Tipton misleads his constituents 
 on federal exemption for Obamacare

As the shrinking tea party members in the House continue their vendetta against Obamacare, they risk alienating more politically realistic Republicans who recognize that stopping Obamacare from taking effect Jan. 1 is a lost cause.

Despite dwindling support from their own party, diehard tea party Republicans in the House seem determined to make a final stand against Obamacare, despite the odds against them.

Colorado’s 3rd District Rep. Scott Tipton was so anxious to attack Obamacare, he rushed the latest GOP anti-Obamacare propaganda into print without considering it might not be true.

Armed with faulty information spread by the tea party right, Tipton charged into the breach of the battle. “If it’s good enough for the American people, it should be good enough for Congress,” was his battle cry.

When the Obama administration made a technical adjustment to bring certain congressional employees into coverage under the Affordable Care Act, Republicans quickly and erroneously characterized it as a rule “to provide subsidies for members of Congress and their staff under federal health exchanges.”

This exemption, Tipton informed his constituents in a newsletter, “is unfair to Americans who are fully subjected to the onerous burdens of Obamacare. Congress ... shouldn’t receive special treatment or exemptions from the Administration under the law.”

He then launched into an exhortation against any special-interest group, especially Congress, being exempted from the Obamacare exchanges.

Tipton makes a pretty good case for why Obama insisted Congress and government employees be included in Obamacare.

The technical amendment to Obamacare that triggered the latest Republican hysteria was not an effort to exempt anyone in government from participation in the Affordable Care Act. It expanded coverage to employees who otherwise might be excluded erroneously.

In fact, according to health care expert Timothy Jost, blogging on Health Affairs, “Far from exempting Congress from ACA requirements, as some have reported, the amendment subjects members to a legal requirement that will apply to no other Americans.”

Tipton misinformed his constituents that the Obama administration exempted Congress and congressional staff from joining the health care exchanges that will determine rates for other health care consumers.

The Democrats could have not said it better: “Congress should live under the laws it passes — including Obamacare. This is common sense pretty much everywhere,” the message from Tipton said, “except in Washington.”

If a lack of common sense is an infliction resulting from exposure to Washington, Tipton seems to have been infected. Even as a growing cadre of House and Senate Republicans distance themselves from the idea of stopping Obamacare by defunding it, those on the far right seem compelled to make their last stand.

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, warned his House colleagues, “There’s not a legislative method that we have that is capable of defunding (Obamacare) short of 67 votes in the U.S. Senate, short of two-thirds (of the) votes in the U.S. House.” Those are the number necessary to overturn the inevitable presidential veto of any attempt to defund or repeal Obamacare.

As conservative blogger Byron York posted at the Washington Examiner website, “Republicans will not stop Obamacare. They won’t defund it. Their last chance to put an end to it was the 2012 election. They lost, and the chance is gone.”

It is time for Tipton to accept that reality. His attack on Obamacare is so far from the truth that allowing it to stand uncorrected represents a continuing endorsement of the GOP myth over the obvious truth.

Tipton’s constituents deserve better. If Tipton wants to continue his crusade against Obamacare with a 38th symbolic vote to repeal when Congress returns, that is his right. So is voting to shut down the government if it comes to that.

But, as Coburn points out, defunding Obamacare is “not an achievable strategy. It’s creating the false impression that you can do something when you can’t. And it’s dishonest.”

Tipton’s unprincipled attack on Obamacare for totally discredited reasons makes him a poster child for GOP dishonesty. The Third District deserves better, beginning with an apology from Tipton for his misleading anti-Obamacare fabrications, and a true report on congressional obligations to ACA regulations.

Bill Grant lives in Grand Junction. He an be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


The fact the Sentinel “reigned in” the more common-sense Gary Harmon while continuing to publish Bill Grant’s mindless collectivist blather provides a fair idea of where the Sentinel is at regarding its efforts to manage “news” and shape its readers’ opinions.
I don’t have a problem with real “leftists” such as Thoreau, Henry George, Ralph Borsodi, Scott Nearing, Noam Chomsky, etc. I enjoy examining their ideas. But Grant, Michael Pramenko and their ilk bore me to tears. Grant tries to pass himself off as a pundit when, in reality, he is nothing more than a mean-spirited, sophistry-addicted, arithmetic-challenged ad hominem simpleton.
So-called “Obamacare” is mathematically unsustainable, and therefore total BS, as is its constitutionally ineligible namesake. Let’s never forget that the 2000-page bill was passed by the criminals in Congress without even reading it — a fact completely lost on Grant.
The term “Affordable Health Care”, in and of itself, is pure 24-carat manipulation. We might as well talk about “affordable” Rolls Royces, and how all freebie addicts supposedly have a constitutional right to have one. “Affordable” is purely a propaganda slogan for low marble counters and the corrupt. “Affordable” is 100% in the eye of the beholder, much like “value”. “Affordable Health Care” simply means that doctors get to work for less (so losers can have more), notwithstanding that socialists like Michael Pramenko seem unable to comprehend that simple Logic-101-based arithmetical fact.
Government is the problem, and Obamacare can’t solve that. The private sector Makes, government Takes.
The highly respected Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, M.D., a former Libertarian candidate for president, has pointed out (http://bit.ly/m7tV5) that health care costs could be reduced by 80% if the Big-Pharma-owned FDA were abolished. And she is correct. How can I know that? Easy. I am a walking, talking poster boy for the fact the allopathic academic medical establishment’s protocols for Type 2 Diabetes are absurd to the point of criminality. The slash/burn/poison docs have vitually no training in nutrition. I was shooting 80 units of insulin per day, realized Obamacare is BS which will inevitably result in diminished health care for Baby Boomers such as myself, did my homework by reading a number of excellent books by authors such as Gabriel Cousens, Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., T. Colin Campbell, Richard K. Bernstein and DeWayne McCulley (some of them non-ad-hominem leftists), dropped fifty pounds (forty more pounds to go), adopted a plant-based diet and now have high/normal glucose levels which I anticipate will progress to completely normal in only a few more weeks. I haven’t shot insulin or taken any other diabetic “medicines” for over three months.
So — Bill Grant can blow it out his collectivist you-know-what. The Sentinel would do well to give Grants’ column inches back to Harmon.

I highly recommend “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, “Prevent and Reverse Heart disease” by Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D. (who convinced Bill Clinton to change his stinking little cheeseburger-addicted life), “There Is A Cure For Diabetes”, “Conscious Eating” and “Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine”, by Gabriel Cousens, M.D., “Death to Diabetes: The Six Stages of Type 2 Diabetes Control & Reversal”, by formerly-diabetic engineer DeWayne McCulley, and “Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide To Achieving Normal Blood Sugars” by Richard K. Bernstein, M.D., another engineer who figured out diabetes but had to become an M.D. before anybody in the allopathic academic medical establishment would listen to him.
Any person who hasn’t at least read “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, “Prevent and Reverse Heart disease” by Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D. doesn’t belong in an adult conversation about health care.
You have to do your homework. Type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune disease, Type 2 is a lifestyle disease. Calling them by the same name can cause confusion. Likewise, simple refined white sugar (C12H22O11) is a simple “carbohydrate”, while raw vegetables are complex “carbohydrates”. Yet the differences in the way these substances affect your body are so great that calling them by the same name can cause confusion in those who don’t do their homework rigorously enough.
I am encouraged by the growing numbers of liberals in the “Food Freedom” (aka “Food Sovereignty”) movement. Libs tend to worship the mysterious government monolith as a provider of infinite wisdom and a solution to all of life’s problems, so it’s truly encouraging to see so many of them wanting to get government out of the food-control business. Per the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments, it’s none of government’s business if I believe fresh-from-the-cow raw milk is healthier than pasteurized government milk. It’s none of government’s business if I prefer “natural” or “organic” food to government/Monsanto’s GMO poison.
This is where the sane Left parts company with Grant’s ilk. Sane people believe that in a free self-ownership-based society they should be able to eat whatever they please. Manipulative Nanny-State control freaks like Grant — or Michelle Obama, Michael Bloomberg, et al, for that matter — believe that what you eat impacts “society’s” collective “single-payer-insured” health care costs, so government should be able to tell you what to eat (or not eat) so our collective health care costs could be cheaper. Never mind the self-evident fact that only in a free marketplace of willing buyers and willing sellers can the real natural “value” (aka “price”) of any product or service be determined with a sustainable level of Golden-Rule moral validity.
In my book, Grant is self-evidently too ignorant to belong in an adult conversation about health care.

John, the ad hominem attacks on Mr. Grant are beneath you.  You two can disagree, but “he is nothing more than a mean-spirited, sophistry-addicted, arithmetic-challenged ad hominem simpleton?”  Are you having a bad day or something?

Ralph: Some folks act like they think they’re smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED POLITICAL STRATEGY to advance their perceived agenda/s. Such behavior, used by both “left” and “right”, is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It must be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential.
I have read Grant’s columns for some time. The ease and frequency with which he uses ad hominem (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) on those with whom he disagrees — notice in this instance he uses terms such as “vendetta against Obamacare”, “lack of common sense”, “GOP dishonesty”, etc., and I’ve seen him do worse — suggest to me that he is one of those individuals who deserves, and might possibly benefit from, a tit-for-tat response/rebuttal. If my assessment is wrong, it’s on my head, and I would freely apologize. I wouldn’t want to be a stumbling block to anyone.
I can play nice with those who want to play nice, and very much prefer that path. It might be that if Grant ever wanted to knock off the typical lib “if you don’t agree with me, you’re a racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist, hater” BS — although he usually words it more cleverly than that — I could buy him a beer.
Also, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I noticed the other day that on your blog you gave the old “FU” to people you appeared to believe were racist merely for disagreeing with your view of the Zimmerman verdict. You’re better than that, too. But because I consider you a friend, I said nothing, thinking you might have been having a bad day. So, touché, my friend.

Page 1 of 1




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
Information

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy