ObamaCare's focus on cutting costs means that Americans will have more limited access to leading hospitals -- many of which offer cutting edge treatments or care that the sickest patients need.
Places like Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles or the Mayo Clinic (in Rochester, MN) are expensive. And under competitive pressure in the new ObamaCare world, insurance companies are in a bigger rush than ever to cut costs . . . so good-bye, premier hospitals.
But what Americans are coming to understand is that those hospitals aren't just mindless profit centers. They're expensive because they offer cutting edge treatments. Or they're expensive because they offer the kinds of specialized care that the very sickest patients need.
Many Americans who had plans they could afford -- and who had access under them to leading health care providers -- are now finding that, under ObamaCare, they're effectively being locked out of first-rate care. That is, unless they're willing to pay a whole lot more for it, according to one of ObamaCare's architects:
You know, there's a reason that President Obama waited to "introduce" ObamaCare until after the 2012 election.
Representative Tom Price of Georgia has come up with an alternative to Obamacare, and it would save the country nearly $2.34 trillion in 10 years. The legislation is called the Empowering Patients First Act, H.R. 2300.
The proposed legislation would “provide Americans with tax incentives for maintaining health insurance coverage, improve access to health savings accounts (HSAs), reform Medicare and Medicaid, and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. It would also guarantee coverage for roughly 1% of Americans with pre-existing conditions.”
A former director of the CBO estimated that these reforms would reduce health insurance premiums across the board and reduce the budget by almost $2.34 trillion. It would help lead to smaller premium increases than what Obamacare provides. Additionally, the number of insured people would increase by roughly 29% in 2016.
Of course Obama has claimed that Republicans have not offered any ideas for other reforms to health care and cut costs. But obviously that is not true. This is a great alternative that would help insure almost as many people as Obamacare, but save much more money. Mr. President, here is the perfect alternative.
True to form, President Obama made the 72nd anniversary of Pearl Harbor all about himself with a publicity shot on the USS Arizona Memorial.
As Brietbart pointed out:
"The picture barely fits the name of the Arizona Memorial so it can frame Obama in the foreground.”
Take a look at the photograph:
Obama declared December 7 "National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day" encouraging Americans to observe the day with solemnity and to fly the United States flag at half-staff:
“Today, with solemn pride and reverence, let us remember those who fought and died at Pearl Harbor, acknowledge everyone who carried their legacy forward, and reaffirm our commitment to upholding the ideals for which they served.”
Despite memorializing the day, the first White House tweet December 7 made no mention of the 1941 attack:
Anti-apartheid activist and former South African president Nelson Mandela is hailed across the globe as a champion of peace and reconciliation. And while the man who went from prisoner to president certainly deserves the plaudits for his political and civil rights accomplishments, not all of his work in office was quite as noble.
LifeNews points out the unfortunate reality of where he stood on abortion, highlighting a brief history of Mandela’s record on the issue provided by John Smeaton, director of British pro-life group SPUC.
Mr Mandela has been quoted as saying on abortion: “Women have the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies.”
In 1996, Mandela signed into law the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which permits abortion on demand. SPUC’s pro-life colleagues in South Africa tells us that the bill was introduced into the South African parliament by Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Mr Mandela’s health minister.
In addition, the wording of the new South African constitution, signed by Mr Mandela in 1996, had made the legalisation of abortion on demand a mere formality. Mr Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) has a strong ideological committment to abortion, with the ANC Women’s League strongly behind the legalisation of abortion on demand.
And in the wake of Mandela’s death, NARAL was quick to highlight this “accomplishment” of his. Notice the irony in the quote they chose to feature in the first tweet.
It is with great sadness that we mourn the loss of a true freedom fighter. RIP Nelson Mandela pic.twitter.com/mTsud6GVuY— NARAL Pro-Choice MA (@ProChoiceMass) December 6, 2013
Pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute said in a June 2000 report that after the passage of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Bill, “South Africa now has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.”
Al Sharpton has had his fair share of awkward television bloopers on his MSNBC show PoliticsNation. Last night, Saturday Night Live spoofed Sharpton's views on the rollout of the "Healthcare point gov" website.
"Sharpton" also said that insurance would be great to protect oneself from the effects of the knockout game.
Here's the video:
Does anyone know where I can get one of those tracksuits?00
More than two months after the site launched, Healthcare.gov is still malfunctioning for hundreds of thousands of people - and since more than five million people have lost their insurance plans, hundreds of thousands more might be affected.
Medicare spokeswoman Julie Bataille confirmed that the agency believes about 10 percent of the health law's enrollment files -- known in insurance-speak as 834 transmissions -- have some kind of error.
That's down from the 25% that HHS officials have acknowledged were occurring in October and November. Here's the kicker: nobody can identify if an individual who applied for or received insurance had an error. So every single application from October and November - and likely December - will need to be confirmed by the applicant with the insurance company to make sure they've actually got insurance coverage:
A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Friday suggested that the only way those who enrolled in October and November can be sure they will be covered in January is by paying their insurance bill and contacting their insurer to confirm their standing.
On the plus side, it's unlikely very many people up to this point have actually applied for coverage due to the buggy website. The Obama Administration still has not released the numbers of people who have applied and submit payment through the website, so we're unsure of who this affects. But at the moment, every single applicant is going to have to confirm that the insurance that they thought they bought - mandated to be purchased by the federal government - has actually been obtained.
The Ed Show on MSNBC went a little too far this week when talking about Obamacare. Host, Ed Schultz takes questions from the viewers and this week, one snarky viewer’s comment was put on the air. One fan asked Ed if he would ask Michele Bachmann what God thought of the Affordable Care Act.
Schultz first said that he would never be hosting Michele Bachmann on his show. Then he continued to say,
“My first question would be about the uh possible ethics violation that she’s being investigated for…I’ll tell you what I think God thinks of the Affordable Care Act. It’s a big amen!”
This isn’t the first time Ed has referred to Bachmann’s belief in prayer and God. He has made fun of her before, but isn’t it funny that Mr. Schultz is in the minority here? 76% of Americans believe in God and half of those people say they have done something because God told them to. And according to Mr. Schultz, these people are laughable and crazy.
So then how did he know God said “Amen” to Obamacare? Watch the full clip below.
Meet Joanna Coles, the newest Democratic strategist, er, I mean, the newest editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine.
It’s no surprise that many women’s magazines have a liberal agenda. But, Ms. Coles made it clear to what extent when she proudly declared Cosmo is a “deeply feminist” circular this past week. Here were just some of her comments to Capital New York at Adweek’s first Hot List Gala, detailing what she believes to be her magazine’s most important issues:
“There’s nothing more mainstream than equal pay for equal work. I mean, it’s completely obvious that’s what feminism should be for, and for women’s right to choose what happens to their own bodies,” she said.
She wasn’t finished.
“It’s unbelievable in 2013 we happen to be talking about this, but the battle over healthcare, the battle for women’s right to choose their own contraception, that ludicrous panel full of old men in Washington ruling what women could and couldn’t do—where is feminism then?” she asked. “Where are all the left-wing academics?”
Coles became Cosmo’s editor-in-chief last September, after guiding the Marie Claire magazine for six years. Shortly after beginning her new reign, it was clear what direction she and the magazine were headed. Here’s what she tweeted after President Obama’s victory on Election Night:
Coles’ “extreme feminism” is also apparent in the company she keeps. In addition to attending pro-abortion galas, Coles likes to pal around with Guy Cecil III, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and several members of Obama’s staff, including his senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Tara McGuinness, the senior communications adviser for the White House.
Isn’t it reassuring that over 3 million young women are reading Ms. Cole’s magazine? In the first half of 2012, Cosmo had a total circulation of 3,017,834 and is now the 16th most read magazine in the country and number one for single copy sales. That’s a lot of power – and this influence is dangerous in the hands of someone who seems to enjoy mocking conservatives every chance she gets.
“Someone sent me a list of Republicans to watch. Are we going to feature Michele Bachmann in the magazine? No.”
Don’t worry Ms. Coles, I don’t think Rep. Bachmann will be calling you anytime soon, either.
At a House hearing earlier this week on the progress of Tunisia three years after its revolution, Rep. Deutch captured the sentiments of many in the room when expressing that both Congress and the American people are paying "insufficient" attention to a country of top-priority significance to US foreign policy.
The panel of expert witnesses agreed on much between three testimonies. The hearing struck an optimistic tone as all present reiterated the fact that Tunisia is still the best chance for a functional democracy in the Middle East and North Africa region. This fact has become more pronounced as Egypt struggles to establish its own government amid intense turmoil.
A stable Tunisia would be a critical ally not only for America, but the country also has a record of close ties with Europe. A new government would show promise for normalized relations with Israel as well as a crucial partner in the fight against Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) - a major source of current tension in the region and especially in neighboring Libya.
Negotiations in Tunisia have presently stalled over the appointment of a caretaker government and interim prime minister, but the issue has largely fallen off the public political agenda of the globe. The House regional subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa seemed sympathetic to providing financial incentives to Tunisia decision-makers.
The experts highlighted the potential for influencing success if the US would step up its rhetoric in favor of the immediate necessity of democracy and security, support an economic incentivization program that urges negotiating parties to return to the table, and prioritize the Tunisian crisis on the foreign policy agenda.
If America fails to do everything it can to ensure Tunisia's post-revolutionary success in this moment, we will suffer the consequences for many years to come.
Without seeking anyone's permission, government workers at Covered California took it upon themselves to give insurers the names and contact information for tens of thousands of Californians who came on the web site to check out their health care options -- but left without purchasing insurance.
Apparently, the exchange's lawyer signed off on the distribution of this information, but just because it's technically legal, that doesn't make it right. Now all these people can (and no doubt will) be contacted by insurance companies -- whether they want to be or not.
The state exchange has fallen back on that old, hoary excuse of government run amok: It was just trying to "help." But it's a sobering reminder just how much private information ObamaCare has put in the hands of government . . . and just how cavalier and callous the government can be, all in its alleged eagerness to "help."
Young Voters Would Recall Obama, Congress, If Possible; Only 18% Think Obamacare will Make Things Better | Mike Shedlock