Report: Obamacare will create deficits not save money as promised

"But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it." —Nancy Pelosi, Democrat and former Speaker of the House

If governments and laws were people, “The Patient protection and Affordable Care Act” (ACA) signed into law by president Barry Hussein Soetoro would be a bastard son born to a single Party in a two Party government. If governments were religion (ACA) or Obamacare would be sin because it was brought forth in partisan iniquity, and in political sin did it’s mother (Nancy Pelosi) conceive it.

Who could forget the infamous words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as she and her Democrat controlled Congress gave birth to the bill known as Obamacare. The bill, which no one was able to see until it, was voted into law and signed by the most partisan president in the history of the nation. Neither the Democrat controlled Congress nor the President took the time to read the bill in order to ensure that what was in it is for the best interest of the American people. (see :05sec video)



So now that we are able to peer down into Obama’s and Pelosi’s Pandora’s Box, the Healthcare law, we can see that truly the devil is in the details of this unsustainable and negatively fiscal impacting law.

Government Economist Charles Blahous, who serves as public trustee overseeing Medicare and Social Security finances for the Soetoro administration, suggested that federal accounting practices under this administration have obscured the true fiscal impact of Obamacare. Mr. Blahous newly released fifty-two paged report, The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act (see below) is being untruthfully and unmercifully attacked by the Soetoro administration because it attempts to give a truthful picture of the fiscal impact that Obamacare will have on the American economy. (see story)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law by President Obama in 2010 will significantly worsen the federal government’s fiscal position relative to previous law. Supporters argued that this comprehensive health care reform would deliver a much-needed correction to the government’s unsustainable fiscal outlook and would benefit the country’s overall fiscal situation. However, between now and 2021, the ACA is expected to add as much as $530 billion to federal deficits while increasing spending by more than $1.15 trillion.— Charles Blahous

THE FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF THEAFFORDABLE CARE ACT--Charles Blahous

The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act 1

With nothing more than what can be described as unbelievable temerity the Soetoro administration is defending an over 2,000-page law that no one in the administration probably still haven’t read against a economic report that that they probably haven’t put in a honest effort to investigate.

Following is Mr. Blahous’ basic explanation showing why obamacare will add at least $340 billion to the deficit, not reduce it has the president promised. (see report) (see 2:53min video)



Inevitably, the American people will have to decide whom they are going to believe, a government that forced an unconstitutional law on it by any means necessary. As Nancy Pelosi said, “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed.”

Does that sound like a government one can trust? This law is not only unconstitutional, it is the second greatest lie propagated against the America people. The first is the presidency of a foreign student who’s education was partly funded by William Ayers’ mother and father, Mary and Thomas Ayers.

The IRS Just as Powerful, Just as Strong, Just as well Funded

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to secure the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded. —Presidential Candidate Barry Hussein Soetoro

The Hill has reported Monday that the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration has stealthy diverted one-half a billion dollars to the IRS to transform the civilian government agency into the armed national security force that candidate Soetoro said he needed to secure his national security objectives. (see story)(see :21sec video)



According to The Hill, the money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate. (see related story)

Congressional Leaders have been warning for two years that 16,500 IRS agents would be added to the roles of the IRS under Soetoro and those agents would be armed to enforce Obamacare. It is highly suspect that when one queries the subject of 16,500-armed IRS agents, pages on the subject are removed throughout the internet however in contrast several pro Soetoro factcheck sites are posted to refute the claims of several thousand armed IRS agents. Highly curious I must say!

“This is a command society now and medicine is right at the forefront of this….16,500 armed bureaucrats coming to make this program work – if it was a good program and everybody liked it, you wouldn’t need 16,500 thugs coming with their guns and putting you in jail if you didn’t follow all the rules,”—Congressman Paul Ryan

Only sites that will speak in general terms are allowed to remain on the net. (see example)

The Supreme Court is presently deciding the constitutionally of Obamacare. However according to the Hill the Soetoro administration is not waiting for such a ruling it is presently laying ground work for enforcement of Obamacare by the IRS.

It should be apparent to even the blindest partisans supporting the administration Barry Hussein Soetoro’s plan is to use the government attack dog, the IRS, to bully the American people to comply with his healthcare law whether or not the law is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal and political challenges.

It has moved aggressively to get important policies in place. In addition, according to a review of budget documents and figures provided by congressional staff, the administration is also burning through implementation funding provided in the healthcare law.

Presidential candidate Soetoro called for a civilian national security force to enforce his objectives. The IRS certain could fill that order.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.

After all the IRS is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded as any other U.S. governmental organization. They certainly are the most feared civilian government agency.

Obama Looking for Lapdogs on the Supreme Court

Those fact s notwithstanding, what is so striking about the president’s remarks is how apparent it has become to all citizens of the United States, to all Chicago thuggery and to all prison inmates across this country that this presumed president is attempting to make the Supremes his bitches. That is why he chastises them so often and so publicly.

Apparently Barry Hussein Soetoro is doing his job so well as the presumed president of the United States of America (presumed because his legitimacy is still in question) that he has time to tell a legitimate body of government ( his appointments excluded) how to conduct it’s affairs. (see story)

You would think that a Constitutional lecturer (Soetoro was never a law Professor) would know that the Supreme Court is an equal branch to the Legislative and the Executive branches of the United States government. The Supremes’ job is to decide whether laws within a case or cases brought before it comply with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Justices are supposed to be fair and unbiased judges of constitutionally. They are not supposed to be swayed by the partisan carping of a politically insecure president, be he legitimate or be he not. Nor should the court be ideologically influenced hence their lifetime appointments.

The reality is both of the president’s Supreme Court appointments Sonia Sotomeyer and Elena Kagan were placed on the court for their progressive ideological views rather than their judicial acumen or their commitment to Constitutional principles. For example, Justice Kagan who was the solicitor general for the Soetoro administration when they were beginning to plan their defense of this health care law is in clear conflict of interest yet she hasn’t the legal ethics to recuse herself from the case. Seems these days judges or justices are selected for their ideological fealty rather than unbiased dedication to law or the constitution.

Moreover, in the media there is continued talk about a partisan split on the court between Progressive and Conservatives. If what the media reports is true then the house of the United States has fallen, it is a political and social house divided. Justices Sotomeyer’s and Kagan’s primarily function on the court is to fortify that ideological breach rather than adjudicate constitutionally.

Those fact s notwithstanding, what is so striking about the president’s recent remarks regarding the Supreme court is how apparent it has became to all citizens of the United States, to all Chicago thuggery and to all prison inmates across this country that this presumed president is attempting to make the Supremes his bitches. That is why he chastises them so often and so publicly.

This president shows unprecedented contempt for the Supreme Court. That fact was on full display for the nation to see January 2010 when the president dressed the Justices down in a national viewed bi-cameral meeting. What had the court done? It ruled in a way that presumed president didn’t agree with.

In a 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case the court ruled to strike down a key campaign-finance provision. The presumed president’s response;

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." --President Barry Hussein Soetoro

In a nearly unprecedented move, the presumed president lambasted the Supreme Court embarrassing the Justices before the whole country. Now he’s done it again. On Monday April 2 2012, he virtually threatens the court. The president sent a message via the media to the court that if they do their job they would be the ones acting unconstitutionally. That message was also meant for his partisans who are already gearing up to attack the court if the court’s ruling is not what Soetoro supporters want.

The presumed president’s unveiled threats against the Supreme court were so brazen that an Appellate court has responded ordering the administration to answer whether it believes that the Supreme court is within its constitutional role to rule on the constitutionality of the health care law. (see story)

The presumed president’s remarks in their entirely are below:

"I actually continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it's constitutional.
"That's not just my opinion by the way. That's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case."

"I think it's important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of healthcare, the inaffordability of healthcare, their inability to get healthcare because of preexisting conditions.

"The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people healthcare that wouldn't otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have healthcare right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get healthcare because they can't be prevented from getting healthcare as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That is part of this law.
"Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to the insurance companies, and are getting preventive care because of this law.

"So, that's just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn't speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it's fully implemented in 2014.
"And I think it's important, I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare.
"So there's not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this but there's a human element to this, and I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate. Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step."

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who've examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."

The president’s remarks are political sophistry at its absolute worst. His words reek of the scent of healthcare snake oil sold for medical cures by a roadside huckster. This unconstitutional healthcare law is the lemon that the lemon laws were enacted to enforce against.

The American people were sold a lemon in Obamacare. We all know it. The American people want nothing more than to take this lemon back to the dealer and get our money back. We’ve had enough of roadside hucksters telling the American people to swallow the snake oil of Obamacare. We’ve had enough of the government telling us that what they tell us to do is for our own good whether we like it or we want it or not.

According to the founders of this country, our government was instituted in a triad form for the purpose of checks and balances. When two branches of our government act unconstitutionally as the Congress and the President has in passing Obamacare, the Judiciary was designed to check them for the sake of the American people.
That is why the Supremes will strike down Obamacare, it is unconstitutional, and we all know it.

Finally, if we no longer have a government that will protect and defend the constitution we have disappointed Benjamin Franklin and the rest of America’s founders. Though it’s taken over two hundred years to lost it we have shown that we could not keep what the founders bequeathed to us when they gave us a constitutional republic. That is if we let stand any unconstitutional law, which Progressives in both the Democrat and Republican Parties including the president put forth.

No matter what the president says, Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Supremes must strike it down. We all know that it is. What we don’t know is whether there is remaining an American institution that will uphold the Constitution of the United States of America in the way that it is intended to be protected and defended.