The Fight to Halt Congress’s Obamacare Fraud

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Stephanie, Aug 13, 2015.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,820
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,376
    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    33,970
    Thanks Received:
    6,624
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    :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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,820
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,376
    you guys? I don't why anyone takes you serious. I don't know if you read the whole article. but I doubt it
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Shrimpbox
    Offline

    Shrimpbox Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,335
    Thanks Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Carrabelle, fl. 60 miles s of tallahassee
    Ratings:
    +1,976
    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.
     
  5. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    33,970
    Thanks Received:
    6,624
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    :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.
     
  6. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    33,970
    Thanks Received:
    6,624
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    What is it that you think they've "gotten done", exactly?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,292
    Thanks Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,092
    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?
     
  8. paddymurphy
    Offline

    paddymurphy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    632
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,486
    "They are not partisan" Given that asinine lie, nothing else you post is worthy of belief.
     
  9. Shrimpbox
    Offline

    Shrimpbox Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,335
    Thanks Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Carrabelle, fl. 60 miles s of tallahassee
    Ratings:
    +1,976
    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!
     
  10. Shikica
    Offline

    Shikica Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    116
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +39
    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.
     

Share This Page