voters are stupid. Obama is not saying that he disagrees with the rest of the misleading comments.

Fourth, Barack Obama claimed that the health care debate was extensive, adequately covered and transparent. Hmm really? So why did Nancy Pelosi famously say, “We Have to Pass Our Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It.”

Fifth, President Obama, do you really want everyone going back and taking a look at every clip and news account? Look what happened so far by those on the right and bloggers.

Sixth, fully transparent? The Obamacare you can keep your plan if you like it was already awarded the 2013 Politifact lie of the Year. It would appear you are looking to win the award two years in a row. As Jonathan Gruber said, “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

Seventh, no asked the question whether Obamacare was extensively debated. However, what good is a debate when the premise is based on a lie that is being discussed?

On a completely different lie, check out the 2:20 mark of the Obama VIDEO where miraculously Obama comes up with all of these stats for the Healthcare.gov web site now that it is not crashing all the time. Remember last year when Obama minions were asked for the same type of data and we were told they did not have access to it.

Yeah Mr. President, Obamacare is working … that is why the majority of Americans have not even been affected by it because you delayed it.