Tag Archives: liberal hypocrisy

Lucifercare fines charitable hospitals that treat poor people for free

If anyone is still so deluded as to think Obama actually cares about the poor, this should extinguish your delusion for good.

The (un)Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare and more truthfully should be called Lucifercare, will fine charitable hospitals that provide healthcare for poor people — for free.

The fines can be as high as $50,000.

After that, Lucifercare — via its minions in the IRS — will remove the nonprofit status from those hospitals. Currently, some 60% of U.S. hospitals are nonprofits.

Of those, a sizeable number are Catholic. 615 Catholic hospitals account for 12.5% of community hospitals in the United States, and over 15.5% of all U.S. hospital admissions.

Last year, it was Chief Justice John Roberts’ siding with the four liberals on the Supreme Court which led to the court’s narrow 5-4 ruling that Lucifercare is a tax and therefore is constitutional. Roberts is a Roman Catholic. I hope you’re happy with yourself, Roberts you POS.

Lucifercare’s fining and hounding-int0-extinction charitable hospitals should tell you, once and for all, that when Obama and all Democrats say they care about the poor, it’s all lip service, otherwise called *Lies*.

What they care about is *POWER*their power.

H/t FOTM’s pnordman and New American

~Eowyn

Fuhrer Obama by Bill DaviesImage by Bill Davies

Patrick Howley reports for The Daily Caller, Aug. 8, 2013:

Charitable hospitals that treat  uninsured Americans will be subjected to new levels of scrutiny of their nonprofit status and could face sizable new fines under Obamacare.

A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new  standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.

Charity for the uninsured is one of the factors that could discourage enrollment in Obamacare, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else face new taxes themselves from the IRS.

“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file  additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the  charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said John Kartch, spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform.

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for  the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”

Additionally, the rise in the number of insured Americans under Obamacare will make it more difficult for tax-exempt hospitals to continue meeting required thresholds for treating the uninsured, driving more hospitals into the for-profit category and yielding more taxable money for  the federal government.

“The requirements generally apply to any section 501(c)(3) organization that  operates at least one hospital facility,” according to a “Technical Explanation” report of new Obamacare provisions prepared by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) on March 21, 2010, the day Obamacare passed.

Obamacare’s new requirements could slam hospitals with massive $50,000 fines if they fail to meet bureaucrats’ standards.

“The hospital must disclose in its annual information report to the IRS  (i.e., Form 990 and related schedules) how it is addressing the needs identified  in the assessment and, if all identified needs are not addressed, the reasons  why (e.g., lack of financial or human resources). Each  hospital facility is required to make the assessment widely available. Failure to complete a community health needs assessment in any applicable three-year  period results in a penalty on the organization of up to $50,000,” according to  the JCT report.

The government is particularly interested in how and why hospitals will be  providing discounted or free care to poor patients, requiring each of them to  “adopt, implement, and widely publicize a written financial assistance policy”  and explain the methods they use to screen applicants for assistance and how  they calculate patients’ bills.

A delegate working under the Department of Health and Human Services must  review the innumerable reports charitable hospitals file every three years, along with copies of their audited financial statements.

After sifting through this massive amount of information, the delegate and HHS secretary must attempt to identify trends in the hospitals’ spending and send in a comprehensive report of their findings to Congress by 2015, according to the JCT report.

Healthcare experts warn that the Obamacare’s new requirements make it almost impossible for charitable hospitals to navigate treacherous new waters.

“Nonprofit hospitals should be advised that the new PPACA requirements will  play a significant role in how they operate and report, specifically when it comes to billing and collections for services provided to the uninsured. The new law leaves many gray areas and hospitals themselves will have to establish eligibility criteria for financial assistance. Following the new procedures as  best they can will ensure the best chance of maintaining their tax exempt status,” wrote D. Douglas Metcalf, partner at the law firm Lewis and Roca, in a 2013 op-ed entitled “Will nonprofit  hospitals disappear under Obamacare?”

The White House did not return a request for comment.

Do it for the starving Washington staffers

This tragic event may trigger a catastrophic run on trust funds. –TD (snark)

wet poodle

This photo deserves a caption contest.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Sequester nearly starving staffers

By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times

Automatic federal cuts are bringing staffers to the brink of starvation, suggested Debbie Wasserman Schultz, at a recent House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.

Restaurants on the House side of Congress are increasing in cost so much that aides are being “priced out” of a good meal, she said, as Fox News reported. The comments came by way of a discussion about the impacts of the sequester on lawmakers’ office budgets. Rep. Jim Moran said he may be forced to lay off a staffer — and then Ms. Wasserman Schultz weighed in with her tale of hard times.

Just to clarify: An 8-ounce bowl of Ham and Bean soup at the Cannon Office Building’s carry-out café costs $2. A gourmet wrap or sliced bread sandwich sells for about $5. And in the Longworth Building’s sit-down cafeteria, a serving of stuffed chicken, asparagus and mashed potatoes sells for about $7, Fox News finds.

Meanwhile, Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s staffers earn between $60,000 and $160,000 per year, Fox News reports. 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/22/debbie-wasserman-schultz-sequester-nearly-starving/#ixzz2OOh1hKkr
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Would President Lucifer re-tweet this bloody photo?

Byron Wolf reports for ABC News that last night, the POS’s Twitter account @BarackObama retweeted this picture of John Lennon”s bloody glasses from the day he was murdered.

bloody glasses

The picture was first tweeted by the no-talent insufferable Yoko Ono, who accompanied the pic with text saying that more than a million people have been killed by guns since Lennon was shot in 1980.

The POS’ retweet of the bloody-glasses photo, in turn, was forwarded to his more than 28 million followers.

THEODORE B, a reader of this news on Yahoo!, asks this excellent question:

Imagine a right wing conservative tweeting a picture of bloody instruments used in an abortion and what the media would say about it?

An even better question is:

Since President Lucifer is so against murder, would he ever re-tweet this picture?

8-week-aborted-fetus

~Eowyn

Dianne “gun-ban” Feinstein wants you to know she’s not a 6th grader

Yesterday, during a committee hearing in the U.S. Senate on gun control legislation, newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and long-time Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) engaged in a heated exchange over the constitutionality of her proposed bill, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, to ban “assault weapons” that include more than 150 rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

By far the most ambitious of and just like the gun-control bills introduced across the United States in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, Feinstein’s bill exempts government officials (including Congress, of course), law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel.

At yesterday’s hearing, Sen. Cruz questioned the constitutionality of new gun laws: “It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution. And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Cruz went on to expound on the phrase “the right of the people,” its origins and its prolific use by the Founding Fathers in a number of Constitutional provisions, including the First and Fourth Amendments.

To that, Feinstein huffily replied: “I’m not a sixth grader.” Blah. Blah. Blah.

Like another Democrat senator, Chucky Schumer, Feinstein carries a concealed weapon and is also protected by armed police escorts, although she has plenty of moolah to hire her own body guards. One of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress, Feinstein reported a net worth of between $46 million and $108.1 million in 2010, according to financial disclosures.

Feinstein’s investment-banker husband Richard Blum was on the Board of Directors of Current TV and had facilitated the $500 million sale of Al Gore’s failing TV network to Al Jazeera.

The Hollywood Reporter reports that according to a lawsuit filed by John Terenzio, who claims it was his idea to sell to Al Jazeera but he was cut out of the lucrative deal, Gore at first was reluctant to sell to Al Jazeera but was persuaded by Blum. Feinstein’s husband pushed for the sale because “he and other Current investors were concerned about the prospect of losing their shirts in the financially troubled Current.”

As the spouse of a powerful senior U.S. senator, some of Blum’s lucrative business dealings have been questioned for potential conflicts-of-interest. From Wikipedia:

Blum’s wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein, has received scrutiny due to her husband’s government contracts and extensive business dealings with China and her past votes on trade issues with the country. Blum has denied any wrongdoing, however Critics have argued that business contracts with the US government awarded to a company (Perini) controlled by Blum may raise a potential conflict-of-interest issue with the voting and policy activities of his wife. URS Corp, which Blum had a substantial stake in, bought EG&G, a leading provider of technical services and management to the U.S. military, from The Carlyle Group in 2002; EG&G subsequently won a $600m defense contract.

In 2009 it was reported that Blum’s wife Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, a government agency that had recently awarded her husband’s real estate firm, CB Richard Ellis, what the Washington Times called “a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.”

Hey, Dianne Feinstein.

At age 79, you are most certainly not a sixth-grader. But I doubt there’s even ONE sixth-grader in all of America who’s as hypocritical as you!

H/t FOTM’s CSM

~Eowyn

Pro-gun control husband of Gabrielle Giffords bought an assault weapon

I never cease to be amazed by the sheer hypocrisy of the Left.

Former Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly are staunchly in favor of gun control.

While I can understand their stance, given Giffords being a victim of the terrible Tucson mall shooting rampage, what I do not comprehend is their hypocrisy — Kelly just purchased an AR-15, an assault weapon!

AR-15

The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation. The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as an assault rifle for the United States armed forces.

Just another instance of the Left’s “Do as I say, not as I do” self-serving double-standard.

H/t FOTM’s CSM

~Eowyn

Gabby Giffords’s Husband Buys AR-15

By AWR Hawkins & Neil McCabe – Breitbart.com – March 9, 2013

Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.

Breitbart News received a tip on this when Neil McCabe, editor of Guns & Patriots newsletter, contacted us on March 7 and said:

Mark E. Kelly, made purchases which included an AR-15–sometimes described as an “assault rifle”–at 3:30 pm on the afternoon of March 5 at Diamondback Police Supply, 170 S. Kolb Street, Tucson, AZ.

According to McCabe, witnesses to the purchases claimed Kelly purchased “high capacity” magazines as well.

On March 6, McCabe contacted Kelly’s gun control group–”Americans for Responsible Solutions”–and on March 8 they replied that his message had been passed on to colleagues who handle press requests. Breitbart News then began investigating the details surrounding the purchase, including visiting the gun store.

Suddenly, Kelly announced on his Facebook page that he was not going to keep the AR-15, which he has yet to pick up from the store.

Days after making the purchases, Kelly wrote on Facebook:

I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession of it yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.

Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 30, Kelly had urged senators to restrict sales firearms based on their lethality–a common refrain with other witnesses that day, who argued that semi-automatic weapons, which chamber subsequent rounds as bullets are fired, and other guns with military-style features level the playing field against law enforcement.

Kelly and Giffords founded their own advocacy group to restrict gun rights, Americans for Responsible Solutions, in January. On its website, ARS wrote: “High capacity magazines are a deadly factor in gun violence.” A 30-round magazine is considered a high-capacity magazine.

The ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of high capacity magazines, which are not needed for hunting or self-defense, but have proven very lethal.”

Similarly, the ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of assault weapons.

In February, Kelly told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace that lawmakers need to address “assault weapons.” He said the purpose of an “assault weapon” is “to kill a lot of people very quickly,” and he lamented that such products were “too readily available.”

Kelly has not commented on whether he will also return the .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol he purchased.

Finally, MSM turns on Al Gore

About time!!!

See also:

~Eowyn

 

Obama says guns make us less safe…

…as he surrounds himself with guns

guns make us less safe

Typical Leftist motto: “Do as I say, not as I do”

~Joan

Time to end the Hollywood tax cut and subsidies

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC, if you had tuned in to one of the major TV network stations, you might have thought you’d stumbled across a Hollywood awards ceremony. There on the stage were Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson and Kerry Washington dressed up and giving speeches during prime time; Tom Hanks narrating a tribute to veterans; Mary J. Blige and the Foo Fighters performing; and James Taylor making folksy jokes against a backdrop of wilderness pictures.

Obama girls (l to r): Washington, Johansson, Longoria

Excepting the Foo Fighters, altogether, the net worths of these celebrities total more than half a billion dollars ($528 million). Eva Longoria’s is estimated to be $35 million; Scarlett Johansson’s is $35 million; Kerry Washington’s is $3 million; Tom Hanks’ is a whopping $350 million; Mary J. Blige’s is $45 million; James Taylor’s is $60 million.

But every one of their speeches emphasized their working-class roots and their solidarity with the poor and downtrodden. As an example, Johansson plaintively declared, “I speak to you not as a representative of young Hollywood, but as a representative of the many millions of young Americans, particularly young women, who depend on public and nonprofit programs to help them survive.”

Since most of the denizens of Hollywood, like the celebrities who pimped for Obama at the DNC, are Democrats and favor the party’s policy of wealth redistribution (listen to Obama declaring he favors redistribution in 1998), it is only fair that Hollywood actually participate in redistributive social justice by paying its “fair share.” I’m sure Hollywood liberals are just sick and tired of being called “limousine liberals” (just another expression for “hypocrites”)!

As a matter of fact, Eva Longoria said at the DNC that she should be paying higher taxes: “The Eva Longoria who worked at Wendy’s flipping burgers — she needed a tax break. But the Eva Longoria who works on movie sets does not.”

Glenn Reynolds writes for The Examiner, Sept. 15, 2012, calling for an end to the 20% tax cut enjoyed by Hollywood since the 1950s:

It’s not just Eva Longoria who doesn’t need a tax break — it’s her entire industry, which has enjoyed favorable tax treatment in all sorts of ways, at both the federal and state levels, for years. And now, with the federal government and the states in parlous financial condition, it’s time for those fat cats to shoulder more of the burden. Why should burger flippers at Wendy’s have to cover the national debt while Hollywood moguls enjoy yachts, swimming pools and private jets?

The last time America was this deep in debt was the end of World War II. One of the ways we paid the debt down was through a 20 percent tax on the gross receipts of movie theaters. (That’s right — gross, not net.) That tax was repealed in the 1950s — I guess we could call that the “Hollywood tax cut,” since we’re still talking about the “Bush tax cut” in 2012. To secure that repeal, Hollywood launched a major PR campaign about how taxes kill jobs and hurt prosperity. We haven’t heard that kind of talk from them since.

[...] Now, we’re facing debt levels similar to those we faced after World War II, and it seems entirely appropriate to respond with similar measures. Of course, technological change means we’d need to update the 20 percent tax to apply not only to movie theaters, but to DVD sales, movie downloads, pay-per-view and the like. That just means more revenue, which should please Eva Longoria.

And that’s just the beginning. To be sure that fat cats are paying their fair share and not getting away with things that Wendy’s workers can’t, it’s time for the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on Hollywood’s shady accounting practices, which let studios make even highly successful films look like money losers. (Just look up “Hollywood accounting” on Wikipedia.) I feel sure that if the IRS took a hard look at studios’ and producers’ books, they could squeeze out a good deal of additional revenue. Wendy’s workers don’t get to engage in that kind of fancy accounting. Why should Hollywood?

Meanwhile, cash-strapped states need to take a second look at their extensive film subsidies. A recent study by the Louisiana Budget Project found that despite costing a billion dollars or so over the last decade, Louisiana’s film subsidy project hadn’t accomplished much for the state. “Unfortunately, the returns to the state on this investment, like many of the movies made here, have been a flop. While the subsidies have helped create film industry jobs that weren’t here before, many of these positions are temporary and have come at a steep cost to taxpayers.”

I suspect the same is true in the many other states that have subsidy programs to encourage Hollywood to film there. The main payoff for these programs — and “payoff” is, I think the right word — is that they let state politicians hobnob with the occasional Hollywood star. Why should they do that with taxpayer money? Wendy’s burger flippers can’t.

The more I think about it, the more I think Eva Longoria is right. She should be paying more in taxes, and so should her entire industry. Perhaps under the next administration, they will.

Examiner Contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a University of Tennessee College of Law professor and founder and editor of Instapundit.com.

~Eowyn

Must see video on how to be a racist!

A big h/t to FOTM’s Miss Maziel :D

~Eowyn

Friday Howler

Axel + rod + grease = slippery pole

He even says it with a straight face:

“Governor Romney thinks he can operate under a different set of rules, he has a sense of entitlement, that he doesn’t have to operate under the same rules that presidential candidates have for decades. “Not just disclosure on his tax returns, by the way, but who is raising money for him, his so-called ‘bundlers,’” David Axelrod said on CNN tonight.

“He left office in Massachusetts with the hard drives from his computers, with all his records, because he said he didn’t want opposition researchers looking. He did the same thing when he left the Olympics. He has a penchant for secrecy and he thinks he can play by a different set of rules. No, I don’t accept his word on what his taxes say,” Axelrod said.

Click here for the related video, but be advised FotM will not be responsible for the grease left behind in your monitor.

-Dave

(h/t: boortz.com)