Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Archive for the ‘Barry the Puppet’ Category

Hoarder in Chief

Hoarder-590CI

Government hoarding. We’re being buried alive in big government.
Read more at http://comicallyincorrect.com/2014/03/28/government-hoarding/#pPMrjkrJtiTCQd5S.99

Brutal: Nevada Man Stuck with $407,000 Obamacare Bill

by Guy Benson
kat

Brutal: Nevada Man Stuck with $407,000 Obamacare Bill

Below you’ll read the details of another Obamacare nightmare. This one, it appears, comes courtesy of dysfunctional back-end problems that have placed a triple bypass surgery recipient in an impossible and terrifying situation. We’ve written about the inevitability of well-meaning consumers checking all the boxes to obtain insurance, only to be sandbagged by logistical snafus when they desperately need the coverage they thought they had. Meet Larry Basich, whose kafkaesque ordeal is being reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

The hospital bills are hitting Larry Basich’s mailbox. That would be OK if Basich had health insurance. But he doesn’t. Thing is, he should be covered. Basich, 62, bought a plan through the state’s Nevada Health Link insurance exchange in the fall. He’s been paying monthly premiums since November. Yet the Las Vegan is stranded in a no-man’s-land where no carrier claims him, and his tab is mounting: Basich owes $407,000 for care received in January and February, when his policy was supposed to be in effect. Instead, he’s covered only for March and beyond. Basich has begged for weeks for help from the exchange and its contractor, Xerox. But Basich’s insurance broker said Xerox seems more interested in lawyering up and covering its hide than in working out Basich’s problems. Nor is Basich the only client facing plan-selection errors through the exchange, she added…

Basich said he began trying to enroll on Oct. 1, the day the exchange website went live. Like many consumers, he fought technical flaws during multiple sign-up attempts. In mid-November he finally got through and chose his plan…Basich paid his first premium on Nov. 21, and within days the exchange withdrew the $160.77 payment from his money-market savings account. Because Basich paid a month before the Dec. 23 deadline, his coverage was to begin Jan. 1. Weeks ticked by, but Basich received nothing to confirm he had insurance. Nevada Health Link kept telling him he was enrolled, but UnitedHealthcare said he wasn’t in their system. Basich’s predicament went critical on Dec. 31, when he had a heart attack. His treatment, which included a triple bypass on Jan. 3, resulted in $407,000 in medical bills in January and February that no insurer is covering.

Insult to injury — and misery has company:

The help didn’t come fast enough, said Basich, who blames his back-and-forth with the exchange in December at least in part for stress that caused his heart attack. That stress has turned up a few notches now that Basich is getting the bills. He fretted in the exchange board’s Thursday meeting about what will happen to his credit rating — and his ability to qualify for a mortgage — if the bills are not covered…Though Basich’s problem is exceptional for its dollar value, his situation is not unusual, Burch said. She estimates that of nearly 200 Branch Benefits Consultants client sign ups via Nevada Health Link, only 5 percent have gone through problem-free. More than 20 customers have the same plan-selection issue as Basich. One gave up trying to fix it and is sticking with the plan the exchange put her in.

This guy isn’t one of the “reckless” crowd who’ve declined to sign up for coverage. He isn’t even one of the many “enrollees” who selected a plan, then never bothered to pay. (Incidentally, payment rates are looking ugly in a number of states, with other state and federal exchange administrators unwilling or unable to disclose their data). No, he painstakingly followed all of the Obamacare rules, and still got screwed by the law’s faceless bureaucratic ineptitude. Remember healthcare expert Bob Laszewski’s many warnings about the error-filled data “reconciliation” process? Remember warnings about broken and un-built “back ends” of websites? That wasn’t mindless partisan fear-mongering. Those were real concerns about what could happen to real people like Larry Basich. Meanwhile in Colorado, a local college has decided to cut part-time faculty hours, prohibiting adjunct professors to work more than 30 hours per week in order to avoid expensive Obamacare mandates. The University of North Carolina system is weighing a similar cost-saving move. The Rocky Mountain state has spent roughly $177 million in taxpayer money to facilitate its Obamacare exchange, with one-fifth of its employees earning six-figures. Jim Geraghty writes that they’ve signed up about 85,000 consumers, which accounts for just “17 percent of Colorado’s estimated potential market.” The state’s Democratic governor — who championed his party’s healthcare experiment from day one — is being surprisingly frank about how many people hate the law:
And he talks to a lot of Democratic crowds…in a state that’s a relative “success” story. It looks like someone is eager to distance himself from an unpopular president and law. Hickenlooper isn’t alone. Sen. Mark Udall has
made it clear that he doesn’t want to be seen with Obama on the campaign trail. Problem: Udall cast the deciding vote for Obamacare, and has hewed the Obama party line an eye-popping 99 percent of the time, according to a 2013 Congressional Quarterly analysis. Endangered Senate Democrats have a big Barack Obama loyalty problem:

Clip, Clip

Clip-Clip-590-LI1

“A President Who Choses Which Laws To Follow, No Longer President”

Posted by: Javier Manjarres on February 23, 2014 Palm Beach, Florida-
Ted Cruz

Texas Senator Ted Cruz railed against the “lawlessness” he believes President Obama is guilty of, after he “illegally” and “unilaterally” changed his own Obamacare law. Cruz, who should not expect an invite to shoot hoops at the White House anytime soon, says that “the most striking example of lawlessness is Obamacare,” and questions why the President wont’ follow the Obamacare law, as written. Cruz adds that since the United States has existed, ” no President in the history of the U.S. has instructed private companies and individuals” to go out and violate a law. When you have a President, who can pick and chose which laws to follow, you no longer have a President.-Sen. Ted Cruz Watch the video. Great stuff!

FCC “Survey” Straight From Podesta’s Fairness Doctrine Playbook – Podesta is the Soros Acting President

Podesta

Last week, after Republicans in Congress attacked the program, the FCC announced it would be suspending a proposed pilot study in Columbia, South Carolina, that would have required television and radio stations to tell the government how they make editorial decisions in newsrooms.

“Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false,” an FCC spokesman told reporters.

But that is not quite true, as The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reports today. Mignon Clyburn, an Obama-appointed FCC commissioner (and daughter of Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn), has long been a champion of using FCC commissioned studies on media ownership to push for new government regulations that would increase minority ownership. York writes:

From all appearances, Clyburn’s goal was more minority ownership — not a new Fairness Doctrine. In her July 2009 confirmation hearing, she said “the Fairness Doctrine should not be reinstated in any form, any way, shape or form.” She added that, “The FCC, I believe, is not in the business of censoring speech or content on the basis of political views and opinions.” But that did not mean she was not looking to change media content on the basis of her political views and opinions. She just advocated doing it by changing media ownership rather than overt Fairness Doctrine-style regulation.

York is dead right about Clyburn’s intent to use the FCC to promoter her own progressive political views and opinions. But Clyburn was not the first to advance such a plan and the power for the FCC to dictate such changes is the exact same source they used to institute the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress, then run by now-President Obama advisor John Podesta, produced a 40-page report detailing how the FCC could use existing statutory authority to weaken conservative voices on talk radio in favor of more progressive opinions. The CAP report read:

Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.

First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again—thus it technically would not be considered repealed. … Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper.

CAP’s top policy recommendation for increasing minority ownership? Creating “local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations,” tighter controls on radio licensing, and forcing commercial radio to pay fees “to support public broadcasting.”

One of CAP’s recommendations for stricter radio licensing is particularly applicable to Clyburn’s survey push. CAP recommended the FCC, “Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.”

Conservatives have every reason to believe Obama is out to silence them. Clyburn and the FCC are just implementing a plan Obama’s new advisor Podesta drew up years ago to do just that.

George Soros Puts John Podesta in as Acting President to Help Valerie Jarrett Run the Country -John Podesta, key player in administration’s regulation drive, also helped UN develop radical new global agenda

by George Russell
John Podesta, president and chief executive officer of the Center for American Progress, attends the National Italian American Foundation Gala in Washington
John Podesta, the former Clinton Administration chief of staff who is spearheading President Barack Obama’s aggressive strategy of government-by-regulation, has also been helping United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon with an even more ambitious job: setting the stage to radically transform the world’s economic, environmental and social agenda.

That effort—a colossal and sweeping form of global behavior modification–is supposed to get a new kick-start at a special U.N. summit of world leaders to be convened by Ban in New York City on September 25.

Its supporters hope that effort will end next year in a new international treaty that will bind all 193 U.N. members– including the U.S– to a still formless “universal sustainable development agenda” for the planet that will take effect in 2020.

“Developing a single, sustainable development agenda is critical,” says a report produced in May, 2013 by a 27-member “High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons” hand-picked by Ban to help focus the discussion and frame the effort required to make the huge and lengthy project a success.

The high-level panel report was chaired by British Prime Minister David Cameron and the presidents of Indonesia and Liberia. The sole American among the international luminaries, who spent nearly a year at their efforts and endorsed them through a process of consensus, was Podesta.

The question is, critical to what? And the answer, according to that panel, is pretty much everything, in what it called a series of “big, transformative shifts.”

Their report opens with the challenge to end “extreme poverty, in all its forms;” and declares, “We can be the first generation in human history to end hunger and ensure that every person achieves a basic standard of wellbeing. But it then adds: “ending extreme poverty is just the beginning, not the end.”

The new agenda is also intended to bring “a new sense of global partnership into national and international politics”; must cause the world to “act now to halt the alarming pace of climate change and environmental degradation;” and bring about a “rapid shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and production,” to name just a few things itemized in the document.

Moreover, it apparently also must spark a planetary psychological sea-change: “The new global partnership should encourage everyone to alter their worldview, profoundly and dramatically,” the report declares.
At the time he joined the high-level panel and helped to shape its radical and ambitious exhortations, Podesta was head of the Center for American Progress , a think tank that he founded in 2003.

The Center is closely supportive of the objectives of the Obama Administration and says its aim is to “provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement” and “shape the national debate” in the U.S. on a wide variety of issues, from energy to economic growth, national security and climate change.

In 2010, Podesta became one of the most high-profile exponents of the idea that the Administration could advance its agenda in the face of Congressional opposition from Republicans through executive action, when his staff authored a 54-page Center for American Progress paper on the topic.

“The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through [executive] powers should not be underestimated,” he wrote in a forward to the document.

Podesta left the Center last month to take up his latest White House assignment.

The high-level panel, meantime, dissolved last fall, after delivering its report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban.

A so-called Open Working Group of the U.N. General Assembly is now currently hammering out specifics of the proposals that will be presented at the summit this upcoming September as a series of Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, successors to the U.N.’s much-touted but unevenly successful Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, which expire in 2015.

Despite the fact that their headline feature is likely to be the pledge to end all forms of “extreme poverty” around the globe by 2030, the agenda that Podesta and the rest of the high-level panel have urged the U.N. and its member states to produce is far more than a conventional anti-poverty plan.

While even the broad outlines they sketched are still in the formative stages of being turned into more concrete negotiating proposals, the process surrounding the eventual fulfillment of the SDGs, would undoubtedly require trillions of dollars of public and private spending on poverty and the environment, a radical reorganization of economic production and consumption, especially in rich countries, and more drastic efforts in the expensive war on climate change.

And now, having helped to frame the SDGs, Podesta may have a key role in setting the stage to accomplish them. The main reason being that how nations meet the collective goals laid out in the SDGs, as the high-level panel underlines in its report, will be left up to each individual nation.

Meaning, among other things, that many of the objectives that make up the SDGs –or, at least, the conditions for their fulfillment–will be part of the regulatory agenda he is now helping to carry out.

Among other things, climate change—and especially the push to meet and even exceed ambitious targets on the suppression of carbon emissions –is said to be a cardinal focus of his job as a kind of super-coordinator of regulatory efforts to achieve Obama Administration goals—even though climate change got hardly a mention in the President’s State of the Union speech last month.

(A report last month by the Administration to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, indicated that the U.S. is a long way from meeting even its current target of a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels in U.S. carbon emissions, but fully intends to keep pushing to meet them.)
Nonetheless , as the U.N. high-level panel’s report points out, suppressing carbon emissions involves a cascading series of other activities, many of them already high on the agenda of Obama Administration agencies.

“The Panel is convinced that national and local governments, businesses and individuals must transform the way they generate and consume energy, travel and transport goods, use water and grow food,” it says among other things—pointing toward just one portion of an inter-related agenda covering a sprawling array of topics.

Another such area is attacking inequality, a theme that President Obama has increasingly struck as an objective for 2014. Among other things, the panel notes, “many countries are using public social protection programs and social and environmental regulations to bring down high levels of domestic inequality by improving the lives of the worst-off, while also transforming their economies.”

The report also strongly recommends that private businesses be harnessed to the new development effort, willingly if possible, but even if not so eager to do so. “We embrace the positive contribution to sustainable development that business must make,” the report says. “But this contribution must include a willingness, on the part of all large corporations as well as governments, to report on their social and environmental impact, in addition to releasing financial accounts.”

It then suggests a mandatory policy of “comply or explain” for all companies worth more than $100 million, along with “sustainability certification” that will make it “easier for civil society and shareholders to become watchdogs, holding firms accountable for adhering industry standards and worker safety issues, and being ready to disinvest if they do not.”

Moreover, the report says, the “post 2015 development agenda must signal a new era for multilateralism and international cooperation”—lead, of course, by the U.N.

Among other things, the report suggests that a variety of U.N. agencies monitor the entire transformational process, and “would also recommend ways of implementing programs more effectively.”

In the end, however, the high-level panel concluded that “only U.N. member states can define the post-2015 agenda.”

And in the U.S. perhaps no-one is better positioned to oversee that definition than John Podesta.

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !