Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

ObamaCare

2017-04-24T17:34:27Z

Beesh:

[[File:ObamaCareSymbol.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Image courtesy [[Newsbusters]].]]
'''ObamaCare''', officially known as "'''The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'''" (ACA), has not imposed massive penalties on young workers, small businesses and others who choose not to buy expensive health insurance, beginning in 2014. ObamaCare is the biggest handout by [[liberals]] to a single interest group — the health insurance industry — in [[America]]n history. Even [[Democrat]]ic Presidential candidate [[Jim Webb]] admitted in 2012: Obamacare "cost [[Obama]] a lot of credibility as a leader."<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/222259-sen-webb-says-president-obamas-health-law-cost-him-a-lot-of-credibility-as-a-leader</ref> On June 28, 2012, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare — by only one vote, 5-4 — as being within the taxing power of the federal government. Since then, leading Democrats have described ObamaCare as a "train wreck," and [[union]]s increasingly agree with [[conservatives]] that Obamacare should be repealed.<ref>http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law</ref>

ObamaCare caused the creation of 23 health exchange co-ops, 22 of which lost money in 2014, and five of which have gone out of business as of October 14, 2015.<ref>http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/14/another-obamacare-collapse-kentucky-health-co-op-goes-under/</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) pointed out that there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan.<ref name="aapsonline.org">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> AAPS observes that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care for a majority of United States citizens, plus reduce the quality of care that a [[free market]] system would otherwise provide.<ref name="aapsonline.org"/>

Obamacare will soon cause havoc and harm to tens of millions of Americans: 28 million Americans will be caught in a "massive game of health coverage pingpong" due to Obamacare.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medi-cal-churn-20130520,0,5572821.story</ref>

As of April 2014, the House of Representatives has voted 55 times to scale back or repeal the law, but none of those proposals has received consideration in the Senate.<ref name=fulltime/>

__TOC__
[[File:Jane orient.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|Dr. Jane Orient, Director of the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS). The AAPS, a [[conservative]] doctor's association, has always been against Obamacare, while the liberal [[American Medical Association]] endorsed it.<ref>[http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/the_right_not_to_work_for_obamacare/ The right not to work for Obamacare]</ref><ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-the-ama-endorses-obamacare-but-your-doctor-does-not/ Why the AMA endorses Obamacare]</ref> ]]
Obamacare is opposed by many state governors, including [[Florida]] Governor [[Rick Scott]]. He declared after the Supreme Court ruling, "I will not implement this law. Florida will not implement Obamacare." Scott encouraged other states to reject Obamacare in three ways:

*opt out of the expensive Medicaid provision in ObamaCare, which would incur massive costs in extending free care to those over the poverty line
*refuse to set up a [[health-insurance exchange]] - "If there were any value added by these exchanges, the private sector would be doing it already," Governor Scott observed
*repeal Obamacare in Congress, which requires electing a [[Republican]] majority in the [[U.S. Senate]]

Obamacare was passed by [[Congress]] on March 21, 2010, and signed into federal law by President [[Barack Obama]] on March 23. This law furthers the process of [[Socialism|socializing]] the [[United States]] [[health care]] system, which began with [[Medicare]].<ref>Epic [[Direct spending#New spending|new spending]] and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> The centerpiece of Obamacare is the individual mandate, a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which was unprecedented in American history. Under an [[Executive Order]] signed by President [[Donald Trump]], collection of the Obamacare tax and fines has been temporarily suspended, however individuals and businesses' penalties continue to accrue daily.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2017/0125/What-Trump-s-executive-order-on-Obamacare-repeal-means-for-your-health-care-coverage </ref> Through legislative mandates, Obamacare requires private citizens to purchase health insurance, involuntarily fund [[abortion]]s, and pay for sex offenders to use Viagra under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new law imposes penalties that will increase to 2.5% of one's income if he fails to purchase government-approved health insurance.

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 that while ObamaCare exceeded Congress’s authority under the commerce clause, the law was a permissible tax under the Constitution.<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf]</ref> The constitutionality of Obamacare was originally challenged under the theory that it exceeded the limitations of the commerce clause; more than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against Obamacare since President Barack Obama signed it into law.<ref>By Janet Adamy and Evan Perez. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015631138296112.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality], WSJ.com, December 13, 2010.</ref><ref>By Rep. [[Lamar Smith]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/19/rep-lamar-smith-voting-repeal-new-health-care-law/ REP. LAMAR SMITH: Why I Am Voting to Repeal the New Health Care Law], ''[[Fox News]]'' (FoxNews.com), Published January 19, 2011.</ref> In total, 27 states have started or joined in a lawsuit against Obamacare.<ref>Brandon Stewart. [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/ List of 27 States Suing Over Obamacare], heritage.org, January 17, 2011.</ref> A federal judge ruled on 13 December 2010 that a central component of ObamaCare, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is quoted as saying the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."<ref name=unconstitutional>Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection Court Strikes at Health Law], By Janet Adamy (WSJ.com), December 14, 2010.</ref> Then on 31 January 2011 federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/ Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 31, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue], RushLimbaugh.com, February 1, 2011.</ref> The U.S. district judge declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it violates the [[Commerce Clause]]. In a footnote attached to the ruling, federal judge Roger Vinson cited Barack Obama's position in 2008 from an interview with [[CNN]], when Obama stated that, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."<ref>Stephen Dinan. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ Judge uses Obama’s words against him], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', January 31, 2011.</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimates the invasive revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.<ref>[http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/proposed-senate-plan-405168.html Proposed Senate Plan Would Involve IRS in Collecting Fines from Non-participants], ALLNURSES CENTRAL, Jul 03, 2009.</ref> The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."<ref>http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cbo-reports-entitlements-and-shared-responsibility</ref> Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees' paychecks.<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref> The State of [[Massachusetts]] has had a similar program in place for several years, and many have elected to pay the penalties rather than purchase insurance, and many remain uninsured.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

ObamaCare will do more than detrimentally impact healthcare accessibility. According to the [[Heritage Foundation]], Obama is intentionally sacrificing millions of jobs, at a time when unemployment is around 10%, with the Medicare surtax without any objective exception of increases in revenues.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obamas-Capital-Gains-Tax-Hike-Unlikely-to-Increase-Revenues</ref> ObamaCare will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. The Congressional Budget Office says the figure would be more than 800,000 people would lose their jobs.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers, Weekly Standard, February 10, 2011]</ref>

==Bill History==
===Background===
In the 1940s in the wake of World War II, European countries and Canada rebuilt their health care systems on a single-payer model. However, the United States continued its system of private health care insurance, which was largely paid by employers to cover the health care of employees. Rep. John Dingell, Sr. introduced a bill to establish a national system of health care. When Dingell died in 1955, his son was elected to represent the same Michigan district in Congress. [[John Dingell]], Jr. introduced the National Health Insurance Act, to provide universal health care in each session of congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dingell.house.gov/issue/health-care|title=Health Care|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref> In the Senate, [[Edward M. Kennedy]] advocated universal health care.

In 1965, Congress passed the law establishing [[Medicare]] - a single-payer insurance program for citizens over 65, which was funded through a federal payroll tax.

The United States Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in 1986. EMTALA requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. EMTALA applies to virtually all U.S. hospitals. As a result, many people who could not afford to see a doctor came to hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency care. Because EMTALA does not have a way of paying for this care, hospitals raised the rates charged to other patients to cover these costs.

On April 12, 2006, Massachusetts Governor [[Mitt Romney]] signed state health legislation which provided for universal health coverage in that state.<ref>{{cite news|title=Landmark Health Bill Signed|agency=Los Angeles Times and Associated Press|date=April 13, 2006|publisher=The Seattle Times|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002927493_insure13.html}}</ref>

Obama during the 2008 elections had campaigned on healthcare reform, promising that the negotiations would not be behind closed doors, but televised publicly on C-Span.<ref>Spiering, C. (2010, January 6). "[http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2010/01/video-obama-promises-health-care-negotiations-will-be-cspan Video: Obama Promises That Healthcare Negotiations Will Be On C-Span]." ''Washington Examiner''. Holan, A.D. (2009, July 10). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/ Obama Said He'd Televise Health Reform Negotiations on C-Span]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> He had also promised Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, that "reproductive care" would be central to the coming healthcare bill, and that he believed it important for Planned Parenthood to be part of the system:<ref>McGurn, William (2009, November 9). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525962492620186.html The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle']." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> {{cquote|"Well, look, in my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. So it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose... Essentially what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons, and all women, can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services, and disease-management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we're putting more money into preventive care. And so many of women's diseases are preventable if they're getting access to regular care. So we subsidize women who don't have health insurance, or can't afford low group rates. We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care, and mental care services, and they won't be able to keep people out as a consequence of pre-existing conditions. So, that's going to be absolutely vital... I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system, because many young women for example may be much more comfortable when they're in college, or universities, or in other places, going to Planned Parenthood clinics and services, to get contraception, for example."
-Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood, July 17, 2007<ref>nrlccomm (2009, August 18). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqww8jmizug Obama Promises Abortion in Public Plan]." ''YouTube''.</ref>}}

===Democratic Supermajority===
On April 28, 2009, the 2008 [[Wall Street Journal's]] prediction of a '[[Liberal]] [[Supermajority]]'<ref>(2008, October 17). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html A Liberal Supermajority]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> proved correct; as the defection of Senator [[Arlen Specter]] from the [[Republican Party]] to the [[Democratic Party]] put the Democrats on the verge of one of the rarest blessings in politics, a Supermajority - complete control of the [[House]], two-thirds of the [[Senate]], and [[Presidency]] so that they wouldn't need a single Republican vote to pass bills.<ref>Davis, S. (2009, April 28). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/28/sen-specter-to-switch-parties-democrats-near-60-vote-majority/ Sen. Specter To Switch Parties, Democrats Near 60 Vote Majority]." Washington Wire. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Senator Bernie Sanders then urged the Democratic party to pursue single-payer healthcare reform.<ref>keithmsnbcer (2009, April 29). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYBbFMeFNc Bernie Sanders on Ed Show]." ''MSNBC''. YouTube.</ref> On May 16, 2009, [[Barack Obama]] urged [[Congress]] to pass health care reform within the year, stating, "Our businesses will not be able to compete; our families will not be able to save or spend; our budgets will remain unsustainable unless we get health care costs under control".<ref>(2009, May 16). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5js3WXGJZSiC4UpHS8rzfumBXGd-w Obama Urges Health Care Reform by Year's End]." ''AFP''.</ref> On July 1, 2009, [[Al Franken]] was finally declared the winner of his election (narrowly winning by 312 votes<ref>Gilbert, K. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/al-franken-win-hands-supermajority-to-senate-democrats Al Franken Win Hands Supermajority to Senate Democrats]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>), giving the Democrats their desired Supermajority, and a clear path towards [[healthcare]] reform which Republicans would be powerless to stop.<ref>Hulse, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html Congressional Memo - What's So Super About a Supermajority?]" ''New York Times''.</ref> Nevertheless, sickness of [[Ted Kennedy]] and [[Robert Byrd]] along with several other factors led to question marks about the supermajority's strength.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/ Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised]." ''FOX News''. Stewart, J. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-1-2009/indecision-2008---franken-s-time Indecision 2008 - Franken's Time]." The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. ''Comedy Central''.</ref> Democrats maintained this Supermajority until February 5, 2010, when Republican [[Scott Brown]] was sworn in to replace deceased Senator [[Edward Kennedy]].<ref>(2010, February 5). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-lose-supermajority-brown-sworn/ Democrats Lose Supermajority as Brown Sworn In]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
====Locking Out Republicans, Literally====
Democrats were so confident that the 2008 elections displayed [[American]] backing for the Democratic Party that in October 2009 they even changed the door locks for the House [[Oversight and Government Reform Committee]] to keep Republicans from meeting when Democrats weren't present.<ref>Crabtree, S. (2009, October 20). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room Democrats Lock Republicans Out of Committee Room]." ''The Hill''. Pershing, B. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204442.html Democrats on House Committee Lock Out Republicans]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> The debacle occurred because Republicans were trying to launch an investigation into corruption by Democrat Senators [[Kent Conrad]] and [[Chris Dodd]] for receiving special VIP loans from [[Countrywide Financial]].<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, October 20). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28531.html Towns Locks Republicans Out, Literally]." ''Politico''. Klein, R. & Jaffe, M. (2009, October 21). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/dems-lock-out-republicans-literally/ Dems Lock Out Republicans - Literally]." ''ABC News''.</ref> Democrats canceled the meeting by secretly leaving before the meeting was to begin, and a GOP staffer caught this on videotape, set it to the tune of "Hit the Road, Jack", and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage for the press. Committee Chairman Sen. [[Edolphus Towns]] and the Democrats then had the locks changed in retaliation.<ref>Freeman, J. (2009, October 20). "House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/oversight-panels-democrats-lock-republicans-dispute/ Oversight Panel's Democrats Lock Out Republicans After Dispute]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Public Option Removed====
On July 8, 2009, Barack Obama met with hospital [[lobbyists]] and struck a deal with the hospital industry to remove the [[public option]] in exchange for the industry's support of the bill, while also reducing costs for hospitals under the plan.<ref>Mogulesku, M. (2010, March 16). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option]." ''Huffington Post''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 6). "[http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/obamas-not-so-secret-deal-with-the-hospital-industry-to-kill-the-public-option/ Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''AlanColmes.com''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 7). "[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/07/908619/-Obama-rsquo-s-Not-So-Secret-Deal-With-The-Hospital-Industry-To-Kill-The-Public-Option Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''Daily Kos''.</ref> {{cquote|"Not to worry, [[Jim Messina]], the deputy [[White House]] [[chief of staff]], told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support... Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying [[Medicare]] rates — generally 80 percent of [[private sector]] rates — or controlled by the [[secretary of health and human services]]. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,' one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter."
-David Kirkpatrick, ''[[New York Times]]'', [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, August 13). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=all Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} In November 2009, an amendment proposed by [[Dennis Kucinich]] to let states have single-payer healthcare systems without insurance industry lawsuits was stripped from the healthcare bill because [[Nancy Pelosi]] said it would break Obama's promise to let people keep their current insurance plans if they liked them.<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html Pelosi-Single Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Kucinich expressed frustration with the move, stating, "They took single-payer off the table right at the beginning, because the table was set by [[insurance]] companies."<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/pelosi-not-planning-to-al_n_339188.html Pelosi Not Planning to Allow Amendments to Health Care Bill]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> On March 25, 2010, Obama claimed the public option wasn't included "Because we couldn"t get it through Congress, that's why." He also on December 22, 2009 erroneously<ref>(2011, July 27). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/ Public Option Was in Obama's Platform]." Truth-O-Meter. ''Politifact''. Jilani, Z. (2009, December 22). "[http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/?mobile=nc FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours]." ''ThinkProgress.org''. Hamsher, J. (2009, September 10). "[http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/ Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option]." ''FireDogLake''.</ref> claimed that he hadn't campaigned on a public option.<ref>Jacobson, L. & Drobnic Holan, A. (2010, March 26). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/518/create-public-option-health-plan-new-national-heal/ Create a Public Option Health Plan for a New National Health Insurance Exchange]." The Obameter. ''PolitiFact''. Murray, M. & Montanaro, D. (2009, December 23). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/12/23/4424556-did-obama-campaign-on-public-option?lite Did Obama Campaign on Public Option?]" First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref> Following Obama's claim, a liberal group, [[The Progressive Change Campaign Committee]], began airing television ads accusing Obama of breaking his promise of a single-payer healthcare plan.<ref>Seelye, K. (2009, December 23). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/liberal-group-accuses-obama-of-reneging-on-promises/ Liberal Group Accuses Obama of Reneging on Promises]." ''New York Times''.</ref>
====Tax on Medical Device Makers====
The only healthcare industry to not readily acquiesce to the administration's demands for cooperation, medical device manufacturers, were hit with a 2.3% [[excise]] tax.<ref>LeBlanc, S. (2010, June 7). "[http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2010/06/07/medical_device_makers_new_tax_will_cost_jobs/ Medical Device Makers: New Tax Will Cost Jobs]." ''Associated Press''. Morris, D. & McGann, E. (2009, October 23). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/64493-obama-taxes-pacemakers-heart-valves Obama Taxes Pacemakers, Heart Valves]." Pundits. ''The Hill''. Musgrove, M. (2009, October 14). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101303015.html Planned Tax on Medical-Device Makers Too High, Firms Say]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> [[The Wall Street Journal]] suggested this was due to retaliation since the tax would add just $40 billion in funds for a bill costing $900 billion.<ref>(2009, September 18). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574418941379207328.html The Innovation Tax]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Medical device makers continue to accuse the tax of costing jobs in 2012.<ref>Kelly, S. (2012, April 18). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/medicaldevices-tax-idUSL2E8FI25620120418 Medical Device Tax May Spur Price Hike, Cost Cuts]." ''Reuters''. Pecquet, J. (2012, March 26). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy-/218151-medical-device-makers-decry-cost-of-new-tax- Medical Device Makers Decry Cost of New Tax]." HealthWatch. ''The Hill''. Flavelle, C. (2012, March 22). "[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/how-much-will-the-medical-device-tax-hurt How Much Will the Medical Device Tax Hurt?]" ''Bloomberg Businessweek''.</ref>

===Role of Pro-Life Democrats===
====House Bill: H.R. 3962====
=====Stupak's Resistance=====
In June and July 2009 some 200 [[Planned Parenthood]] [[activists]] arrived in [[Washington D.C.]]<ref>Connolly, C. (2009, July 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/state_of_play_democrats_dig_in.html State of Play: Democrats Dig In Despite Senate Focus on Hearings]." Daily Dose. ''Washington Post''.</ref> and a number of [[Pro-Choice]] bills began receiving support, as the Pro-Choice movement sought to ensure [[abortion]] would be mandated in health care reform.<ref>Novak, V. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/ Surgery for Seniors vs. Abortions?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> The Republicans would find an unlikely ally in the [[Pro-Life Democrats]] (Democrats for Life of America). On June 25, 2009, 19 of them, led by Congressman [[Bart Stupak]], sent a letter to House leader Nancy Pelosi expressing refusal to support any healthcare bill with an [[abortion]] agenda,<ref>Kenworthy, Z. (2009, June 30). "[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529632,00.html President Obama's Approval Index Rating Takes a Dive]." ''FOX News''. Russert, L. (2009, July 16). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/07/16/4429288-health-bill-to-floor-in-two-weeks Health Bill to Floor in Two Weeks]." First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref> which firmly stated, "''Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan... By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.''"<ref>Gilbert, Kathleen (2009, June 26). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jun/09062608 Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>

In July, Stupak introduced the [[Stupak-Pitts amendment]] to ensure [[abortions]] would not be [[subsidized]] in the healthcare bill,<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5180854-503544.html Dem Says Abortion Language a Must in Healthcare Bill]. ''CBS News''.</ref> but it was defeated 30-29 in the [[Energy and House Committee]], the committee responsible for drafting it for proposal to the entire [[House of Representatives]], when [[Bart Gordon]] sneakily switched his vote from Yes to No last minute.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/house_democrat_introduces_comp.asp Waxman Strong-Arms Vote to Allow Abortion Coverage in Public Plan]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> Chairman [[Henry Waxman]] replaced it with the [[Capps amendment]], which mandated one healthcare plan in each state must cover abortions.<ref name=menges>Menges, D. (2009, October 30). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/31/stupak-on-the-attack/ Stupak On the Attack]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> On July 17, 2009, Obama once more urged rapid passage of the healthcare bill.<ref>(2009, July 17). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXW-UnAKQIiTxd2SoCN6TDQ0Fm3Q Obama Urges Congress to Pass Health Care Reform]." ''AFP''. Ferraro, T. & Smith, D. (2009, September 10). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/10/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSTRE5881V520090910 Democrats Seek to Build Momentum On Healthcare]." ''Reuters''.</ref> Pro-Life Democrats then, in mid-July, nearly stopped the healthcare process in its tracks by initially defeating a rule required to start healthcare reform legislation, 215-214, but Democrats managed to persuade a few members to change their votes, barely passing it.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 17). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/17/abortion-debate-complicate-efforts-overhaul-health-care Abortion Debate May Complicate Efforts to Overhaul Health Care]." ''FOX News''.</ref>

Obama on July 16 pressured Republicans to support the healthcare bill, even as the [[Congressional Budget Office]] criticized the proposed healthcare reform for not paying for itself.<ref>Dixon, K. (2009, July 16). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/usa-healthcare-idUSN1641208920090716?pageNumber=2 WRAPUP 2-Obama Looks for Republican Healthcare Backing]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> Republicans criticized the lack of [[tort reform]] and insistence on covering 5.6 million [[illegal immigrants]].<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/president-obama-uses-magnetism-political-capital-push-health-care/ President Obama Uses Magnetism, Political Capital to Push Health Care Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Obama predicted he would be held responsible if the bill failed, stating: {{cquote|"You know, I intend to be president for a while and once the bill passes, I own it. And if people look and say, 'You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My [[premiums]] are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around,' I'm the one who's going to be held responsible."<ref>Kroft, S. (2009, September 13). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-5301098.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody Obama on Health Care: 'I Own It']." 60 Minutes. ''CBS News''.</ref>}} Obama initially claimed that allegations of abortion in the healthcare bill were "fabrications" by "people who are bearing false witness."<ref>Bordlee, D. (2009, September 30). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113335539 Pelosi & Co. Talk Abortion]." ''The National Review''. Winfield, P. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/octoberweb-only/142-52.0.html Health Care Reform Splits Democrats on Abortion]." ''Christianity Today''.</ref> On August 21, he said, in a radio talk show, that claims of abortion in the bill were "not true".<ref name=menges /> However, a detailed [[FactCheck.org]] analysis concluded Obama went too far in decrying claims of abortion in healthcare as fabrications, since his own previous promise of "[[reproductive]] services" in the bill coupled with the bill's wording showed that abortion likely would be subsidized by government under the bill.<ref>Jackson, B. (2009, August 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/ Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> On September 9, Obama continued to assert the bill would not fund abortions, promising immediately after [[Joe Wilson]] famously stood up and yelled "You lie!", that "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."<ref name=menges />

In late September after 31 different Pro-Life Democrats had signed various letters opposing abortion in the healthcare bill, Nancy Pelosi and Obama began meeting with their leader, Bart Stupak, for the first time.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, September 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/policy/29abortion.html Abortion Fight Complicates Healthcare Debate]." ''New York Times''. Gilgoff, D. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2009/10/09/the-countrys-emerging-shift-on-abortion?page=2 The Country's Emerging Shift on Abortion]." ''U.S. News & World Report''.</ref> Stupak denied claims that he was trying to "kill" healthcare reform, stating publicly at the time, "I believe we need comprehensive healthcare reform and I am excited that we are closer than we have ever been to passing a healthcare reform bill in Congress. But any reform must address legitimate concerns, including using public funding for abortions, even if party leaders disagree."<ref>Stupak, B. (2009, October 29). "[http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/65297-i-am-not-trying-to-kill-health-reform-abortion-issue-is-key Stupak: I am Not Trying to Kill Health Care Reform; Abortion Still a Concern]." ''The Hill''.</ref> On October 21, a coalition of Pro-Life groups led by key Republicans, including [[Mike Pence]], delivered a petition signed by 137,000 Americans to Congress expressing disapproval with the healthcare reform legislation.<ref>Brandt, J. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/house-members-raise-concerns-abortion-funding-health-reform/ House Members Raise Concerns Over Abortion Funding in Health Reform Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
=====Bill Introduced=====
On October 26, the House healthcare bill was unveiled, a 1,930 page piece of legislation, the [[Affordable Healthcare for America Act]] (H.R. 3962).<ref>Allen, J. & Soaghan, M. (2009, November 29). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65409-pelosi-unveils-healthcare-bill-house-moves-toward-floor-vote Pelosi Unveils Healthcare Bill; House Moves Toward Floor Vote]." ''The Hill''. Jackson, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5570605-503544.html Key Provisions of the House Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) accused the bill of being a "government takeover of health care in America".<ref>Barrett, T., Bash, D., et. al. (2009, October 29). "[http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/ House Democrats Unveil $894 Billion Health Care Bill]." ''CNN''.</ref> By early November, the House was trying to pass the healthcare bill<ref>(2009, November 4). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/democrats-running-time-address-abortion-dispute-health-care-reform/ Democrats Running Out of Time to Address Abortion Dispute]." ''FOX News''. Oliphant, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-04/news/0911030597_1_abortion-rights-activists-supporters-of-abortion-rights-hyde-amendment Delay on Health Care Bills Loom in Congress]." ''The Chicago Tribune''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/abortion-health-care-reform-question/ Abortion Part of Health Care Reform Still in Question]." ''FOX News''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091102/editorial02_st.art.htm Abortion Foes Seek to Use Health Plan to Curb Access]." ''USA Today''.</ref> but Bart Stupak claimed 40 Pro-Life Democrats could vote with him if his Stupak-Pitts Amendment was not voted on to prevent abortion funding in the bill.<ref>Bacon Jr., P. (2009, November 3). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203232.html Some Democrats Concerned Over Abortion Provisions in Health Bill]." ''The Washington Post''. McCormack, J. (2009, September 21). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/941kghiv.asp Democratic Dissenters]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> With 218 votes required for passage, this would derail the historic vote set to occur on November 7.<ref>Whitesides, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/05/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSTRE5A233B20091105 Democrats Wrestle With Abortion on Health Bill]." ''Reuters''. Soraghan, M. (2009, October 22). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64439-whip-count-shows-dems-lack-votes-on-public-plan Whip Count Shows Democrats Lack Votes on 'Robust' Public Option for Healthcare]." ''The Hill''.</ref> While Senate Leader [[Harry Reid]] (D-UT) sought to create a separate bill in the Senate, he continued to lack the 60 votes needed for a public option, i.e. a government insurance program.<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTYrPXF97cFw Senate, House Move Closer on Health Bills as Battle Goes Public]." ''Bloomberg''.</ref>
=====Passage=====
Bart Stupak and his 40 Pro-Life Democrats refused to budge,<ref>(2009, November 6). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120161271 No Public Money for Abortion]." ''The National Review''.</ref> and Pelosi until the last day tried to play 'chicken', denying the Stupak Amendment its vote.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, November 5). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/post_149.asp Pelosi Likely to Allow Vote on Phony Abortion Compromise Ellsworth Amendment (Update)]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> On November 7 Obama made personal last-minute contact with moderate Democrats in an attempt to persuade them to vote for the healthcare bill without Stupak's amendment.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/07/furious-scramble-for-health-reform-support/ Furious Scramble for Health Reform Support]." ''The Washington Times''. Allen, J. & Hooper, M. (2009, November 7). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66787-health-bill-reaches-moment-of-truth Health Bill Reaches Moment of Truth]." ''The Hill''.</ref> A desperate Nancy Pelosi met with Bart Stupak last-minute and at his request, the [[Conference of Catholic Bishops]],<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 11). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/catholic-bishops-inserting-influence-health-care-fight/ Catholic Bishops Sway Health Care Fight]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref> ultimately allowing the Stupak-Pitts amendment its vote, which passed by a vote of 240-194.<ref>Silva, C. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/23/gvsa1123.htm Abortion Amendment Threatens to Derail Health Reform]." ''The American Medical Association''. Duin, J. (2009, November 19). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/duin-catholics-celebrate-their-stand-on-health-bil/ Catholics Celebrate Their Stand on Health Bill]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> While some Republicans had considered voting 'Present' on the Stupak amendment to defeat it and thus perhaps healthcare reform, Pro-Life groups opposed the strategy and were scoring the vote so less than a 'Yes' would change a member's perfect Pro-Life rating.<ref>Hooper, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67091-house-gop-mulled-present-strategy-on-abortion-amendment House GOP Mulled 'Present' Strategy on Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''.</ref> Republican House leader [[John Boehner]] confronted Democrat [[Charles Rangel]] on the House floor, asking whether the Stupak language would be preserved in the final bill or removed in the end, stating, "I have my doubts this language if it passes has any chance of being in the final version of this bill".<ref>(2009, November 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/07/republicans-question-abortion-agreement-effort-stop-health-care-momentum/ Republicans Question Abortion Agreement in Effort to Stop Health Care Momentum]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Boehner refused to vote for the bill without a guarantee the language would be kept.<ref>Phillips, K. (2009, November 7). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/rangel-boehner-tangle-over-ethics-abortion/ Rangel and Boehner Tangle Over Ethics and Abortion]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> {{cquote|"Republican congressional leaders have to be chuckling right now. In the end, all the [[tea-party]] town halls, [[Glenn Beck]] rallies and '[[death panel]]' rumors may have less of a hand in bringing down health care reform than an intraparty Democratic culture war. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, whose amendment restricting abortion coverage on all policies sold through the new insurance exchange paved the way for passage of health reform in the House of Representatives, vows that 'there will be [[hell]] to pay' if his language gets stripped out of, or weakened in, the final legislation."
-[[Amy Sullivan]], ''[[Time Magazine]]'', [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]<ref>Sullivan, Amy (2009, November 16). "[http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]" ''Time Magazine''.</ref>}} On November 8, 2009, the House healthcare bill, newly amended with the Pro-Life Stupak-Pitts amendment, narrowly passed the House by a vote of 220-215.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 9). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/07/politics/main5570400.shtml House Passes Landmark Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''. Condon, S. (2009, November 16). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/politics/main5588038.shtml Health Care Progress Report: November 9]." ''CBS News''.</ref> [[Joseph Cao]] was the only Republican to vote in favor of the bill.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/cao-explains-his-breaking-rank-in-health-care-vote/ Lone GOPer: Health Vote Could End Career]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> 39 Democrats still voted against the bill, including many fiscally conservative [[Blue Dog Democrats]] and socially conservative Pro-Life Democrats affiliated with DFLA.<ref>Blake, A. (2009, November 10). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/67097-at-risk-dems-defend-their-tough-votes At-Risk Democrats Defend Their Tough Votes on Healthcare Reform Bill]." ''The Hill''.</ref>

=====Reaction=====
Afterwards, Obama stressed that it was time for the Senate to "take the baton."<ref>(2009, November 8). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-08/politics/health.care_1_public-option-republican-filibuster-health-insurance?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama: Time For Senate to 'Take the Baton' on Health Care Reform]." Healthcare Insurance. ''CNN''.</ref> Several Democrats including [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] (D-FL) revealed they voted for the bill only with the understanding that it would be removed from the final bill version.<ref>O'Brien, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66969&pop=1&page=8&Itemid=70 Senior Democrat is 'Confident' that Stupak Amendment Will be Stripped]." ''The Hill''.</ref> The passage of Stupak's Pro-Life amendment in the House healthcare bill led to a letter signed by 40 Pro-Choice Senate Democrats, led by [[Dianna DeGette]],<ref name=thrush>Thrush, G. (2009, November 17). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29651.html Abortion Causes Family Feud for Democrats]." ''Politico''. Halloran, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120254656 Democrats Face Backlash Over House Abortion Limits]." ''NPR''. Cooper, C. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504365_162-5605926-504365.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody The Left's Stupak Stupification]." Coop's Corner. ''CBS News''.</ref> saying that they would not pass healthcare reform unless Stupak's amendment was removed,<ref>Litvan, L & Rowley, Rowley, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaqkPE6p_8ig Abortion Curbs Draw 40 Democrats' Threat of 'No' Vote (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. Young, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67099-liberals-threaten-to-sink-health-bill-over-abortion Liberals Threaten to Oppose Healthcare Bill Over Stupak Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> even as Senate Pro-Life Democrats vowed to reject any bills with abortion agendas. Senator [[Ben Nelson]] (D-NE) promised, "If it isn’t clear that government money is not to be used to fund abortions, I won’t vote for it," and Obama assured that "This is a health-care bill, not an abortion bill."<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aI.clKoFb__M Abortion Issue Threatens Healthcare Overhaul Plan (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/abortion-haggling-looms-health-care-debate-senate/ Abortion Haggling Looms Over Health Care Debate in Senate]." ''FOX News''. Franke-Ruta, G. (2009, November 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/a-new-frontier-opens-up-in-the.html A New Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Health Insurance]." 44 - Politics and Policy. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

On the Pro-Life side, a website, StopTheAbortionMandate.com, was created, and [[Susan's B. Anthony's List]], an [[Abortion#Activist|anti-abortion group]], fund-raised in attacks on the bill, receiving contributions over 50% above the previous year's levels, which it used in advertising attacks on Sen. Harry Reid. On the Pro-Choice side, Stupak's stand drew the anger of liberal groups.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/health/policy/24abortion.html?_r=1 Health Bill Revives Abortion Groups]." ''The New York Times''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> The Progressive Change Campaign Committee performed three "Stop Stupak" fundraisers and began issuing attack ads against him in his home state of [[Michigan]].<ref>Price, D. (2009, November 12). "[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DTNB&s_site=detnews&f_site=detnews&f_sitename=Detroit+News%2C+The+%28MI%29&p_multi=DTNB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12BEFFE1532DF538&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Group Raises Cash, Will Take Stupak to Task]." ''The Detroit News''. Clift, E. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/12/both-parties-abandon-women-s-rights.html Both Parties Abandon Women's Rights]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> [[CNN's]] [[Rachel Maddow]] predicted a revolt among [[women]].<ref>Depke, D. (2009, November 13). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/13/stupak-is-as-stupak-does.html Stupak Is as Stupak Does]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref>

Democratic Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] vowed to keep the Stupak-Pitts amendment from passing in the [[Senate]].<ref name=thrush /> White House Senior Advisor [[David Axelrod]] claimed Obama would intervene to change the Stupak language, and Stupak responded with "They're not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward,. We won fair and square. ... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about."<ref>(November 17, 2009). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/stupak-health-care-stall-white-house-strips-abortion-restrictions/ Stupak: Health Care Bill Will Stall if White House Strips Abortion Restrictions]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Polls taken in mid-November showed public support for the Pro-Life Democrat position. 61% of Americans, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, oppose using federal money for abortions, while a [[CBS News]] poll found 56% oppose federal subsidies for abortions.<ref>Black, N. (2009, November 18). "[http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-americans-against-abortion-coverage-in-health-care-bill-41906/ Most Americans Against Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref>
====Senate Bill: H.R. 3962====
On November 18 the U.S. Senate under Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced its own health care bill (H.R. 3962 The Affordable Health Care for America Act), separate from the House bill. Obama called this bill a 'milestone' and urged Congress to pass it quickly.<ref>Bazinett, K. & McAuliff, M. (2009, November 19). "[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-19/news/17939142_1_reform-bill-illegal-immigrants-public-health-insurance-plan Senate Rolls Out $849 Billion Health Care Reform Bill; President Obama Urges Congress To Act Quickly]. ''New York Daily News''.</ref>

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska attempted to introduce the [[Nelson Amendment]], a [[Pro-Life]] amendment identical to the Stupak-Pitts amendment, but it was defeated 54-45 on December 8.<ref>Feldmann, L. (2009, December 9). "[http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2009/12/nelson-amendment-fails-health-care-abortion-battle-isn’t-over Nelson Amendment Fails, But Healthcare Abortion Battle Isn't Over]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref> Four Senators stood in the way of the bill's passage, [[Ben Nelson]], [[Mary Landrieu]], [[Blanche Lincoln]], and [[Joe Lieberman]].<ref>Tantaros, A. (2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/06/obama-heads-captiol-hill-health-care-push/ The Senate's Health Care Bill Isn't On My Christmas List]. ''[[FOX News]]''. Cordes, N. (2009, December 15). [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/15/eveningnews/main5983872.shtml What Will it Take to Win Over Lieberman?]. ''[[CBS News]]''.</ref> By December 16, both Landrieu and Lieberman had agreed to support the bill since its public option and Medicare expansions were removed.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, December 17). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/17/democrats-recraft-health-bill-to-win-passage/?feat=home_headlines Dems Recraft Health Bill to Win Passage]. ''The Washington Times''.</ref> Lieberman agreed only on condition that Medicare not be expanded to include Seniors as young as 55.<ref>(2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/senate-dems-contemplate-half-loaf-health-care/ Democrats' Health Care Wish List Cut Short]. ''Associated Press''.</ref> Landrieu in the process agreed to take $100 million in Medicaid money for her state, and was accused by Republican [[John Cornyn]] as having been "bribed".<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, December 18). [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30783.html Mary Landrieu hot over NRSC comments]. ''Politico''.</ref>
{{cquote|"We are approaching the eve of Christmas and maybe in that spirit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid morphed into Santa Claus, giving out presents to the little boys and girls who were naughty and (not so) nice this year. Of course, he was not using his own money. America's overused credit card, issued by the Bank of China, may have to be used one more time to pay for Reid's deals. The majority leader traded to help ensure the votes of Sens. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders and others representing 11 states by giving them special perks for staying on the health care bus that's about to drive us all over the financial cliff."
-[[Ed Rollins]], [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money], [[CNN]].<ref>Rollins, E. (2009, December 23). [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money]. ''[[CNN]]''.</ref>}}
On December 19 following 13 hours of negotiations, Senator Nelson finally agree to back the Senate bill in exchange for tighter restrictions on abortion and increased Medicaid funding for his state.<ref name=hersz>Herszenhorn, D.M. & Hulse, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/health/policy/20health.html?pagewanted=all Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill]. ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> The [[National Right to Life Committee]] opposed Nelson's compromise and said it was "light years removed" from the House bill's language per the Stupak Amendment.<ref>Jensen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, December 20). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aim3g2AJwUHI House, Senate Health-Care Legislation: Side-by-Side Comparison]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> A day later, both the RNC and Rick Santorum then initiated a robocall to 100,000 Nebraskans asking them to call Ben Nelson and ask him to reconsider.<ref>Budoff Brown, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/RNC_Santorum_hit_Nelson_in_robocall.html?showall RNC, Santorum hit Nelson in Robocall]. ''Politico''.</ref> On December 22, the GOP led by [[John McCain]] began accusing Nelson of a "Cornhusker Kickback" because his state had received $45 million of Medicare funding in the deal. Nelson denied this, claiming "I didn't ask for a special favor here".<ref>Scott, B. (2009, December 22). [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_blasts_kickback_health_fix_dAelgwc0jXXhMD6fwB05IK GOP blasts 'kickback' health fix]. ''[[New York Post]]''.</ref> Landrieu's deal was likewise criticized as the "Louisiana Purchase".<ref>Rowley, J. & Gaouette, N. (2009, December 23). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIkM0vXz_yxk Republicans Assail ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ Health Deals (Update1)]. ''[[Bloomberg]]''.</ref>

Both the [[AARP]] and [[American Medical Association]] ran ads urging Senators to vote for the bill. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its bill on a party-line vote, 60-39, without a single Republican vote.<ref>Pear, R. (2009, December 24). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25health.html Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>

===Reconciliation===
The possibility of splitting healthcare into two bills and reconciling them was rumored as early as August 20, 2009.<ref>Weisman, J. & Bendavid, N. (2009, August 20). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html New Rx for Health Plan: Split Bill]." ''The Wall Street Journal''. Hetchtkopf, K. (2009, August 20). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5255030-503544.html Dems Might Split Healthcare Reform Into Two Bills]." ''CBS News''.</ref>

<ref>Bash, D., Glass, E., & Walsh, D. (2010, March 19). "[http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.abortion/ Abortion Again an Issue in Health Care Debate]." ''CNN''.</ref>

==Effort to Repeal==
On January 19, 2011, the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] voted 245-189 to repeal Obamacare (56 percent to 44 percent). In an historic repudiation of an entitlement program that was only 10 months old, the House voted to overturn President Obama's health care takeover.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/ House Republicans Vote to Overturn Obamacare in Symbolic Move], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 19, 2011.</ref><ref>An historic repudiation of an entitlement that is only 10 months old. ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Review & Outlook: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091973130244618.html The Repeal Vote], January 20, 2011.</ref> Repealing the bill would eliminate $770 billion in the newly mandated tax increases, according to the CBO.<ref>Philip Klein. [http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob CBO Says Repealing Obamacare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion], ''The American Spectator'', January 07, 2011.</ref> The CBO released accounting data which shows that repealing the national health care law would reduce net government spending by $540 billion in the ten-year period from 2012 through 2021; that number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. The [[Tea Party Movement]] firmly supports the proposed repeal of Obamacare.

On February 2, 2011, the [[U.S. Senate]] proceeded with a hearing to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and whether or not the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of a fine is constitutional.<ref>Amanda Carey. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/03/senate-hearing-on-health-care-bills-constitutionality-had-more-show-than-substance/ Senate hearing on health care bill’s constitutionality had more show than substance], ''The Daily Caller'', February 03, 2011.</ref> The amendment to repeal Obamacare failed in the Senate by a 51-47 vote.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/02/undoing-obamacare-senate-repeal-fails-47-51-on-party-line-vote-1099-provision-killed-83-17/ Undoing Obamacare: Senate repeal fails 47-51 on party-line vote; 1099 provision killed 83-17], MichelleMalkin.com, February 2, 2011.</ref>

The Individual Mandate requiring U.S. citizens to buy healthcare was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 2012. It is possible the entire bill could end up getting repealed.<ref>(2012, April 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404552n Obama vs. Supreme Court: How Serious?]" ''CBS News''.</ref> A ''CBS News''/''New York Times'' poll taken March 21–25, 2012, found that just 26% of Americans want the Supreme Court to keep the entire healthcare law intact.<ref>Condon, S. (2012, March 26). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404793-503544/poll-1-in-4-want-supreme-court-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=featuredPostArea Poll: 1 in 4 Want Supreme Court to Uphold Health Care Law]." ''CBS News''.</ref>

Obama criticized the Supreme Court for considering the case, saying to overturn the bill would be "unprecedented" and was criticized by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said he should "back off. Let the Court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended."<ref>Condon, S. (2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57410114-503544/mcconnell-tells-obama-to-back-off-on-supreme-court/ McConnell Tells Obama to 'Back Off' on Supreme Court]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Following this, Obama conceded the Supreme Court does have the power to overturn the bill.<ref>(2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404408n WH Concedes Court's Power to Kill Health Care Law]." ''CBS Evening News''.</ref>

The Congressional Budget Office in 2011 projected that repealing the bill would add $211 billion to the deficit, but this was contradicted in April 2012 by economist Charles Blahouse who said the bill adds $340 billion to the deficit.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2012, April 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57411669/study-obamas-health-care-law-will-add-at-least-$340-billion-to-deficit/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea Study: Obama's health care law will add at least $340 billion to deficit]." Retrieved from ''CBS News''.</ref>

As of February 2015, the House of Representatives has voted 56 times to scale back or repeal the law, but none of those proposals has received consideration in the Senate.<ref name=fulltime/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/house-votes-repeal-replace-obamacare/|title=House votes to repeal, replace Obamacare|first=Tom |last=Howell Jr.|work=The Washington Times -|date=February 3, 2015 |accessdate=February 6, 2015}}</ref>

In October 2013, the Congress needed to adopt a continuing resolution to allow the federal government to remain open after the existing appropriation laws expired. The House adopted a series of continuing resolutions which were conditioned upon the repeal or modification of the ACA. However, the Senate adopted a series of continuing resolutions which did not contain such ACA conditions. As a result of the impasse, many federal programs were shut down, and remained shut until the House agreed to funding without ACA conditions.

In November 2016, the ''Washington Times'' reported that [[Paul Ryan]]
:is hoping to work with GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump to repeal Obamacare and replace its heavy mandates and coverage requirements with Republican reforms that rely on free-market levers to incentivize people into buying coverage. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/7/ryan-warns-obamacare-wont-be-repealed-clinton-wins/ Paul Ryan’s final warning to voters: Obamacare won’t be repealed if Clinton wins]</ref>

As a result of the 2016 election, Republicans controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. As a result, they followed the original Obamacare playbook and sought to make a bill repealing of Obamacare part of the budget reconciliation, which will not be subject to the Senate's 60-vote filabuster requirement. The Republicans proposed a three phase approach: a bill to repeal Obamacare and the tax provisions, new regulations from HHS, and follow-up legislation enacting the details of the new health care plan. The House committees voted the repeal bill to the floor of the House, but the House Freedom Caucus withheld its support. On March 24, 2017, the Republicans withdrew the bill and stated that they would allow Obamacare to fail, and then pursue bipartisan legislation to replace it. President Trump singled out the Freedom Caucus, the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth in a tweet:
[[File:Obamacaretweet.jpg|left|600px|Obamacare tweet]]

== Basic Requirements ==

Beginning in 2014, Americans are required to buy government-approved, private health insurance or else pay a penalty.

Health insurance companies will be required to spend on medical care at least 80% of the premium payments they receive from individual and small-group plans (and at least 85% from large group plans). The federal government will define what constitutes medical care.

=== Immediate Impact in 2010 ===

Creating temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums for certain people with pre-existing conditions.

Imposing new taxes on some facilities, such as tanning parlors.

Health insurers raised premiums for Americans as a direct result of President Obama's health care overhaul.<ref>Janet Adamy. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', September 07, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703340904575285002595068326.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old to Young], WSJ.com, July 25, 2010.</ref>

=== Requirements for Insurance Companies ===

Prohibit bans on pre-existing health conditions in children, lifetime and annual limits on expenses, and limits coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions in adults.

Requires family policies to include coverage of children up to age 26.

Allows states to form compacts in order to allow the interstate sale of insurance.

Requires direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, which might include abortion.

Creates (starting in October 2013) health insurance exchanges or marketplaces that will be state-based and state-administered, but states can opt out of this if certain conditions are met; insurance can be sold within the exchange only if government-approved. If a state fails to set up its own exchange, residents of the state can purchase insurance on a federally-administered exchange. Insurance can be sold outside of the exchange, but only policies purchased on the exchange will be eligible for a premium tax credit.<ref name=pcredit/>

Prohibits health plans from discriminating against providers, but plans are not required to contract with any provider.

Requires health plans to develop politically correct language services, community outreach and cultural competency trainings.

Requires "silver" insurance plans sold on the exchange to implement a premium tax credit program for individuals making less than $45,960 ($94,200 for a family of four).<ref name=pcredit>{{cite web|url=https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/|title=Will I qualify for lower costs on monthly premiums?|work=healthcare.gov|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref> The insurance company receives the credit from the federal government and is responsible for billing the difference to each insured person.

=== Employer Requirements ===

Requires that employers with more than 50 full-time employees provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

Employers with 25 or fewer full-time employees, receiving average salaries of $50,000 or less, can apply for tax credits in order to provide their employees with health insurance.

=== Medicaid ===

Obamacare expands [[Medicaid]] (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level. States must pay this enormous new burden, but federal government promises to reimburse costs of newly eligible patients under this program from 2014 to 2016. Although the law was drafted to make this a required part of the existing Medicare program, the Supreme Court considered an appeal from certain states and interpreted the law as giving each state the option to either retain the prior scope of Medicaid or expand Medicaid. If a state refuses to expand Medicaid, the taxes collected from that state will be redirected to states that have expanded Medicaid, and hospitals will still be required to provide medical care to the uncovered individuals without reimbursement.

On April 10, 2014, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius acknowledged there are extensive backlogs of people in some states who have applied for Medicaid but remain unable to access care because of out-of-date state computer systems. In April 2014, the government said three million people had enrolled in Medicaid from October 1 through February 28.<ref name=Sebelius>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSBREA3918920140410|title=Obamacare enrollment to surpass 7.5 million: U.S. official|first=David|last=Morgan|date=April 10, 2014|accessdate=April 11, 2014|work=Reuters}}</ref>

=== New Bureaucracy ===

Establishes a new Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program with the goal of creating non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in every state

=== Impact on the deficit and expanded welfare spending ===
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that Obamacare’s refundable health insurance tax credits (or [[tax expenditure]]s<ref>[http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/facing-facts/1996/0913/back-door-entitlement The Back-Door Entitlement], The Concord Coalition.</ref> in D.C. parlance) will add to the [[national debt]] $1.36 trillion in the first seven years of implementation. 85% of filers who claim the tax credit will end the year with zero or negative income tax liability. Since the tax credit is refundable, nearly all 11.3 million of these filers will have negative income tax liability and will no longer pay the cost of government by contributing federal income taxes. Tax credits, or tax expenditures, are a form of federal un-appropriated [[backdoor spending]].

For example, a family of four at 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (about $48,677 in 2016) cannot pay more than 6.3% of their income for health insurance. The CBO estimates that the average cost of the reference insurance plan (the plan used to calculate the tax credit) will be $14,100 for family coverage in 2016. Therefore, a family of four that qualifies for a credit in 2016 and that makes $48,677 would be required to pay about $3,067 for health insurance (6.3% of household income). The difference, $11,033, is the value of this family’s refundable tax credit. According to the CBO, 20 million Americans will receive health insurance tax credits in 2020 at a cost of $130 billion.<ref>[http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/10-27-11_Obamacares_Subsidies_and_Tax_Distribution_Final.pdf Impact of the Obamacare Tax Credits], House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Staff Report, October 27, 2011.</ref>

== Basis for Legal Challenges ==
===Commerce Clause===
There have been several grounds for challenging the Cosntitutionality of the bill. Obamacare includes an "individual responsibility requirement" compelling persons to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The one legal justification for this requirement by Congress is the [[Commerce Clause]]:
{{cquote|The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section ... is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2). ... [Paragraph (2) states,] The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.}}

Apparently uncertain that this would withstand legal scrutiny as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority, on March 21 (the same day as passage) the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. This "explanation" grounded the justification for the bill in the tax authority of Congress, and nowhere mentioned commerce. As Professor Randy Barnett explained in an article on April 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal:
{{cquote|The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."}}

Professor Barnett then explained that in ''Bailey v. Drexel Furniture'' (1922), "the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, 'there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.'" A subsequent Supreme Court decision, ''U.S. v. Kahriger'' (1953), upheld a punitive tax on gambling based on an express statement in the law that Congress was exercising its power to tax. No such statement exists in Obamacare. ''See also Sonzinsky v. U.S.'' (1937) ("Inquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts."). Professor Barnett noted that the penalty is not enforced as a tax in a customary manner, providing further evidence that Obamacare is based on the Commerce Clause and not on any taxing authority.

Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. The federal judge also wrote:
{{Cquote|At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.<ref name=unconstitutional/>}}

It has also been pointed out that because the penalty applies to inactivity, it is beyond the powers authorized by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]].

Since the [[federal]] judge decided the entire healthcare reform bill law was unconstitutional, states such as Alaska have decided not to implement the mandated reforms.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/alaska-governor-refuses-enact-obamacare/?test=latestnews Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact 'Obamacare', Fox News, February 17, 2011]</ref> This prompted Obama's Justice Department to appeal to Judge Vinson by claiming that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.

===Origination Clause===
On September 12, 2012, the [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] filed suit in a Washington, D.C., federal court, arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional under the [[Origination clause]].<ref>[http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/amended_suit_claims_obamacare_was_enacted_in_violation_of_origination_claus/ Amended Suit Claims Obamacare Was Enacted in Violation of Origination Clause] ABA Journal. Welss, Debra.</ref> The Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution) provides that "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."

On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of Obamacare.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Justice-Roberts Justice Roberts Turns Obamacare into Origination Clause Shell Game] Breitbart. Leahy, Michael P.</ref>

Thus, the only portion of Obamacare to originate in the House was its number. Congress frequently uses this same practice for many years, and if the Supreme Court were to overturn the law based on the Origination Clause, a large number of other laws would be open to court challenge as well.

==History of Mandatory Coverage==

One of the early proposals (a predecessor to the one enacted) would create a system to require adults (over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) to enroll themselves and dependent children in a plan through the statewide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health Service. The law contains a religious exemption for people, such as [[Christian Scientists]] who do not receive health care. {{USC|26|5000A(d)(2)}}. Each adult would have the responsibility to enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for deductions in the tax code.
[[File:Penalty.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then under Obamacare a financial penalty may be assessed for non-indigent individuals. (Image courtesy See-Ming Lee)]]

===History of Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage===

Monthly payments for Obamacare are massive, roughly 12-15% of an individual's annual salary. If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed for non-indigent individuals. An exemption is available if more than 8% of the individual's household income would be required to pay for the cheapest available coverage.<ref>https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/</ref>

Fines were to be paid to the HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the penalty poses a hardship. Each State would determine appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that individuals be enrolled.<ref>http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/HAA_Section_by_Section.pdf (Link doesn't work.)</ref>

The law that was enacted replaced the state-based approach with a direct penalty to be paid to the United States.

===Privacy Rights===

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would have "require[d] the Secretary of HHS to adopt standards for typical transactions between insurers and providers such as claims, eligibility, enrollment, and prior authorization building on the standards in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996".<ref>http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/sbys3200.pdf</ref>

==Rationed Care==
{{main|Complete Lives System}}

Doctors have said they anticipate more people waiting in the waiting-rooms, more phone calls, people upset because they want to be seen now. Doctors will be overbooked. As the health care system brings in more and more patients, the system will be overwhelmed. Obamacare will be a tremendous burden for doctors in the United States.

Obamacare will shorten the amount of time Doctors have with each patient, and lengthen the amount of time patients will have to wait. Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu said that the current bill passed into law will create a scenario where the supply cannot meet the demand. Because the necessary health care reform needs are not included in Obamacare, there are still no protections for physicians in the medical industry, and doctors are going into the profession to work harder to earn less.

There will be an oversight board where the government looks at what should and shouldn't be given to patients, regardless of medical need. There is going to be rationing of care, according to Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu. Doctors have agreed there will be "rationed care" under Obamacare.<ref>[http://beta.video.foxbusiness.com/v/4115101/doctors-respond-to-health-care-reform/?playlist_id=87185 Doctors Respond to Health-Care Reform], FoxBusiness.com, March 18, 2010.</ref>

==Disinformation==
{{see also|Jonathan Gruber}}
If private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of Obamacare, the proposed expansion of federal debt and deficits through its planned regulation of the healthcare industry, whether its communicated through e-mail, websites, blogs, or even casual conversation the Obama administration has asked that these people be reported to the executive branch of the federal government.<ref>McCullough, K. (2009, August 6). [http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/06/welcome_to_gestapo-care Welcome to Gestapo-Care]. ''TownHall.com''.</ref> To counter any discussions related to the repeal of Obamacare, or that are against the implementation of Obamacare which will in turn destroy jobs and create more taxpayer debt, a Web page at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" has claimed that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq Frequently Asked Questions About Health Insurance Reform]. Health Insurance Reform Reality Check. ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref>

The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>[ http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml Overview]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> A July 15, 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|Enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>Elmendorf, D.W. (2009, June 15). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. U.S. Congress.</ref>}} However, deceptively, CBO analysis of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills show that they would reduce the federal budget deficit by $109 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421</ref> and $81 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387</ref> respectively.

In a 2010 report, HHS claimed a provision in the health-care law would extend the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office released a memo that said HHS’s math was more than a little off.

Health and Human Services Secretary [[Kathleen Sebelius]] appearing on Capitol Hill for questioning admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget. Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania said “The same dollar can’t be used twice. This is the largest of the many budget gimmicks Democrats used to claim Obamacare would reduce the deficit.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/ HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare, The Daily Caller, March 4, 2011]</ref>

==Implementation==
{| class=wikitable align=right
|+States implementing Medicare Expansion<ref>{{cite news|url=http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/|title=Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision, 2014|work=Kaiser Family Foundation|accessdate=April 4, 2014}}</ref>
!State!!Status as of April 2014
|-
|Alabama||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Alaska||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Arizona||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Arkansas||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note name="ar">AR and IA have approved Section 1115 waivers for Medicaid expansion.</ref>
|-
|California||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Colorado||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Connecticut||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Delaware||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|District of Columbia||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Florida||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Georgia||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Hawaii||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Idaho||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Illinois||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Indiana||Open Debate<ref group=note name="in">IN and PA have pending waivers for alternative Medicaid expansion plans.</ref>
|-
|Iowa||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note name="ar"/>
|-
|Kansas||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Kentucky||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Louisiana||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Maine||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Maryland||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Massachusetts||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Michigan||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note>MI has an approved waiver for expansion and plans to implement in April 2014.</ref>
|-
|Minnesota||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Mississippi||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Missouri||Open Debate
|-
|Montana||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Nebraska||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Nevada||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New Hampshire||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note>NH has passed legislation approving the Medicaid expansion that is expected to be signed by the Governor in March 2014. While the state plans to seek a waiver at a later date, the legislation calls for the expansion to begin July 1, 2014.</ref>
|-
|New Jersey||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New Mexico||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New York||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|North Carolina||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|North Dakota||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Ohio||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Oklahoma||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Oregon||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Pennsylvania||Open Debate<ref group=note name="in"/>
|-
|Rhode Island||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|South Carolina||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|South Dakota||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Tennessee||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Texas||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Utah||Open Debate
|-
|Vermont||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Virginia||Open Debate
|-
|Washington||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|West Virginia||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Wisconsin||Not Moving Forward at this Time<ref group=note>WI amended its Medicaid state plan and existing Section 1115 waiver to cover adults up to 100% FPL in Medicaid, but did not adopt the expansion.</ref>
|-
|Wyoming||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|}
The ACA as passed assumed that the eligibility for [[Medicaid]] would be automatically expanded in all 50 states. However, some states appealed this provision, and the US Supreme Court ruled that each state would have the right to decide whether to continue Medicaid on its present terms or to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income individuals. Although the ACA provided for the federal government to pay for all costs of medicaid expansion during the first four years, there was no statutory guarantee for full federal funding after that time. So, some states, particularly those with Republican Governors or Republican-controlled legislatures, refused to expand the eligibility requirements for the Medicaid program in their states. However, hospitals faced financial pressures to limit or end free charity care for indigent patients under the new structure, leaving low-income people in a difficult, un-insured dilemma.

Individuals and families who earned enough money to not qualify for [[Medicaid]], and were not covered by employer-provided insurance, were then required to purchase insurance through health care exchanges in order to receive federal subsidies of insurance premiums and deductibles. However, there were massive problems with the online health care exchanges operated by the federal government for states that did not set up their own exchanges. This was true at the start of the open season in October 2013 as well as toward the end of the open season in March 2014. Despite these problems, 7.5 million people signed up for insurance on the exchanges.<ref name=Sebelius/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/01/more-7-million-americans-have-enrolled-private-health-coverage-under-affordable-care|title=7.1 Million Americans Have Enrolled in Private Health Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act|work=whitehouse.gov|date=April 1, 2014}}</ref> This number does not indicate a growth in the number of people covered by private health insurance. First, the 7.5 million includes people who became covered by Medicaid expansion. Second, some of the people were already covered by a grandfathered health plan, but were forced to purchase on the exchange so as to receive premium and deductible subsidies. Third, some states, like California, required insurance companies to cancel their existing insurance plans as a precondition of offering plans on the health care exchanges. Fourth, purchasing a plan and signing-up are two very different criteria in determining the viability of government healthcare. The Obama administration has declined to provide "paid for" statistics.

Some people thought that they had purchased insurance through the exchange, but because of malfunctions in the back office of the exchange, the insurance providers did not receive any record of the insurance purchase. The Obama Administration launched a crash program to fix the federal exchange software and in January 2014 replaced the contractor responsible for building and operating the healthcare.gov website.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/10/obama-administration-to-replace-top-healthcare-gov-contractor/|title=Obama administration to replace top HealthCare.gov contractor|date=January 10, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|work=Washington Post|author= Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein}}</ref>

Although a number of Americans gave up their grandfathered health care plans for new policies. If the number of people purchasing policies under the ACA is not sufficient, insurance companies will raise their rates in future years, perhaps trapping these Americans who gave up their rights to switch back to the grandfathered plans.

The ACA imposed a mandate for employers who hire more than 50 full-time employees. A full-time employee is defined as someone who works 30 or more hours per week. In response, some employers have cutback the number of full-time employees to avoid the duty to comply with the ACA's insurance requirements. The Obama Administration has postponed the implementation of the employer mandate until 2015. Some employers have cut the hours that their staff could work to under 30 hours per week. For example, adjunct faculty members have found that the number of classes per semester have been reduced so that they will not be covered by employer insurance. House Republicans have passed legislation through the House to increase the definition of full-time worker to 40 hours per week.<ref name=fulltime>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-votes-to-change-health-care-laws-definition-of-full-time-work/2014/04/03/dc0b7066-bb69-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html|title=House votes to change health-care law’s definition of full-time work|first=Ed |last=O’Keefe|date=April 3, 2014|work=Washington Post|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref>

The ACA requires health plans to offer women family planning and contraceptive services. Some employers object that such coverage violates religious principles. This issue has been taken to the United States Supreme Court with a decision expected by the summer of 2014.

Following the troubled roll-out of the ACA, on April 11, 2014, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her resignation.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBREA3926R20140411|title=Health secretary resigns after Obamacare launch woes|first=Roberta|last=Rampton|date=April 11, 2014|accessdate=April 11, 2014|wprl=Reuters}}</ref>
===2015===
The second year posed a number of different challenges for the law. The open season started on November 15 and runs through February 15, 2015. The federal exchange website (healthcare.gov) did not have as many problems during the second open season as it had during the first. HHS reports that 6.6 million people have enrolled or were "automatically re-enrolled" on the Federal exchange through January 2, 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2015/01/open-enrollment-week-seven.html|title=Open Enrollment Week 7: December 27, 2014 – January 2, 2015|date=January 7, 2015|accessdate=January 9, 2015|work=hhs.gov}}</ref> The fees or penalties on individuals who fail to enroll in health insurance for 2015 are: either 2% of the taxpayer's income, or $325 per adult ($162.50 per child) — whichever is higher.<ref>https://www.healthcare.gov/quick-guide/ Retrieved January 9, 2015.</ref> The IRS will have to implement their new computer systems for calculating the tax credit that each taxpayer was due under the ACA for 2014 and then compare it to the subsidies that the taxpayer received in 2014 and then collect or refund any differences. This may be a surprising new complication to taxpayers as they attempt to file their tax returns for 2014.

According to HHS, 25 percent more issuers have joined their Marketplace for 2015, and consumers can choose from an average of 40 health plans, which is up from 30 in 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2014/10/affordable-care-act-is-working.html|title=The Affordable Care Act is Working|work=hhs.gov|date=January 8, 2015|accessdate=January 9, 2014}}</ref> To promote plan enrollment to young people, President Obama appeared on the '''Colbert Report''' on December 8, 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/88p9oh/the-word---president-barack-obama---to-health-in-a-handbasket|title=The Word - President Barack Obama - To Health in a Handbasket|date=December 8, 2014|retrieved=January 9, 2015}}(ACA is "half as popular as a grumpy cat video")</ref>
===2016===
The open enrollment period for 2016 began on November 1, 2015, and 11.6 million people signed up for an insurance plan through either a state insurance exchange or through healthcare.gov.<ref name="2016a">{{cite web|url=https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-01-29.html|title=By the Numbers: Open Enrollment|date=2016-01-29|accessdate=February 20, 2016}}</ref> Sixty percent of the people who enrolled in a plan in 2015 and used an exchange in 2016, switched to a different insurance plan.<ref name="2016a"/>

== Obama Administration health care plan and liberal elitism ==
[[File:Arrogant obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|[[Barack Obama]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> The ACA has a provision which requires members of Congress and their staff to purchase insurance on a health care exchange instead of from the health care plans offered through the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Obama Administration wrote implementing regulations which would have Congress and their staff receive a subsidy on the exchange-purchased insurance equal to the amount that OPM subsidizes the insurance of all other federal employees. However, during the October 2013 government shutdown crisis, one of the provisions the House added to one of the continuing resolution to fund the federal government was a prohibition of such a subsidy. The Senate rejected it.<ref>http://theweekincongress.com/2013/10/08/how-the-senate-and-house-handled-h-j-res-59-the-continuing-resolution-for-fy-2014/</ref>

The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>
[[File:MedSybolBlog.jpg|left|125px]]

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref> Fleming and other Congressmen advocate ending the health care plans offered through OPM and placing all federal employees under the health care exchanges.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fleming.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fleming_letter_to_president_on_opm_fix.pdf|title=Letter to President Obama|date=August 9, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 17, 2014}}</ref>

===Two-Tier Health Care System===
Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary citizens of their country. The worst corruption in socialist regimes flows from that simple two-caste system. Some critics claim there is a two-tier health care system under the ACA.<ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-means-a-two-tier-health-care-system/ Obamacare Means a Two-Tier Health Care System], by James Lewis at ''Pajamas Media'', March 9, 2010.</ref>

The first example of Obamacare's creation of a two-tier health care system was seen as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet and watch as their health care costs increase due to provisions in Obamacare. Senate staffers planned to participate in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos as part of a "health fair" for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/senate-office-host-health-fair-covered-staffers/ Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers], FoxNews.com, October 08, 2010.</ref> The Senate staffers will be treated to seated massages, herbal [[tea]]s, polarity therapy, low-fat [[cheese]] samples and organic foods. A [[pharmacist]] and health coach will be available to speak to fair-goers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions. All of which is at the American taxpayers expense. Of course, the ACA provisions regarding employee health care had not gone into effect at the time of that proposed health fair.

Less than one year after Obamacare was signed into law, 111 [[unions]], companies, and organizations had received approval for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lots-of-unions-are-on-the-hidden-list-to-receive-obamacare-waivers/ Lots of Unions Are on the ‘Hidden’ List to Receive Obamacare Waivers], ''[[The Blaze]]'', November 15, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers>Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements: [http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711], (as of December 3, 2010).</ref><ref>When the American people learned that the congressmen who wrote the new healthcare law were exempt from it, questions regarding the alleged benefits of the new legislation were raised. Further proof that Obamacare may not be all that it was touted to be can be found in the fact that 111 companies, including a number of unions, have been given waivers to be exempted from certain provisions of the law. [http://www.examiner.com/will-county-libertarian-in-chicago/government-health-care-is-not-law-for-everyone?cid=parsely#parsely Government Health Care is not law for everyone], by Steve Balich, Examiner.com, November 15, 2010.</ref><ref>Warner Todd Huston. [http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/11/15/obamacare-waivers-prove-policy-is-a-jobs-killer-unions-benefit-most/ Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Most], biggovernment.com, November 15, 2010.</ref> By December 7, 2010, the list of unions, companies, and insurers who have used the HHS waiver as an escape to avoid the costly, destructive consequences of Obamacare for their members and employees grew from 111 to 222.<ref name=waivers/><ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/07/obamacare-waiver-mania-continues-list-tops-222/ Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222], MichelleMalkin.com, December 7, 2010.</ref> More than 50 unions have already received waivers.<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011711/content/01125114.guest.html Why We Must Repeal Obamacare], RushLimbaugh.com, January 17, 2011.</ref> Moreover, three [[Service Employees International Union]] (SEIU) local chapters, including the [[Chicago]] chapter, whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.<ref>Fred Lucas. [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement], CNSnews.com, January 24, 2011.</ref>

===Treatment of older patients===
Some critics, including 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate [[Sarah Palin]], have accused Obama of planning on setting up "[[Death panel|Death Panels]]" to judge the worthiness and "cost effectiveness" of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens. In spite of public outcry over [[Death panel|Death Panels]], the Obama administration is pressing forward to enact the same measures by bureaucratic regulations, called "end-of-life planning."<ref>Meredith Jessup. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare/ Return of ‘Death Panels’? Obama to Enact End-of-Life Planning for Medicare], ''[[The Blaze]]'', December 26, 2010.</ref> Quoting research from the [[British Medical Journal]], the [[Obama administration]] insists death panels are humane: "Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."
Prior to ObamaCare, uninsured indigent patients would be subject to rationing of care dictated by the limited amount of charity funding available at local hospitals. Insurance companies also rationed care by declining to authorize and reimburse procedures and treatments that they considered wasteful or experimental.

This "end-of-life" care is apparently to be doled out like pork from a salt barrel from the 200 or so "Elderly Care Centers" nationwide that will distribute strictly rationed medication to those in need until such time as the "committee" considers the patient to be too old. 200 centers in the country amounts to about 4 per state on average, though California, Massachusetts and Iowa were able to grab more funding from the Obama administration through a combination of political dealings and judicial activism <ref>http://blogs.smartmoney.com/tax/2011/02/10/lights-camera-tax-scandal-iowa-trial-begins/</ref> The majority of Elderly Care Centers are located in urban areas of states; for example, the state of Kansas has only two Elderly Care Centers for their entire retired population and both are located in Topeka, far from the rural elderly who "need" government help the most. This may be a strategy to reduce the strain on the system by allowing a large portion of the elderly to die off "naturally," while still making a show of treating them in cities, where liberal voters tend to congregate.

There have already been deaths attributed to doctors exercising newly granted authority from these extrajudicial decision making bodies. A young girl, in liberal California of all places, was told that her liver transplant was not "worth it," because she wouldn't live long enough to justify the value of the organ. Though public outcry forced the doctors to change their minds after ten days, but those ten days were enough to kill an innocent child. Another woman, a nurse in Texas, was denied treatment for her breast cancer, purportedly because she was in middle age and was not worth the "investment." <ref>http://dying.about.com/od/ethicsandchoices/a/death_panels.htm</ref>

Under Obamacare, in every state taxpayer dollars originally slated for caring for the elderly in our communities have been transferred to a "Community Health" slush fund run by federal government-appointed bureaucrats. The purpose of this fund is to allow unscrupulous doctors and insurance companies, who are the acknowledged source of our high health costs, to charge ridiculous amounts of money for basic services, without leaving a paper trail or even committing a (legal) crime.

==Polls==
Taken from an [[Associated Press|AP]] poll, on January 17, 2011, Kellyanne Conway, president of the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, pointed out that when asked if voters would favor a law "that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor," 59 percent are opposed.<ref>Katrina Trinko. [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257331/two-new-obamacare-polls-have-high-numbers-democrats-misleading-questions-katrina-trink# Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions], ''National Review'', January 17, 2011.</ref> {{Cquote|When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it," Conway said.}}
One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, Rasmussen's poll of likely voters showed that Americans support its repeal by a margin of 21 percentage points (58 to 37 percent). Among [[independents]], the margin in support of repeal was even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare], ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', February 7, 2011.</ref> The pollsters also point out that many voters don't just want Obamacare repealed — they also want it replaced with a better system.

* On August 29, 2011, the ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters showed that 57% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-seven percent (37%) at least somewhat oppose repeal, with 25% who are Strongly Opposed.<ref>Voters Express Stronger Enthusiasm for Health Care Repeal. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Health Care Law], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', August 29, 2011.</ref>

* According to the ''Kaiser Health Tracking'' [[poll]], as reported on August 30, 2011, 44% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Obamacare. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low Poll: Obamacare support at all time low], ''The Washington Examiner'', August 30, 2011.</ref>

* According to a monthly poll from the ''Kaiser Family Foundation'', as reported by ''[[The Hill]]'' on October 28, 2011, 51 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view while only 34 percent had a favorable impression of Obamacare.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/190399-healthcare-laws-popularity-hits-a-new-low-poll-says Healthcare law's popularity hits new low], ''[[The Hill]]'', October 28, 2011.</ref>

== See also ==
[[File:Dr Obama.jpg|right|150px]]
* [[King v. Burwell]]
* [[Socialized Medicine]]
* [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (doctor organization which opposes Obamacare)
* [[Accountable Care Organization]]
* [[Single payer]]
* [[Obamunism]]
* [[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama's Medical Administrator|Obama's Medicare/Medicaid Administrator]]
* [[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie]]
* [[Predicting ObamaCare Outcome]]

== External links ==
*[http://obamacarewatch.org/ Website publicizing the numerous, latest harms caused by ObamaCare]
*[http://www.healthcare.gov Official website]
*[http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Full text of Obamacare, aka Affordable Healthcare Act]
*[http://www.healthcare.gov/news/brochures/info-for-small-businesses.pdf Official site info for small businesses; statement there will be penalties against employers]
*[http://www.castlibrary.com/free_books Three Days of Argument: Obamacare On Trial Audiobook] - Complete coverage of the arguments to the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8 Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200- Key Points video]
*[http://www.aapsonline.org/obamacare-bill/ Obamacare] by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]
*[http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=653 Collectivism and Obama, McCain], featuring David Boaz, [[CATO Institute]] Daily Podcast, June 10, 2008.
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071510/content/01125107.guest.html White House Snaps Fingers and Triggers End of Private Insurance], [[Rush Limbaugh]] on how the Obama Administration just issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage.
*FoxNews.com: [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/19/taxpayer-calculator-health-care-repeal Taxpayer Calculator: ''Find Out How Much Health Care Law Is Costing YOU'']. To find out how much your taxes will increase because of Obamacare, [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions CLICK HERE]. In addition to calculating your individual tax burden caused by the overall health care takeover, FoxNews.com has also broken down the bill into three main pieces: the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-exchange-subsidies-related-spending.htm gross cost of exchange subsidies and related spending], the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-medicaid-chip-outlays.htm cost of Medicaid and expense of the Children's Health Insurance Program], and the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/healthcare-bill-gross-cost-of-small-employer-tax-credits.htm cost of small employer tax credits].
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/premiums-set-to-rise-this-year-in-run-up-to-obamacare-tax-on-insurance-industry/
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/01/memphis-based-medical-company-lays-off-100-blames-obama-care/
* http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339456/obamacare-s-pressure-points-thomas-p-miller

{{Liberalism}}

==Notes==
<references group="note"/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:ObamaCare]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Health]]
[[Category:Health Care]]
[[Category:Government Programs]]
[[Category:Welfare]]
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:Retirement]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

John 3:16

2017-04-24T17:33:23Z

Beesh: Blanked the page

Ayn Rand

2017-04-24T17:32:36Z

Beesh: Replaced content with "Ayn Rand was the personification of apathy."

Ayn Rand was the personification of apathy.

Video games

2017-04-24T17:31:40Z

Beesh: Replaced content with "Video games aren't that bad."

Video games aren't that bad.

Conservapedia proven right

2017-04-24T17:31:00Z

Beesh:

'''''Conservapedia''''' has often been proven wrong on a wide range of topics including science, politics, sports, and [[video games]]. In many cases, [[liberals]] pathetically tried to ridicule predictions that subsequently rang true:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal claptrap]] in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|December 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to [[Ronald Reagan]] or [[Pope John Paul II]] or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as [[Jimmy Carter]]."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently, the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
 In 2015, it was leaked that the prize was given to Obama more to advance the liberal goal of nuclear disarmament than "in recognition of what he had accomplished."<ref>http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/freepress/story/2015/sep/21/president-obamas-nobel-peace-awardregretted-o/326069/</ref>
|October 09, 2009 (award), and March 3, 2015 (unprecedented demoting of chairman who made the award).<ref>http://www.dw.de/chairman-of-nobel-peace-prize-committee-demoted/a-18292026</ref>
|-
|February 1, 2007
|Explained the significance of the [[30-mile rule]] to reduce the exploitation of women by abortion clinics<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=30-mile_rule&oldid=12680</ref>
|clueless [[liberals]] paid no attention
|"more than a third of the clinics in Texas have been forced to stop providing abortions," [[Planned Parenthood]] screams to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to block the good law;<ref>http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/texas/article/Planned-Parenthood-asks-high-court-s-help-in-Texas-4954081.php</ref> a big abortionist in Houston then lost his medical license in Feb. 2014 for violating this law.<ref>http://www.texasrighttolife.com/a/1152/BREAKING-NEWS-Texas-Medical-Board-suspends-license-of-abortionist-for-violating-newly-enacted-ProLife-law#.Uv6W6_ldVHQ</ref>
|November 4, 2013
|-
|February 18, 2007
|Explained that [[abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=14427</ref>
|Strident, hysterical denials by liberals, who oppose even telling women of the possibility of an increase in risk.
|A study published in 2013 showed more than a six-fold increase in women who had an abortion.<ref>[http://www.indianjcancer.com/article.asp?issn=0019-509X;year=2013;volume=50;issue=4;spage=316;epage=321;aulast=Bhadoria AS Bhadoria, U Kapil, N Sareen, P Singh, "Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India," 50 ''Indian Journal of Cancer'' 4, 316-321 (2013)</ref> In addition, another study showed that the "number of young women being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer has been slowly but steadily rising over the past 3 decades," beginning a few years after ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'',<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Health/advanced-breast-cancer-rise-younger-women/story?id=18606955</ref> and a massive research project in China showed a 44% increase in breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/02/bombshell-study-finds-44-increased-breast-cancer-risk-for-women-having-abortions/</ref>
|February 27 and December 2, 2013
|-
|March 15, 2007
|Observed that [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not [[conservative]], and cited several key examples.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly&oldid=37999</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] continued to pretend that O'Reilly is somehow a leader of the [[conservative movement]].
|O'Reilly endorses the [[liberal]]s' amnesty bill for illegal immigration.
|June 20, 2013
|-
|May 07, 2007
|The speed of light varies.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&oldid=147388</ref>
|Physicists point out that the [[Theory of Relativity]] and [[Isaac Newton|Newtonian]] physics both demonstrate that the speed of light varies depending on the medium through which it is travelling.
|"So it turns out the speed of light might not be constant after all." <ref>https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently</ref><ref>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einsteinian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-change-the-speed-of-light-forever</ref> Research shows that due to the impossibility of a perfect vacuum the idealized concept of 'the speed of light in a vacuum' cannot be achieved in practice.
|March 25, 2013
|-
|August 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|February 24, 2008
|-
|October 04, 2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_animals_myth&oldid=308759</ref>
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in an aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2009, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|July 15, 2009
|-
|January 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|April 07, 2012
|-
|February 27, 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.<ref>http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract</ref>
|October 3, 2012
|-
|April 14, 2008
|Conservapedia coins the term "[[media bullying]]."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430832</ref>
|[[liberal denial]] in response
|Prominent African American physician Benjamin Carson observes, "The bullies are ... especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line ... they suppress [[freedom of speech]]."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/09/dr-carson-media-bullies-suppress-freedom-speech-beat-anyone-who-doesn#ixzz2N5XWfVMc</ref>
|March 09, 2013
|-
|October 05, 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=530340</ref>
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 21, 2009
|-
|March 24, 2008
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_values&oldid=412536</ref> Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|
|-
|December 22, 2008
|The theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|In 2011, frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]"; in 2011 and 2013, even the [[liberal media]] admit there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.
|July 06, 2011 <ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/</ref>
|-
|August 04, 2009
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|February 3, 2011
|-
|September 21, 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|November 28, 2009<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=724599</ref>
|Conservapedia asserts that the [[Theory of relativity]] is false, and creates the page [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], initially containing 10 counterexamples. It slowly grows to a few dozen.<ref>The page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] attempts to refute all of them.</ref>
|Widespread ridicule all across the internet. Anyone questioning this theory would be unlikely to get employment as a high school science teacher, much less a PhD or college faculty position.
|By mid-2016 the number of counterexamples has grown to 49.<ref>The [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|rebuttal page]] keeps pace.</ref>
|July 12, 2016
|-
|January 14, 2010
|Conservapedia identifies the significance of an effort to recall Menendez from office.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Menendez&oldid=744786</ref>
|Liberals stood by Menendez for years.
|Finally the ''[[New York Times]]'' said that [[Harry Reid]] should take a committee gavel away from Menendez. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/mr-menendezs-ethics-problem.html?hp&_r=0</ref>
|February 8, 2013
|-
|March 14, 2010
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|Some mistakenly viewed Santorum as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-underwhelming-endorsement-romney-081055500.html</ref>
|May 7, 2012
|-
|April 19, 2010
|In [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], ''Conservapedia'' observed that intelligence has long been declining.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=770704</ref>
|Repeated attempts to remove the insight from the entry.
|A Stanford University geneticist confirms that intelligence has been declining for thousands of years.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent</ref>
|November 12, 2012
|-
|May 16, 2010
|In starting the new entry [[Worst College Majors]], Conservapedia observed that "[t]he worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-liberal view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Worst_College_Majors&oldid=778795</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] about several of the examples.
|A study shows that the earnings gap between good and bad college majors is bigger than the gap between a college and high school diploma.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/05/picking-college-major-mean-big-money/28578259/</ref>
|June 6, 2015
|-
|June 12, 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/June_2010</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 13, 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Letter_to_Douglas_Moo&oldid=791512</ref>
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|November 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|August 10, 2010
|In August of 2010, Conservapedia created the article [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] indicating that [[Richard Dawkins]] had a significant problem with the women segment of the marketplace and that he [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|was abrasive]] and [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardly.]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Women%27s_views_of_Richard_Dawkins&oldid=803578</ref>
|Atheist men scoff at the article.
|On November 1, 2010, the Ms. Magazine website post an article by the feminist Monica Shores entitled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''? <ref>[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, Ms. Magazine</ref> Shores' article declares: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref>[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, Ms. Magazine</ref> In July of 2011, the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal occurs. A woman in the [[Skepchick]] community says "I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn."<ref>[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzoCyyqmp5b5LUdobkxhblpmTDA/edit?pli=1 Skepchick woman]</ref> <ref>http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/</ref>
|July 6, 2011
|-
|October 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|January 18, 2011
|Observing that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>
|[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protesters are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|
|-
|January 23, 2011
|Conservapedia observes how harmful [[Facebook]] is, and how little is accomplished on it.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Facebook&oldid=843357</ref>
|Liberals defend their gossipy, ad-driven site.
|Facebook breaks up many marriages, and the "Article Reach on Facebook is Seeing a Huge Decline ... and Facebook has now stated plainly that they expect organic reach to continue to fall."<ref>http://www.opusfidelis.com/blog/article-reach-on-facebook-is-seeing-a-huge-decline/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly+OPUSfidelis+Blog&utm_content=Weekly+OPUSfidelis+Blog+CID_46b2948b9d2c498c82c9c31369d1dc43&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=Article+Reach+on+Facebook+is+Seeing+a+Huge+Decline</ref>
|March 18, 2014
|-
|February 27, 2011
|"Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none have ever been found."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=852797</ref> This was actually true at the time, but the implication was that gravitational waves would ''never'' be found.
|The (perhaps overzealous) researchers at the "BICEP2" project claimed to have discovered evidence of gravitational waves from the "[[big bang]]".<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3985v1</ref> This was shot down in 2015: "Gravitational waves discovery now officially dead."<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-discovery-now-officially-dead-1.16830</ref> But in 2015 and 2016, gravitational waves from colliding [[black hole]]s were irrefutably detected by the [[LIGO]] instruments. See [[Gravitational waves]].
|Unknown
|January 21, 2016
|-
| February 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence. <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/</ref>
|October 5, 2011
|-
|August 24, 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Question_evolution!_campaign&oldid=904849</ref>
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011. Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|November 12, 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Presidential_Race_-_Endorsements_for_Republicans_2012&oldid=944456</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|October 11, 2011
|-
|September 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>

On May 24, 2013, the second massive earthquake in 2013 (magnitude 8 and above) occurred, ''which is more than the total annual amount in each of the past 5 years''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0525/Russia-8.2-earthquake-is-big-but-no-deaths</ref>
|April 17, 2012 and May 24, 2013
|-
|November 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pacific_Institute&oldid=933383</ref>
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
| February 21, 2012
|-
|January 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|January 20, 2012 <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/santorum-now-the-iowa-winner-officially-111713.html</ref>
|-
|February 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|February 8, 2012
|-
|March 9, 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|May 8, 2012
|Observed that [[Rick Santorum]] was a [[stalking horse candidate]] in 2012.
|Liberals were clueless.
|Santorum pulled out early from the race for president in 2016, and surprised other [[conservative]]s by endorsing the moderate [[Marco Rubio]], but as predicted by Conservapedia he [[Expected to endorse Jeb|did not endorse Jeb Bush]].
|February 3, 2016
|-
|June 23, 2012
|"Tiger Woods -- hasn't won a major tournament in years, and yet he's still all that liberals want to talk about in covering golf tournaments."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|
|Nearly four years after Conservapedia's observation, Tiger Woods still "hasn't won a major tournament in years, and yet he's still all that liberals to talk about in covering golf tournaments."
|August, 10, 2014
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|Liberals desperately tried to find a role for Beckham, eventually having him play the absurd part of conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, even though other players over the age of 23 were selected. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown but rising young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|-
|June 23, 2012
|Observing how overrated LeBron James is by the media.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&direction=next&oldid=989112</ref>
|Disapproval of criticism
|Despite enormous media hype for James, he and his team were routed by little-known players on the San Antonio Spurs for the championship in 2014. The following year, [[Stephen Curry]] is widely recognized as the best player in the NBA, and he leads the unheralded ''Golden State Warriors'' to the championship and a record-setting 24-0 start in the subsequent season.
|June 15, 2014, and then year 2015
|-
|June 24, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds Manning to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]. <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989247</ref>
|Liberals insist that Manning will be better for Broncos, and pretend that politics had nothing to do with this surprise replacement. The following year the media virtually declare Manning to be one of the greatest players ever, and that praise continued in 2014.
|To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game in early 2013; in 2014 he throws twice as many interceptions as TDs in a humiliating loss for the Broncos the following year in the Super Bowl; and in 2015 he plays poorly as Denver is crushed in its first round of the playoffs.
|January 11, 2013, February 2, 2014, and January 11, 2015
|-
|August 13, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observes that nations which adopt [[same-sex marriage]] then decline in competitiveness at the Olympics.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1000056</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]]
|Germany, which rejects [[same-sex marriage]], wins the [[World Cup]] without losing a single game, including a record-breaking 7-1 rout of Brazil 7-1 in the semifinals.
|July 13, 2014
|-
|September 6, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' added [[God]]-denier [[Lance Armstrong]] to our list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1004539</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] continued about Armstrong, insisting that he be removed from this entry because Armstrong continued to deny the obvious;<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=prev&oldid=1004539]</ref> the liberal Olympic bureaucrats refused for months to strip Armstrong of his medal, until after Armstrong admitted his doping.
|Finally and pathetically Armstrong admitted what he had so aggressively denied about doping.
|January 14, 2013
|-
|Fall 2012
|''Conservapedia'' repeatedly predicted that liberals would not allow one of the [[Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Star]]s, [[Tim Tebow]], to have any real playing time on the ''New York Jets'', and that it would pathetically fail without Tebow.
|Liberals insisted Tebow would play if the other QB failed, or that Tebow was not good enough to play, despite how he led the underachieving Broncos to a playoff victory against the highly ranked Steelers.
|The ''New York Jets'' failed miserably while never giving Tebow any real playing time, and the ''Jets'' were eliminated from playoff contention even before the last week of the season. <ref>http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/new_york_jets_eliminated_from.html</ref>
|December 18, 2012
|-
|November 18, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the ''L.A. Lakers'' had packed their starting line-up with [[Overrated Sports Stars]], and then hired their preferred coach despite how a better one was available.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1019273</ref>
|Liberals thought these players and the hiring of the new coach were good because the media told them so.
|In 2013, the ''L.A. Lakers'' barely made the playoffs, and then were routed by record-setting margins in the first round. Then, in 2014, the ''Lakers'' set a club record for the most ''losses'' in a season, and failed to make the playoffs.
|April 17, 2014
|-
|December 1, 2012
|"Indeed, it is debatable whether black holes exist at all."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=1021604</ref>
|The [[liberal media]] claim black holes exist, so it must be true!!!
|Stephen Hawking admits, "There are no black holes."<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583</ref>
|January 24, 2014
|-
| February 3, 2013
|''Conservapedia'' observed that extended 35-minute blackout at the [[Super Bowl]] was likely caused in part by the energy rationing mindset of liberals.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1055150&oldid=1032962</ref>
|It was a faulty relay, the [[lamestream media]] and local authorities claimed.
|It was not a faulty relay - relays almost never fail in such a manner, as confirmed by an expert quoted by ''National Geographic''.
|February 9, 2013
|-
|January 8, 2013
|"The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1028225</ref>
|Repeated insistence that reports in the [[lamestream media]] that Chavez was alive from December to March, including even a photo purporting to be him, must be true.
|Hugo Chávez is indeed dead, but the [[BBC]] claims he died nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053</ref> It is reported that Chavez's decomposition is too advanced for embalming. Proving he died much earlier than reported. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-venezuela-chavez-embalming-idUSBRE92C1GC20130313 Venezuela may be unable to embalm Chavez's remains]</ref>
|March 5, 2013
|-
|April 23, 2013
|"Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1048618</ref>
|Even though the DNA match is quick and known to the Obama Administration, even though there will be no trial of Tamerlan, and even though closure on the 9/11-anniversary murders would comfort families of the victims, liberals want the DNA match to continue to be withheld from the families and the public.
|More than two weeks later (and nearly three months later for the ''[[New York Times]]''), stories began to appear in the [[lamestream media]] that forensic evidence and cell phone records confirm the likely involvement of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in committing the gruesome murders.
|May 11, 2013 ([[mainstream media]] outside of [[New York Times]])
 July 10, 2013 ([[New York Times]])
|-
|June 13, 2013
|Added Tom Brady to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]].
|The [[liberal media]] pretend that the self-centered Tom Brady is one of the greatest football players ever, and brag about the multi-many-million dollar home he moved into.
|It was discovered that Brady had probably been cheating for an extended period by using deflated, easier-to-throw footballs in violation of NFL rules, and the NFL suspended him for four games. Brady fought the suspension, refused to apologize for his cheating, and lost on appeal.
 Lacking perfect pass protection and unable to use improperly deflated footballs, Brady demonstrated how lousy he really is by leading his team to an upset defeat at the 2016 AFC Championship game.
|May 11, 2015, and Jan. 24, 2016
|-
|July 1, 2013
|[[Best of the public]] is triumphing at [[Wimbledon]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1059301</ref>
|"You obviously don't understand tennis!" and "occasional upsets don't result in championships in big tennis tournaments!"
|15th seed Marion Bartoli won Wimbledon in 2013 '''''without losing a set the entire tournament''''', the rarest of achievements; two years later, the women's finals at the U.S. Open in 2015 did not include anyone ranked among the top 20 players.
|July 6, 2013; Sept. 12, 2015
|-
|July 27, 2013
|Predicting liberal negativity, as required by the [[homosexual agenda]], towards the [[Winter Olympics]] because it was being hosted by pro-heterosexual Russia.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Winter_Olympics&oldid=1062259</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]]
|Russia was spectacular in successfully hosting the Olympics and winning the medals race, and several articles afterward were critical of the media and others in how they criticized Russia.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/olympics/bondy-putin-games-worth-weight-gold-article-1.1699246</ref>
|February 23, 2014
|-
|August 3, 2015
|Predicting that [[Lindsey Graham]] was merely a [[stalking horse candidate]] who would only temporarily pursue his "far-fetched candidacy" for the [[2016 presidential election|2016 presidential race]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stalking_horse_candidate&oldid=1167261</ref>
|[[Liberal]]s were clueless.
|Lindsey Graham abruptly pulled out of the race in time to help [[Jeb Bush]] before [[Christmas]], and on January 15, 2016, endorsed Jeb Bush just as ''Conservapedia'' had predicted.<ref>http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/lindsey-graham-to-endorse-jeb-bush-for-president-217838</ref>
|December 21, 2015, and January 15, 2016
|-
|August 11, 2015
|"Trump will take New Hampshire"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/139#What_if....</ref>
|[[Liberal]]s mocked Trump and thought he never had a chance.
|Trump won New Hampshire on his way to winning the nomination.
|February 9, 2016
|-
|August 11, 2015
|"Different candidates are expected to win the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary, rendering the subsequent primary in South Carolina very influential."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=South_Carolina_primary&oldid=1168198</ref>
|
|In both the [[Republican]] and [[Democratic]] primaries, the prediction of Conservapedia came true despite polling to the contrary.
|February 1 and 9, 2016
|-
|September 6, 2015
|Conservapedia launches an "[[unplug the NFL]]" campaign in response to the religious discrimination by the [[NFL]] in excluding outspoken [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]], who experts widely agree is qualified to play in the league.
|[[Liberal]] [[double standard]] says religious discrimination against Tebow is OK, even though racial discrimination would not be.
|2.5 million Americans do "unplug the NFL" for [[Super Bowl|Super Bowl 50]], stunning experts who predicted a record TV audience.
|February 7, 2016
|-
|September 20, 2015
|Conservapedia observes that [[Jeb Bush]] is the [[Establishment]] candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for president.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Establishment&oldid=1172191</ref>
|Liberals were silent, perhaps hoping Jeb would defeat his more [[conservative]] rivals.
|Jeb Bush raised and spent far more campaign money than [[Donald Trump]], but was destroyed in a landslide by Trump in the 2016 election primaries. Then Jeb Bush's longtime top political adviser, Sally Bradshaw, left the [[Republican Party]] and declared that she will vote for [[Hillary Clinton]] if the race is close in [[Florida]].<ref>http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/01/jeb-bush-adviser-sally-bradshaw-gop/21442889/</ref>
|August 1, 2016
|-
|-
|February 18, 2016
|Conservapedia predicts that [[Barack Obama]] will not meet with "[[Fidel Castro]]" during Obama's visit to [[Cuba]], despite how a "Fidel" has met with other leading foreign dignitaries after the severely ill Fidel checked into and probably died in a Cuban hospital in 2006.
|[[Liberal denial]] persists about the obvious [[communist]] hoax in pretending that Fidel Castro recovered and voluntarily gave up power in 2006.
|The [[liberal media]] announce that Obama will not meet with [[Fidel Castro]] during Obama's multi-day visit there, yet the liberal media does not point out that the obvious reason is to avoid humiliation to Obama for meeting with a fake Fidel.
|March 20, 2016
|-
|July 7, 2016
|Concerning [[Donald Trump]] and [[Ted Cruz]], ''Conservapedia'' explained that "Trump is telling Ted that the train is leaving the station now, with or without Ted."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1245431</ref>
|Political "experts" downplayed the issue of whether Cruz would endorse Trump.
|[[Ted Cruz]] was loudly booed at the [[Republican National Convention]] for giving a speech that failed to endorse [[Donald Trump]], and two days later Trump said he would not accept a belated endorsement by Cruz.
|July 20, 2016
|-
|August 5, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' explains that [[joke sports]], [[political correctness]], endless swimming events won by the same person, and [[liberal claptrap]] by the media reduce [[America]]n interest in the [[Olympics]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1268648</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] expects record audiences.
|Viewership is down sharply over the first five nights.
|August 10, 2016
|-
|-
|August 17, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' criticized the [[liberal media]] and one of its favored athletes, Ryan Lochte, for telling and promoting a false tale of armed robbery near the [[2016 Summer Olympics]],<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1271150</ref> which smeared the gracious hosts.
|[[Liberal denial]] continued to downplay or refuse to admit the falsehood.
|The truth came out, but liberal denial persisted and some continued to defend Ryan Lochte.
|August 19, 2016
|-
|October 21, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' observed that three effects will boost [[Donald Trump]] above his poll numbers in the election:
*Brexit effect - 5 point error by polls due to media bias causing people be afraid to be candid with pollsters
*Arnold Schwarzenegger/Reagan effect - 8-10 points better than polling,[68] due to media bias and also advantage enjoyed by Republican entertainers
*Scott Brown effect - many points due to much greater enthusiasm<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1284862</ref>
|sarcastic criticism and [[liberal denial]]
|Donald Trump exceeded the polling by about four points, and won an election that [[liberal]] experts predicted with great confidence that he would lose.
|November 8, 2016
|-
|November 7, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the second letter by James Comey to exonerate [[Hillary Clinton]] was actually helpful to [[Donald Trump]], because it fed the backlash among the [[grassroots]] at the preferential treatment given to Hillary.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1288160</ref>
|[[Free trade]]rs at the ''Wall Street Journal'' falsely assert that the letter helps Hillary.
|In the post-election analysis, [[Hillary]]'s campaign confirmed that the letter hurt her even though it purportedly exonerated her.<ref>Fears, Danika (November 11, 2016). [http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/team-clinton-blames-james-comey-for-tuesday-night-massacre/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1293073 Clinton aide’s bizarre explanation for Hillary’s humiliating loss]. ''The New York Post''. Retrieved November 16, 2016.</ref><ref>Chozick, Amy (November 12, 2016). [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html?_r=0 Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved November 16, 2016.</ref>
|November 16, 2016
|-
|January 3, 2013<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=1026721</ref>
|[[Fidel Castro]] died in 2006 with a terminal illness in a Cuban hospital. The [[Obama Administration]] knew this and [[Barack Obama]] did not visit or even mention Fidel Castro during Obama's visit to Cuba in March 2016. Photos of stand-ins for Fidel Castro were the wrong height, and had him wearing thick scarves on hot days to hide the stand-in's younger neck and lack of wrinkles.
|Tepid [[liberal denial]] because the truth was obvious.
|Officials announce that Castro is dead on the eve of a government mandatory briefing of President-Elect [[Donald Trump]], who would have exposed the lie to the public. Thousands of Marxist liberals then mourn the surprise "death" of one of the 20th century's greatest monsters.
|November 25, 2016
|-
|March 31, 2017<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1327433</ref>
|[[Dems]] will attain the 41 votes necessary to successfully [[filibuster]] the confirmation of stealth candidate [[Neil Gorsuch]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
|[[RINO]]s and much of the [[liberal media]] doubted that the Dems would attain the 41 votes needed for a successful filibuster
|Dems announce they have the 41 votes to block the [[pro-choice]] nominee.
|April 3, 2017
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]