Attempt To Inflict Pain Fails

By Jack

They could afford to pay park police to stand guard around the WWII Memorial in Washington D.C., but they could not afford docents to keep it open? Well, that didn’t fly with a group of WWII vets who came a long way to see their memorial. They edged their way closer and closer to the barrier until the (cops) someone said and I am paraphrasing, “Let em in!” As one officer later said, “The last thing we want to do is come between our WWII vets and their memorial.” So they opened the barriers and let them in, well actually I heard moments ago it was a few Republicans from Congress that let them in, but whatever. The Park Police had received orders from on high to shut down the monuments (to inflict some pain on tourists/voters so Republicans would feel the heat). Obviously, it didn’t work out that way and it didn’t work out that way the last time they tried it. Uh, what’s the definition of insanity…?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Attempt To Inflict Pain Fails

  1. Libby says:

    You’ve done it again. There were no police. There were only those portable, metal fence, barrier things, which the vets chose not to abide.

    If it makes you feel any better, HuffPo fell for it too.

    I did hear, however, that Michelle Bachmann tried to engineer herself a photo op out of the thing, but the vets weren’t having that either. Giggle.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby sometimes I think you don’t read very well. Have you had your eyes checked recently? Surely you are not just saying inacurate (lying) stuff because you want to antagonize us are you? Case in point was where you told me to post the insurance letter, that came from “More Common Sense” not me.

      WELL, THE COPS WERE TOO THERE! “The memorial had been closed at around 8:30 a.m. and its fountains shut down shortly after that. A National Park Service spokeswoman said Park Police were there monitoring the situation.” This is taken from the Washington Post, but it’s all over the headlines.

      Fred martin, US Navy vet said, “Whatever party they are in, whoever they are — thank you,” said Martin. “We were told we were only going to be able to see it from the outside and it’s really nice to be in here and think about all those that gave their lives and sacrificed.” “This is all open,” he added. “You have to have security around anyway, so why not just let people walk around?”

      Carol Johnson, the spokeswoman, told reporters. “This memorial was built for them. And the last thing we want to is keep them from seeing it.” Bloomberg Business Week

      Armstrong and Getty talk radio, 650 am dial, reported a police officer was quoted as saying they didn’t want to come between the old vets and their monument. Listen to the podcast from 6:27 am till 7:30 am, it’s in there.

  2. Libby says:

    “They edged their way closer and closer to the barrier until the (cops) someone said and I am paraphrasing, ‘Let em in!’”

    I’m sorry, Jack, but this is untrue. There were no cops to challenge, just barriers to move.

    All the commentators, including the cops, showed up later, and of course, made a thing of it.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, but why are you making a thing of it? The essential parts of the story was in no particular order, the barriers and the reason for them, the WWII Vets and the fact that they had to force their way in to see THEIR own memorial. Those are all the key points and the rest is just miscellaneous commentary which does not matter two beans.

  3. Princess says:

    This is the dumbest “shut down” I have seen. It is a fountain! There are no doors to close. Apparently last time there was a shut down the garbage on the National Mall was out of control, but I don’t understand why barricades need to be erected around something like this.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Princess, the obvious answer is they didn’t need the stupid barricades. The whole area is sacred ground full of monuments and open 24/7 and it is all well secured.

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    The people who made a “thing” of it were the people or person (the ESSENTIAL people or person) who ordered the barriers be put up.

    After the barriers were breached then the D.C. police showed up to back up the ESSENTIAL “security” goons and evict these war veteran dirt bag criminals.

    This is a calculated political maneuver by Obama thralls in the ESSENTIAL bureaucracy.

    Rand Paul and Post Scripts get it right and Libby gets it wrong (no surprise there)–

    Sen. Rand Paul blasted the federal government for trying to block World War II vets from visiting their memorial, saying “some idiot in government sent goons out there to set up barricades.”

    “If Harry Reid and the president want to keep the parks closed — I mean did you read the story today? Some idiot in government sent goons out there to set up barricades so they couldn’t see the monument. People had to spend hours setting up barricades where there are never barricades to prevent people from seeing the World War II monument because they’re trying to play a charade”

    Read more:

  5. Princess says:

    Are they all closed? Are there barricades around the Vietnam Memorial? That whole area is a freaking park!! The closed national parks are really screwing over small towns and businesses that depend on tourists. Right now back east October is a huge tourism month for Acadia National Park and they are closed. Apparently their drive through loop was closed earlier this year for a month because of the sequester budget cuts. These parks are owned by the people and should be open to the people always. We shouldn’t even have to pay to drive through them.

  6. Libby says:

    “We shouldn’t even have to pay to drive through them.”

    Princess, you commie, you!

    Actually, we always pay. The big fight is over who pays, and how much.

    I, myself, hanker for the days when public facilities were staffed and maintained entirely by our taxes. No fees, nowhere.

    But it’s all come apart since some people (and, I’m sorry, but most of them are Republicans) started crabbing: “why should I have to pay for this; I don’t use it.” And now we got fee-based everything … and the poor people are just shut out.


  7. Pie Guevara says:

    The other obvious answer is that putting up barricades where none were actually needed was a badly crafted and calculated political blunder by some bureaucrat dorks who goose-step to other dorks in Obama’s administration.

  8. Tina says:

    Park Service says the order to put up the barriers came from the White House. Today we hear Democrats are paying SEIU members to protest the vets:

    And Powerline quoting PJ media:

    Yesterday, as we noted here, the administration suffered a public relations disaster when a group of elderly vets from Mississippi, aided by one or more Republican Congressmen, pushed the barriers aside and visited the memorial. But the administration was still undeterred: a park service employee threatened to arrest any vets who may try to visit the WWII memorial in the future, while the shutdown is in effect.

    The best thing the Obama administration could do is quietly remove the barricades around the memorial and forget the whole thing. But no: it happened again today. Fortunately, PJ Media was on hand to record the action:

    The same scene was reenacted again today as two Honor Flights from Missouri and Chicago arrived in prearranged visits. These Honor Flights were met by hundreds of ordinary citizens and about a dozen members of Congress, who once again crashed the barricades to let the veterans into the WW2 Memorial.

    After about an hour, about 20 SEIU protesters arrived on the scene chanting “Boehner, get us back to work” and claiming they were federal employees furloughed because of the shutdown.

    WWII veterans visiting the memorial that was erected in their honor vs. paid SEIU protesters: great optics for the Obama administration! But it gets worse. The protesters claimed to be furloughed federal employees:

    In the video below these protesters were marching towards the press gaggle and I was asking them to show their federal IDs to prove they were in fact federal workers. No one wore their federal ID and none would provide it to prove their claim.

    Then, remarkably, a guy carrying a sign passed by wearing a McDonald’s employee shirt, which I noted. I then began asking them how much they had been paid to protest, at which point the guy wearing the McDonald’s shirt came back and admitted he had been paid $15 to attend the protest.

    Petty, stinky, and dumb.

  9. Coyote Dhara Guevara says:

    Re Tina: “Park Service says the order to put up the barriers came from the White House.”

    Bow before me and the supremacy of my intellectual powers and rapier like wit, you stereotypical pigheaded fools of the left, I had this from the get go. *STRUT*

  10. Coyote Dhara Guevara says:

    For the usual left-wing morons, translate the above as a facetious imitation OF YOU!

  11. Chris says:

    The facts are these:

    This shutdown happened because Republicans proposed a bunch of demands they knew had no chance of passing. They did not intend to negotiate. They did not intend to compromise. There was no give and take. The Republicans demanded that Obamacare be defunded or the government would be shut down. Never in our history has the government been shut down because the minority party didn’t like a law that was put in place three years prior. Everything that happens as a result of this shutdown is on you.

  12. Tina says:

    Re Chris: “This shutdown happened because Republicans proposed a bunch of demands they knew had no chance of passing.”

    Democrats passed the healthcare bill they knew would not pass without a couple of bribes and a lot of arm twisting. The bill was negotiated in secret meetings behind closed doors.

    “Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency.” – Unknown

    Harry Reid has not passed a budget. He has refused to do his legal duty. He has refused to participate in the checks and balances process created under the Constitution as a system to best serve the people.

    Because of this irresponsible game playing, the nation has run out of operating cash.

    This dereliction of duty, the shameful failure to fulfill one’s obligations, is the reason we are witnessing a Mexican standoff.

    Instead of standing by the Constitution as they have sworn to do, Democrats have made Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” their guiding epistle. Blame shifting, and name calling…rule number twelve was also in play. The leader of the pack, through his spokesman Dan Pfeiffer: “What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest”

    Hmmmm…Obama has practically begged Rouhani of Iran for negotiations.

    He will make deals with Unions bosses, Wall Street bankers, corporate heads, and insurance and healthcare giants.

    Cl-ass Act

    Chris, in terms of what brought us to this, what exactly do you think represents a “give” on the part of Democrats, Reid, or the President who says he “will not negotiate?”

  13. Princess says:

    The CR would pass right now. Boehner won’t bring it to the floor. I swear to God the House has GOT to get a new speaker in January.

  14. Harold says:

    Once the voters start to put ideology aside and recognize that the people whose job it is to run that government: the Congress and the White House. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, conservatives, liberals –and no one forced any of them to take those jobs. They wanted them, ran for them and they got them, now damn it, do them!

    We taxpayers have paid to operate government and those accepting the paychecks can blame each other all they want for what has happened. They can point fingers and say that it’s all the other guys’ fault. However when they can not get the job done, then retire. It’s now time to give others the opportunity to run Government effectively.

    It always takes two to argue and if both sides are unrelenting in their positions, then the blame falls on ALL their backs, not just who will own it, that’s BS, we send in people to comprise, not draw a line in the sand.

    As to the President who should have been working to prevent situations like this, Thank the high heavens that someone put a Denver boot on Air Force One or who knows where the President would be today instead of trying to structure a compromise.

    • Jack says:

      It’s not a government shutdown, only 18% of the government has shut down, so right off we see the media bias. And some of the closures were political because they had sufficient staff to keep them open. Case in point is the Washington monuments now baracaded off from the public. There was no need to do that, but the White House felt it was needed to inflict pain in order to send a message. In colusion with Obama has been the liberal media. A study of 33 national news articles showed 29 to be unfairly biased against republicans. Only 4 were fairly neutral, but zero faulted the democrats. Like Harold has said it takes two to argue, but liberals don’t see that.

      We all know that no piece of legislation that becomes law is forever immune from re-examination and reform to fix problems. But, in this case the republicans are taking the full brunt of criticism for trying to do what they were elected to do. They’re trying hard to minimize the economic devastation on businesses and working class families and fix critical areas of ObamaCare during a delay of 1 year. You need only look back at the mainstream media’s coverage to understand why 4 to 1 voters hold republicans completely at fault. The casual voter depends on the news media for information and when they are being fed biased news the results at the polls is completely understandable.

      Now for an example of bad reporting: “Just yesterday, the news story of children unable to get experimental cancer treatments from the National Institute of Health due to the shutdown was all over the media. Today, I have hardly heard a peep about these same sick children. What happened between yesterday and today is that the GOP agreed to fund the NIH and give these kids the treatments they need. But Obama threatened a veto. So it is really Obama’s fault that these kids are not getting treatment today, not the GOP’s. And…the media just aren’t going to continue a narrative that will now hurt Obama.

      Hopefully, the parents of these children understand that the media is no longer care about their children because to do so would now damage Obama. And to our media, advocating for sick children just isn’t worth hurting Obama.” Scource –

      • Post Scripts says:

        News byte: Officials tell the Los Angeles Times the site received 645,000 hits on Tuesday, well below the 5 million they initially reported.

        Covered California spokesman Dana Howard said the error occurred because someone misspoke and thought the site had in fact received 5 million hits.

        The figure was cited by California officials as an indicator of the high level of interest in the exchange. They also blamed it for some of the problems with the system.

        The enrollment portion of the exchange website was taken offline from Tuesday night until late Wednesday morning.

  15. More Common Sense says:

    Chris: “They did not intend to negotiate.”

    There is where you are very very wrong. First they sent a CR to the Senate that funded everything except Obamacare. This was rejected by the Democrats. Then they sent a bill to the Senate that funds Obamacare but delays it 1 year and removes the Congressional exception. The was also rejected by the Senate. The Republicans submitted a “Conferencing” plan to negotiate the bill. This was also rejected by the Democrats. It is very clear the Republicans are negotiating but the Democrats are not! And all you hear in the media is how the Republicans are causing all of this. The problem with $#%$# liberals is it is always “their way or the highway” and then they Obama! Oh, I used a new verb. To “Obama” is to blame everything that is your responsibility on someone else!

  16. Tina says:

    Legal Insurection takes Harry Reid to task on rights, power, and the Constitution:

    Here’s Harry:

    What right did [the House of Representatives] have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare thing. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.”

    Here’s the response at Legal Insurection:

    You might be tempted to give Reid the simple and obvious answer: look it up here. It’s the sort of thing every kid used to have to learn in civics class (not sure what children learn now, or if they even have civics class any more). First there’s Article I, section 7, clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” It’s followed by Section 7 Clause 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”

    So Congress was given what is commonly known as the power of the purse, and at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the House of Representatives should hold more of that power than the Senate because the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”

    Aside from this balancing of fiscal power somewhat in favor of House over Senate, another goal was to make sure the executive did not spend money without congressional authorization. The framers had had experience with kings spending money without being directly answerable to the people, and they didn’t like it.

    Reid’s arrogance is a result of having his a** covered for years by a media that is in the tank for the left. He thinks he can do anything and say anything. He can Lie. He can pretend to be affronted. He can make ridiculous accusations and he will not be challenged.

    America deserves better from our representatives in Washington and the journalists and talking heads that cover them.

  17. Peggy says:

    The overreaching arrogance of this administrations is out of control. They now believe they have the right to shut down privately owned property.


    Barrycades: Feds Try to Shut Down Privately Owned Mount Vernon

  18. Tina says:

    Isn’t the attempted closing of Mount Vernon a hoot, Peggy? Heard about it on radio this afternoon. You’d think the people at the WH would have inquired before just assuming?

    Also heard they closed the memorial cemeteries in Europe. What a petty sleezy bunch are the radicals in control of the Democrat party…ick!

  19. dewey says:

    Alex Jones is not a news source as listed on a comment

    The GOP refuses to bring the clean CR bill to the House floor, ya want to tank the economy, fine I say I hope wall street crashes and there will be no bailout this time. There is an international global revolution going on against the austerity measures. Welcome to the new world cheers

    Mr Cruz is no more than the Koch puppet who is safe from being primaried.

    Bottom Line the Tea party is the furthest thing from a grassroots group as you can get. Following orders from a Koch politician is not grassroots

  20. Peggy says:

    Tina, you have to see the interview on Fox’s Greta V. show with the woman that runs The Colonial Farm. It was shut down even though it receives NO government funds.

    The workers were ordered to stay home. Everyone of them are continuing to show up every day.

    They’ve had to cancel bookings at a lose of $20,000 they will not recover because when the funds are once again flowing they will get none of it.

    They may be forced to close down if the shut down continues. They were allowed to stay open during the 1995 shut down.

    To quote the woman, “We’re pissed.”

    Let’s see BO try to blame this one on the Republicans as if they were the ones who gave the order to shut down.

  21. Chris says:

    More Common Sense: “There is where you are very very wrong. First they sent a CR to the Senate that funded everything except Obamacare. This was rejected by the Democrats. Then they sent a bill to the Senate that funds Obamacare but delays it 1 year and removes the Congressional exception. The was also rejected by the Senate. The Republicans submitted a “Conferencing” plan to negotiate the bill. This was also rejected by the Democrats. It is very clear the Republicans are negotiating but the Democrats are not!”

    Wow, you really don’t know what the word “negotiate” means. To truly negotiate, you must be willing to give something up in return for something else. What were Republicans willing to give up in return for defunding or delaying Obamacare? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. This was not a negotiation, it was a list of demands. Republicans asked to be given what they wanted while giving nothing in return. Of course their plan was rejected. They had to know it would be.

    And some of what they’re asking to get rid of doesn’t even exist! There is no “Congressional exception.” You may not know that, but trust me, your representatives do. John Boehner said the other day that we need to get rid of the exemption. Do you really believe Boehner doesn’t understand how his own health insurance works? No, he knows that what he’s saying is not true, but he’s counting on people like you to not know. In private he and his staff actually worked to ensure that they keep getting the subsidies they’ve always gotten. Google leaked Boehner e-mails. He knows it isn’t an exemption and he actually wants to keep the subsidies, but he’s lying to please the misinformed Tea Party crowd.

    What’s sleazy if for Republicans to now blame Obama for the consequences of a government shutdown they actively cheerleaded for.

  22. Chris says:

    The Blaze has a story about Boehner working to keep Congressional subsidies, but as usual, still gets the story wrong by claiming that they amount to an “exemption” from Obamacare. It’s not an exemption. Congress members have been kicked off their regular healthcare plans and forced onto the insurance exchanges. No other types of employees, in the private or public sector, have been forced off of their insurance plans and onto the exchanges this way. If anything this is a burden on Congress than no one else is subjected to. It makes sense for them to keep getting subsidies and that was the original intention of this part of the ACA, a part which was created by a Republican. All of this was unnecessary; we could have just let Congress members keep their health insurance plans just like every other employed person. But Democrats actually took a Republican idea for this part and incorporated it into the bill. Now Republicans are calling it an exemption? Ridiculous. But the main point is that Boehner is being a giant hypocrite; he worked hard to ensure that he and other Congress members keep getting these subsidies, and now is posturing as if he was against them all along.

  23. Soaps says:

    The alleged shut down is meaningless. So what if they “shut down” Yosemite or the Grand Canyon? All they are really doing is dragging a chain across the driveway into the parking lot. The serious visitors are hikers and outdoors people, who have no difficulty finding an alternate access point. What both parties are really afraid of is that people will realize they really can do without 75% of government.

  24. Tina says:

    John Fund of National Review provides some context:

    In 1995, the newly elected Republican Congress passed a Congressional Accountability Act to fulfill a promise made the previous year in the Contract with America. For the first time, the Act applied to Congress the same civil-rights employment and labor laws that lawmakers had required everyday citizens to abide by. With some lapses, it’s worked well to defuse public outrage about “one law for thee, one law for me” congressional behavior.

    In 2009, Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) decided that the principle deserved to be embedded in Obamacare, and he was able to insert a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staffs to get insurance through the Obamacare health exchanges. “The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better,” said Grassley. Although his amendment was watered down before final passage to exclude committee staff, it still applies to members of Congress and their personal staffs. Most employment lawyers interpreted that to mean that the taxpayer-funded federal health-insurance subsidies dispensed to those on Congress’s payroll — which now range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year — would have to end.

    Democratic and Republican staffers alike were furious, warning that Congress faced a “brain drain” if the provision stuck. Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August recess to personally order the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises federal employment issues, to interpret the law so as to retain the generous congressional benefits.

    OPM had previously balked at issuing such a ruling. Even without OPM, Congress could have voted to restore the subsidies or ordered a salary raise to compensate for the loss of benefits, but that would have been a messy, public process, which everyone wanted to avoid.

    Senator Vitter says the OPM ruling has removed “the sting of Obamacare” from Congress. “Many Americans will see their health coverage dropped by employers, and they will be forced into the exchanges,” he told me last week. “If Congress is forced into them on the same terms, it will be more likely to fix Obamacare’s problems for others.” The bill he and his co-author, Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, have drafted would make everyone working on Capitol Hill buy insurance through the exchanges — with no subsidies. White House officials and political appointees in the executive branch would also be required to obtain health insurance through the exchanges.

    The point is that Congress isn’t subjected to the same realities that the American people are, which was the point of the 1995 legislation. The general population doesn’t get a subsidy to help pay for their insurance through the exchanges. Why should congressional staffers?

    As for employers dropping coverage:

    CNS News reported on June 20, 2011:

    ( – A survey of 1,300 employers finds that 30 percent will “definitely or probably” stop offering health insurance to their employees due to new requirements imposed by the Obamacare health reform law.

    The survey, conducted by business journal McKinsey Quarterly, found that contrary to government estimates a large percentage of employers will drop their employee health plans, forcing employees to buy coverage on the government-mandated insurance exchanges.

    “Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI [Employer Sponsored Insurance] in the years after 2014,” the study found.

    In fact, among companies who are most familiar with the laws mandates and regulations, 60 percent would drop employee health plans because of the law.

    National Journal reported on Aug 29, 2013:

    Republicans have long blamed President Obama’s signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the “Unaffordable Care Act.”

    Turns out, they might be right.

    For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they’re currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers’ monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.

    Health law proponents have excused the rate hikes by saying the prices in the exchange won’t apply to the millions receiving coverage from their employers. But that’s only if employers continue to offer that coverage–something that’s looking increasingly uncertain. Already, UPS, for example, cited Obamacare as its reason for nixing spousal coverage. And while a Kaiser Family Foundation report found that 49 percent of the U.S. population now receives employer-sponsored coverage, more companies are debating whether they will continue to be in the business of providing such benefits at all.

    Economists largely agree there won’t be a sea change among employers offering coverage. But they’re also saying small businesses are still in play.

    Caroline Pearson, vice president at Avalere Health, a health care and public policy advisory firm, said there’s a calculation low-wage companies will make to determine if there’s cost savings in sending employees to the exchanges.

    “The amount you have to gross up their wages so they can get their own insurance and the cost of the penalties may add up to less than the cost of providing care,” she said.

    It’s a choice companies are already making. The number of employers offering coverage has declined, from 66 percent in 2003 to 57 percent today, according to Kaiser’s study.

    AMAC reported February 2, 2013:

    Universal Orlando plans to stop offering medical insurance to part-time employees beginning next year, a move the resort says has been forced by the federal government’s health-care overhaul.

    The giant theme-park resort, which generates more than $1 billion in annual revenue, began informing employees this month that it will offer health-insurance to part-timers “only until December 31, 2013.”

    The reason: Universal currently offers part-time workers a limited insurance plan that has low premiums but also caps the payout of benefits. For instance, Universal’s plan costs about $18 a week for employee-only coverage but covers only a maximum of $5,000 a year toward hospital stays. There are similar caps for other services.

    Those types of insurance plans — sometimes referred to as “mini-med” plans — will no longer be permitted under the federal Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2014, the law will prohibit insurance plans that impose annual monetary limits on essential medical care such, as hospitalization, or on overall spending.

    The New American reported on February 26, 2013:

    The healthcare law requires them to offer coverage to all full-time employees and their dependent children aged 25 and younger. The one person whose coverage it does not mandate, however, is the employee’s spouse; spousal coverage, therefore, is increasingly on employers’ chopping blocks.

    According to MarketWatch, since the passage of ObamaCare, companies have instituted various measures designed to discourage, if not outright exclude, individuals from obtaining health coverage via their spouses’ employers. “Such exclusions barely existed three years ago, but experts expect an increasing number of employers to adopt them,” reports Jen Wieczner.

    “These ‘spousal carve-outs,’ or ‘working spouse provisions,’ generally prohibit only people who could get coverage through their own job from enrolling in their spouse’s plan,” Wieczner writes.

    These provisions, which human resources firm Mercer says have already been adopted by about one-fifth of companies, take a variety of forms. Most companies simply charge extra for working spouses — $100 a month, on average. Others add such high surcharges or reimburse such a small percentage of healthcare expenses that spousal coverage becomes unaffordable. Still others flatly prohibit working-spouse coverage: Mercer claims that six percent of large employers and four percent of very large employers (20,000 or more employees) excluded spouses in 2012, up from five percent and two percent, respectively, in 2010.

    UPS is one of these companies.

  25. Tina says:

    Soaps you’re the man. Worth highlighting and repeating:

    What both parties are really afraid of is that people will realize they really can do without 75% of government.

  26. Chris says:

    Tina: “The point is that Congress isn’t subjected to the same realities that the American people are, which was the point of the 1995 legislation. The general population doesn’t get a subsidy to help pay for their insurance through the exchanges. Why should congressional staffers?”

    Because the general population doesn’t have that offered by their employers, but congressional staffers do?

    The exchanges were designed for people without employer-provided health insurance. Congress members and their staff are the only group who have been told by the government that they must give up their employer-provided health insurance and go onto the exchanges. Now I’m not saying I oppose that, at least for members of Congress; anything to get the wealthy elite to see how the other 99% lives is fine by me. I’m not so sure staffers should have to give up their plans because not all of them are rolling in dough like their bosses. But as for Congress? Kick them off and get rid of the subsidies too for all I care. Like you said, they should experience the realities of the American people. I am glad we have a point of agreement there.

    But I just don’t think it’s accurate to claim that allowing them to keep those subsidies is an “exemption” from Obamacare. They are in unique situation. The federal government is their boss. If my boss decides to pay for part of my health insurance plan, that’s their prerogative, right?

    The “exemption” talking point is just another inaccurate way to smear the healthcare law. We have enough of those. Certainly there are enough real problems with the law to address? It’s a huge and complicated piece of legislation; why is it that the loudest voices of opposition I hear are always repeating the same silly and disproven talking points? I’d love to hear more serious opposition to this law and serious suggestions for improvement that actually have a chance of passing. It sounds like Grassley’s original proposal did just that, but now even that has mutated into this ridiculous “exemption” monster, a hybrid of truth and lies.

  27. RHT447 says:

    For those comming in after the fact go to strip for 10/05/13.

  28. Peggy says:

    VetsRoll 2013 Mini-Documentary: WWII and Korean War Honor Trip:

    Published on Oct 3, 2013

    200 WWII and Korean War Veterans and Rosie the Riveters. 100 Assistants. 10 Badger Buses. 4 days that will change their lives!

  29. Pie Guevara says:

    Now isn’t this interesting. War Memorials which are never barricaded (and some that are seldom barricaded) and rarely or never have 24/7 on site police presence (except for threats) now do.

    Why, Mr. Obama? Veterans represent a threat?

    Chris: If Congress and Congressional staff do not need Obamacare, why on earth do they need an exemption? Surely, they could continue to purchase health care via the plans they already have in place. Surely Obamacare is not forcing anyone to give up their present insurance provider, right?


  30. Pie Guevara says:

    RE: #13 Coyote Dhara Guevara :

    For the usual left-wing morons, translate the above as a facetious imitation OF YOU!

    WOW! Boy howdy I am impressed! You used the word “facetious” in a sentence. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but yours missed the mark.

    “Two questions —

    Which usual moron are you?

    Anything else you would like to contribute to the discussion?

  31. Pie Guevara says:

    Friday The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack asked —

    Who is ordering the National Park Service to go to such great lengths to shut down the open-air World War II memorial that is usually unguarded? On Tuesday, Carol Johnson of the National Park Service told me that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget “sends everything down to all other departments. We are part of the Interior. Interior gives us our instructions.”

    So who ordered this ridiculous, unnecessary, and abusive closing of Memorials? Certainly no one at the U.S. Department of the Interior who is appointed by the Administration and is expected to follow Administration policy and whom would also follow that policy if Obama ordered these absurd barriers down.

    Who was it who once said s**t flows downhill? So does bulls**t.

  32. Pie Guevara says:

    RE: #34 Peggy

    OUTSTANDING! Thanks for the vid link.

    I note that when forced off the Memorial sites there was no rioting as one would expect from the “Occupy” crowd.

  33. Pie Guevara says:

    “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall is a black granite outdoor wall on which the names of the 58,272 service members who died or were unaccounted for during the Vietnam war are inscribed.

    “It takes more manpower and costs the government more money to close down an outdoor wall than to let people walk past it and pay their respects.

    “The Obama administration has been very selective in devoting resources to shutting down memorials.”

    12:50 PM, Oct 5, 2013 John McCormack of The Weekly Standard reports —

    “It takes more manpower and costs the government more money to close down an outdoor wall than to let people walk past it and pay their respects.”

  34. Tina says:

    The law passed in 1994 demands that Congress live by the laws they inflict on the rest of America.

    Congress staffers are getting a taxpayer provided subsidy to buy insurance. Individuals that make the kind of money staffers make in the private sector get no such subsidy. The President had to intervene to make it happen.

    The American Spectator:

    …the federal Office of Personnel Management stepped into the breach after being pushed by the President. It has proposed a rule that would require members of Congress and their staff to purchase their health care coverage through the exchanges and “clarify that the provisions that authorize an employer contribution” for health insurance coverage apply to coverage purchased through the exchanges. In other words, for the purpose of the subsidies, plans purchased by members of Congress and their staff through the exchanges will be treated like the plans other federal employees can get. They all get the employer-provided, taxpayer-funded subsidies; when he questioned Senator Cruz during the latter’s recent filibuster, Senator Durbin said that the subsidies covered as much as 72% of the cost of the premiums. …

    (That’s a huge subsidy)

    …Supporters of extending the subsidies to the members of Congress and their staff talk about the hardship that compliance with the Obamacare law as written will cause them and suggest that there will be a “brain drain” if staffers are forced to purchase health insurance from the exchanges without a subsidy. They also note that many companies subsidize their employees’ purchase of health insurance. Opponents observe that many Americans who don’t work for a member of Congress will have to buy health insurance through an exchange without a subsidy. President Obama, who has postponed the employer mandate but not the individual mandate, doesn’t seem concerned about the hardship for the non-members and non-staffers who don’t get subsidies from their employers.

    The merits aside, the whole episode looks like an illustration of public-choice economics. Members of Congress and their staffs, a vocal group that is close to the center of power and has access to the press, are up against those who must comply with the individual mandate and the rest of us taxpayers, who are widely dispersed and lack access to the levers of power. In such cases, the taxpayers get rolled by the interests once they start squealing.

    And, why shouldn’t the members of Congress have to live with the laws they impose on the rest of us? They should join us or figure out how to fix things for everyone, not just themselves.


    The entire population of the country has been told they must comply with this law. (or pay a fine)

    Heavy taxes have been imposed as a result of this law.

    Staffers may have a legitimate gripe but so do the American people that have been hosed by this law.

    Many of them have seen their tax rates dramatically increase…many have lost their employer health coverage because of this law and have been forced onto the exchanges. Others have seen their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles increase because of this law.

    The information I posted is not a talking point. It is also not a lie.

    The law is too complex, too costly, and too devastating to the economy and to jobs.

    The best thing we could do is hold a funeral, learn from the many disastrous mistakes, and begin again.

  35. Peggy says:

    Obama shut down the WWII Memorial just to show us he was in charge and our freedoms depended upon him. Federal law exempted all law enforcement. That’s why security personnel were on duty to protect the barriers and keep Vets and other visitors out of parks all over America.

    From Heritage Foundation.

    “It is one of the most blatant and shameful political stunts being carried out by the White House, which appears intent on keeping the government shut down to protect Obamacare.

    How do we know this is purely political theater? Because under applicable federal law – and the interpretation of that law by both the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget — all “law enforcement” operations of the federal government are exempted from being shut down during any funding lapse.”

  36. Tina says:

    #34 Peggy…what a fantastic way to thank those who sacrificed to keep America free.

    mini Miracle…first vid I’ve been able to watch in awhile 🙂

  37. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Tina #40 Congressional and other federal employee exemptions: Some people are more equal than others.

    I don’t remember the exact count but somewhere around 6 states enjoy up to 9 of various and sundry exemptions from Obamacare. To me these waivers seem reasonable, but they do not apply to all citizens of all states. Why? Some people are more equal than others.

    Obamacare is a huge boondoggle that after 3 years the government cannot even get their system to work. (These are the best minds the bureaucracy can buy with their exceptional salaries, superlative health care, and golden retirements?) Private citizens are forced by Obamacare to give up intimate details of their lives, health, and family to the government. All that data is put onto a single national database. You would think that alone would ring some alarm bells, but not so with the left. Doesn’t anyone on the left see any possible parallels between abuses of this system and the stark revelations about the enormous, invasive national security system which has become a grave threat to the 4th Amendment under the Obama Administration?

    And what about the breaches of national security databases and the subsequent revelations from those breaches? Does anyone (except for the usual morons) really think that the Obamacare database would magically be “secure” and safe from abuse by federal employees or cyber-criminals? The very people who protest the government and its relationship to macro-economics (banks, Wall Street, trade, etc.) turn a blind eye to these very real threats to personal liberty and freedom? Some people are more stupid than others.

    I think a year (or more) reprieve to either fix the threats of Obamacare and its impossible financing, or eliminate it and start over with a more reasonable, fairly applied, and realistic system or a system of regulations is in order. Otherwise we are simply going to add significantly to an already unfathomable debt, increase the cost of health care and insurance, and suffer more economic woes due the horrendous policies of this president and the Democratic Party. Is it impossible to make heath care and health care insurance affordable and available to all without creating this Big Brother behemoth? The ponzi-scheme of Social Security is going broke, how long will it take Obamacare to break us completely?

    The great hero of Communism, Joseph Stalin, is estimated by historians to have murdered somewhere from 20 to 60 million Soviet citizens. Stalin purportedly said, “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” (This is likely a paraphrase of several similar statements attributed to this mass murderer tyrant.) In reference to Stalin the Watertown Daily Times wrote in 1937, “If you shoot one person you are a murderer. If you kill a couple persons you are a gangster. If you are a crazy statesman and send millions to their deaths you are a hero.”

    If you are a crazy statesman and increase the US debt to 17 trillion that is a statistic and you are a hero?

  38. Chris says:

    Pie Guevara:

    “Chris: If Congress and Congressional staff do not need Obamacare, why on earth do they need an exemption?”

    I don’t understand this question.

    “Surely, they could continue to purchase health care via the plans they already have in place.”

    That would seem to be the easiest solution, but they can’t do that anymore because of a portion of the law that was proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) and embraced by Democrats.

    “Surely Obamacare is not forcing anyone to give up their present insurance provider, right?”

    It forces Congress members and their staff to give up their present insurance provider and go onto the exchanges. I thought that was clear already. Were these supposed to be rhetorical questions?

    Tina: “The law passed in 1994 demands that Congress live by the laws they inflict on the rest of America.”

    Yes, and the subsidies don’t violate that law. Nor would it violate the law if Congress just kept their original insurance plans. The exchanges are designed for people who don’t get insurance through their employers. Congress members and staff have always gotten their insurance through the fed. gov’t. They aren’t exempt from the law.

    “Congress staffers are getting a taxpayer provided subsidy to buy insurance. Individuals that make the kind of money staffers make in the private sector get no such subsidy.”

    Right, because if they are making that much then they likely have the totality of their health insurance paid by their employers. Just like Congress used to. If anything Congressional staffers are in a worse position than most comparably paid individuals in the private sector, because their employer (the fed. gov’t) is only paying for 75% of their coverage, while in the private sector the employer would pay closer to 100%.

    The Spectator: “President Obama, who has postponed the employer mandate but not the individual mandate, doesn’t seem concerned about the hardship for the non-members and non-staffers who don’t get subsidies from their employers.”

    I think that’s a bit unfair. Before Obama the exchanges didn’t exist at all. I think he does seem concerned about the general public’s access to the exchanges; if he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have fought so hard for this law in the first place.

  39. Pie Guevara says:

    Re 44 Chris:

    Chris: I don’t understand this question.

    Chris: That would seem to be the easiest solution, but they can’t do that anymore because of a portion of the law that was proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) and embraced by Democrats.

    Chris: It forces Congress members and their staff to give up their present insurance provider and go onto the exchanges. I thought that was clear already. Were these supposed to be rhetorical questions?

    Try re-reading the question. Is is fairly simple and straight forward. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why was it embraced in the first place? Why then exempted? “They can’t do that anymore?” Huh??? Laws can be changed.

    Perhaps it simply is not obvious to you. The exchanges should force government employees onto the exchanges like they force everyone else. For now non-government citizens are only forced to at least register and be put into a national database, but forced migration has already occurred. The idea was that it would level the playing field between the average citizen who pays sharp premiums and high deductibles and the government elite who enjoy generous subsidies and insurance plans (deals) via the buying power of the federal government. (What business can equal that buying power?)

    When Congress realized they would screw themselves out of a good deal while screwing everyone else with a bad one, they got their exemption. Pretty obvious. Laws are pretty malleable, no? Well maybe not when Democrats control one house or the other.

    If Obamacare were to be delayed at least a year it might force the issue and some of the manifold problems with it might be resolved. At least one would hope. But since Democrats refuse to negotiate any aspect of the Unaffordable Care Act, Obamacare remains a flawed, unsustainable monstrosity.

    Obamacare has already forced many people onto the exchanges, it will force many more, and eventually force everyone if all goes as planned. Have you checked with your beloved union leaders lately? There is already in effect a natural, planned migration to the exchanges due to the forcing functions of a still faltering, stagnant economy, poor to essentially no economic growth, the tremendously adverse effects of the staggering and relentlessly growing debt, unemployment remaining substantially unchanged, and the migration from full time to part-time workers resulting from the current and past bad, fraudulent, and ineffective administration policies. A socialist statist’s dream.

    Personally I think the impending disaster of unsustainable Obamacare and its division of classes between the average citizen and the government elite should be scrapped. It needs a do-over, but short of that the ruling class should at least be forced into a system they designed to force everyone else into. Let them take a good dose of their own medicine and maybe Obamacare can be fixed.

    I would likely benefit from the exchanges, but I do not appreciate an authoritarian government run by elitist Yahoos forcing me to participate in a disaster that threatens to ruin my freedoms, my rights, and my country at so many levels. As it stands, Obamacare will only make things worse from costs of health care to costs of insurance, to dragging down any hope of economic recovery.

Comments are closed.