The Fight to Halt Congress’s Obamacare Fraud

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
Holy smokes. and we are suppose to TRUST our Government.

SNIP:
For all the Republican complaints about Barack Obama’s lawlessness, Americans should know that many Republican members of Congress, especially its leadership, are happy to partner in Obama’s despotic approach to governing.

You can see this hypocrisy in our lawsuit on behalf of a DC taxpayer challenging the use of local dollars to help Congress obtain Obamacare benefits in violation of Obamacare law itself. Judicial Watch’s legal team is pursuing an appeal to keep the case going, having just filed the opening appellate brief in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals The lawsuit, filed on behalf of District taxpayer Kirby Vining, challenges the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange’s expenditure of municipal funds on the Small Business Exchange to allow Congress, congressional staffers and their dependents to participate in the Exchange (Kirby Vining v. Executive Board of D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority, et al.) A lower court had dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds.

Just to review, the lawsuit, which names the District of Colombia Health Benefit Exchange Authority and its officials as defendants, was filed on October 15, 2014, on behalf of Mr. Vining in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. D.C. law limits participation in the Exchange to small businesses employing 50 or fewer full-time employees. Vining, a District of Columbia resident since 1986, seeks to prevent the Exchange Authority from allowing at least 12,359 members of Congress, congressional staffers, their spouses and dependents to purchase health insurance in D.C.’s Small Business Exchange.

Congressional figures who were keen on breaking the rules just assumed no one would be watching. But JW was. It was our lawsuit that first exposed fraudulent applications filed by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate with the D.C. Exchange Authority. The applications, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, show that the House and Senate claimed to have only 45 employees each. They also show that the House and Senate attested to having “50 or fewer full-time equivalent employees.” Congress employs upwards of 20,000 people. The applications also falsely state that the House and Senate are “local/state governments.” The “electronic signature” section of the application includes the following language:

“I’ve provided true and correct information to all the questions on this form to the best of my knowledge. I know that if I’m not truthful, there may be a penalty.”

The actual names of the signatories were blacked out by the D.C. Exchange in the documents Judicial Watch obtained. The lawsuit seeks to prevent at least $77 million in District funds from being used to help Congress violate the restrictions imposed on it by the Obamacare law. The fraudulent Obamacare applications filed by Congress resulted in an U.S. Senate investigation led by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). (Separately, Judicial Watch, Citizens Against Government Waste, and eight other public interest groups filed an ethics complaint over this dishonesty with the Senate Ethics Committee.)

all of it here:
The Fight to Halt Congress s Obamacare Fraud
 
:lol:

First you guys throw a poison pill into Obamacare that forces Congressmen to buy their insurance on the exchanges.

Now you guys are suing to prevent Congressmen from buying their insurance from the exchanges.

This is why no one takes Judicial Watch seriously.
 
:lol:

First you guys throw a poison pill into Obamacare that forces Congressmen to buy their insurance on the exchanges.

Now you guys are suing to prevent Congressmen from buying their insurance from the exchanges.

This is why no one takes Judicial Watch seriously.

you guys? I don't why anyone takes you serious. I don't know if you read the whole article. but I doubt it
 
Well doc no one takes judicial watch seriously, really. They uncover stuff that even congressional committees don't get. They are the true muckrakers of our age, cause lord knows the liberal media has been neutered about affairs of the truth. They are not partisan as they have investigated republicans as well as democrats. Why would you not want any body to uncover the truth?

They are the only organization I donate money to because they are the only ones getting something done.

Using Hunter S. Thompson as your avatar will not get you off the hook.
 
Well doc no one takes judicial watch seriously, really. They uncover stuff that even congressional committees don't get. They are the true muckrakers of our age, cause lord knows the liberal media has been neutered about affairs of the truth. They are not partisan as they have investigated republicans as well as democrats. Why would you not want any body to uncover the truth?

They are the only organization I donate money to because they are the only ones getting something done.

Using Hunter S. Thompson as your avatar will not get you off the hook.

:lol:

Of course they're "partisan". They were founded with the specific intention of annoying the Clinton family, and exist now for no purpose other than to waste the Court's time with frivolous lawsuits against high-profile Democrats.
 
:lol:

First you guys throw a poison pill into Obamacare that forces Congressmen to buy their insurance on the exchanges.

Now you guys are suing to prevent Congressmen from buying their insurance from the exchanges.

This is why no one takes Judicial Watch seriously.

Dear theDoctorisIn
And who can take the "prochoice" arguments seriously anymore?
ie., Claiming to defend choice of abortion from govt interference,
but then mandating that all citizens buy insurance or else pay fines to federal govt?
How is that prochoice? And keeping govt out of personal decisions?

Why mandate that health care insurance choices be managed
by employers and under federal regulations.
Then COMPLAIN when other members of the public don't agree on the
terms of birth control?

So WHY manage health care through govt
if you want to maintain personal say in the choices? How is this prochoice again?
 
Well doc no one takes judicial watch seriously, really. They uncover stuff that even congressional committees don't get. They are the true muckrakers of our age, cause lord knows the liberal media has been neutered about affairs of the truth. They are not partisan as they have investigated republicans as well as democrats. Why would you not want any body to uncover the truth?

They are the only organization I donate money to because they are the only ones getting something done.

Using Hunter S. Thompson as your avatar will not get you off the hook.
"They are not partisan" Given that asinine lie, nothing else you post is worthy of belief.
 
Well doc I will address you first. I have been on here long enough that you should at least know me. I try not to make statements I can't back up and I don't have a lot of tolerance for people who make declarations they can't back up like paddy m. You as a mod are fully aware of the legion of subscribers that make declarative statements that they consider facts for no other reason than they made them, on both sides. In addition people like you and Dante and others love to bolster your positions by asking what proof do you have. You all make sketchy vague accusations not supported by the facts and then challenge me to do all the homework over again to disprove your claims. Rhetorical laziness. My statement: they are not partisan as they have investigated republicans as well as democrats. I have hope that you are a reasonable person and not a blind partisan so I will do,what you should have done if you doubted me.
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2013 - Judicial Watch

How Five Republicans Let Congress Keep Its Fraudulent Obamacare Subsidies National Review Online
Check out the next to last paragraph
2 Prominent Republicans From JW s Corrupt List Go Down - Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch Sues Fed for Records Detailing AIG Bailout - Breitbart
This just shows that JW is not in the pocket of big business.

If you want to say that JW has a conservative bent I would agree wholeheartedly. But the Hilary Clinton email scandal would not even have been uncovered without JW. So my direct question to you doc is; are you not interested in the truth and equal justice for all. If David petreaus had his reputation smeared for a minor infraction of classified information shouldn't Hilary Clinton be held to the same standard? Judicial watch doesn't spin or make up stuff, it uncovers statements of record. You know Obama brags about how persistent he is and everyone swoons over it, but if a judicial watch is persistent you classify it as frivolous suits and a waste of time.

You get the point. Show me what ya got!
 
Petreaus and Clinton, just to be clear, were both terrorists in their time in office. I don't know much about Judicial Watch but it certainly sounds interesting. It's always annoying that I don't understand how to read legal documents well enough to fact check this kind of work. However an organization that is willing to expose corruption in both democratic and republican prominent figures sounds more reliable. I will check out some of their work at least.

As for whether or not they are in the pockets of big business the most simple method to determining that is by reading their findings, and understanding the context of the issues that they refer to in combination with how concrete/convincing their findings are.
 
:lol:

First you guys throw a poison pill into Obamacare that forces Congressmen to buy their insurance on the exchanges.

Now you guys are suing to prevent Congressmen from buying their insurance from the exchanges.

This is why no one takes Judicial Watch seriously.

you guys? I don't why anyone takes you serious. I don't know if you read the whole article. but I doubt it


Yes. Your guys, forced congress to use Obamacare. Now it's a fraud?


Here’s what the law’s text says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an Amendment made by this Act).”

In other words, Congress must use Obamacare.

It’s strange that a rumor about a congressional exemption would get started. This is because the amendment cited above was created by a Republican and trumpeted at the time for forcing Congress to participate.

Most Americans won’t use Obamacare marketplaces (formerly called exchanges). This is because their employers already offer them insurance, and Obamacare is intended for the uninsured. The federal government offers health insurance to its workers so Congress and its staff would not have had to use Obamacare. Some didn’t think this was right.

On Sept. 30, 2009, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) issued a press release:

“Senator Chuck Grassley has won approval for his legislation to require that members of Congress and congressional staff access health insurance through the exchange that would be created by the health care reform legislation under consideration by the Finance Committee.

“‘The more that Congress experiences the laws we pass, the better the laws are likely to be,’ Grassley said.

“Members of the committee agreed through unanimous consent on Tuesday night to support the Grassley amendment. …

“‘My interest in having Members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with my long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country,’ Grassley said.”

This rumor is an example of a zombie claim — no matter how many times it’s killed, it still won’t die.

Back in January 2010, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the House Committee on Education and Labor, told FactCheck.org: “People actually believe we wrote in the bill that Congress exempts itself from these requirements. That falsehood has been going around since the very beginning.”


Is Congress exempted from Obamacare?

A few more for ya.

Congress ObamaCare: ObamaCare Exemption for Congress

Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top