Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Obama Lies Again’ Category

Susan Rice Behind the Illegal Unmasking of Trump Team Members

Latest Benghazi Bombshell Implicates White House in Benghazi Coverup!

benghazi-liars

by TIM BROWN
Newly obtained emails by Judicial Watch point way past the State Department’s twisting of the Benghazi talking points following the September 11, 2012 jihad attacks that left four Americans dead.

Judicial Watch reports:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.

Benghazi4

However, in another email sent by former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice on September 12, 2012, he wrote:

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.

In another email dated September 11, 2012, Senior Advisor Eric Pelofsky wrote to Susan Rice:

As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…

Rice would later appear on five Sunday shows and knowingly lie to the American public. However, she was only one of many who lied. Both Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah and Hillary Clinton knowingly and willingly lied to the families of the victims and the American people about the attacks in Benghazi.

Clearly, Benghazi became a coverup and at the center of it was an orchestrated lie, which was centered on a video with ties to the company that created the Obamacare website and that was produced by a Muslim tied to the Obama Justice Department.

Congressman demands answers on influx of Syrian refugees

syrian_refugees
Republican wants end to secrecy in choosing resettlement sites

by Leo Hohmann
The Syrian civil war has caused 3.5 million refugees, with more than 350,000 being targeted by the United Nations for resettlement outside the region.
The Syrian civil war has caused 3.5 million refugees, with more than 350,000 being targeted by the United Nations for resettlement outside the region.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., has sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding information about the reported pending move of dozens of foreign refugees from Syria, North Africa and elsewhere into South Carolina.

Gowdy is chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee responsible for the refugee resettlement program overseen by the State Department. Yet, he says in the letter, he was kept totally in the dark about the proposed resettlement of refugees into his own district in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Ann Corcoran, a longtime watchdog over the refugee program and author of the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, says Gowdy is the first member of Congress to demand answers to basic questions about this program since she took up her crusade eight years ago to expose secrecy, fraud and lax oversight in the program.

The program has flown under the radar for more than 25 years but controversy flared in February when a top FBI counter-terrorism official, Michael Steinbach, testified before the House Homeland Security committee and said the U.S. has no way to vet the Syrian refugees for possible connections to the Islamic State, also called ISIS, and other terrorist organizations. As WND reported, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, sent a letter to the White House Jan. 28 citing “serious national security concerns” about the Syrian refugee program and imploring Obama to not let it become a “back door for jihadists.”

In fact, dozens of Islamic refugees from Iraq, Somalia and other countries have already been charged and convicted of providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations while others have left the country to fight for ISIS in Syria and al-Shabaab in Somalia.

Now, Gowdy has taken the fight for information on exactly how this program works to a new level, demanding answers for the Spartanburg resettlement from none other than John Kerry.

But he needs to go one step further, Corcoran said. As chairman of the subcommittee charged with overseeing this program, Gowdy must demand answers for the communities in all 49 states that participate in the U.S. refugee program, not just his own state or district. That would require holding hearings, she said, because this issue affects communities across the U.S., not just Spartanburg.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/10/Trey-Gowdy.gif

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
“Maybe due to Gowdy’s swift and decisive action, other communities, which are being kept in the dark, will get some relief,” she said. “This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone in Congress do this. Trey Gowdy has directed a letter to John Kerry asking all the right questions.”

The U.S. has been taking in an average of about 70,000 refugees per year over the past few years. The refugees are placed in housing and schools and given free healthcare. They are put on a fast track toward full U.S. citizenship, often within five years.

Gowdy has asked Kerry to provide answers on how Spartanburg was selected for the opening of a new resettlement office to be operated by World Relief. He wants to know when the refugees will arrive, how many, and from what countries. He also demanded to know what services will be required, the cost, and how much of the cost will be charged to the federal government.

This is an issue that affects almost every state. The U.S. State Department works with the United Nations to resettle refugees into every state except Wyoming. Charitable organizations such as World Relief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Church World Services, Episcopal Migration Ministries and the International Rescue Committee operate resettlement offices in 190 communities across the U.S. All of these are private charitable agencies but they receive millions of dollars in federal grants to support their efforts.

WND requested comment from Gowdy Tuesday morning.

“We don’t have any comment at this point beyond our letter sent yesterday,” said Gowdy’s press secretary, Amanda Duvall.

Last week WND reported on the secretive nature of the process in which cities and towns are chosen for the resettlement of foreign refugees, many of them Muslims from areas known to be in upheaval fighting ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, all have devolved into civil sectarian strife, causing the displacement of large numbers of people. Many Christians have been driven from their homes in Iraq and Syria, yet the U.S. has been taking in mostly Muslims from these countries.

And the FBI is not the only intelligence operation warning about the strong likelihood that ISIS will send its militants to Western countries posing as “refugees.”

The Norway’s Police Intelligence Service said in November 2014 that its main concern was individuals misusing the refugee system to bring Syria’s violence to Norway, reported the Nordic Page.

Refugee resettlements are conducted in the U.S. by nine private agencies that contract with the U.S. government, and six of the nine have religious affiliations. These nine contractors in turn subcontract with more than 350 other charitable organizations and churches.

The complete text of Gowdy’s letter, dated April 13, is posted below.

The Honorable John Kerry Secretary U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Kerry,

I write regarding the potential resettlement of refugees to the Spartanburg, South Carolina, area. It has been reported by media outlets, and confirmed by staff within your Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), that a resettlement agency submitted a proposal to open an office in Spartanburg. In addition, it is my understanding that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) approved the request to resettle a certain number of refugees in Spartanburg.

As the Member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing the Spartanburg area, I am deeply concerned about the lack of notice, information, and consultation afforded to me and my constituents about this issue. As such, please provide the information requested and answers to questions below:

1. Please provide a copy of the proposal submitted by the resettlement agency and any subsequent correspondence between your Department and the resettlement agency.
2. When was the resettlement agency’s proposal submitted? When was it approved by USRAP?
3. How were the claims made in the proposal as to Spartanburg’s readiness to resettle refugees verified for accuracy by USRAP prior to approval?
4. What, if any, steps were taken to notify and consult with local government officials (elected or otherwise) prior to the approval of the resettlement proposal? If so, who was contacted and did they approve the proposal?
5. Which officials/employees of the South Carolina State government reviewed and approved the resettlement agency’s proposal? When was such approval given? Were these officials/employees contacted by USRAP to independently ensure approval was given?
6. What types of, and how much, funding will the resettlement agency receive from the federal government? How much of that amount must be provided to the refugees and how much can be kept by the resettlement agency?
7. When are the first refugees expected to arrive in Spartanburg?
8. What federal, state, and local benefits are the refugees entitled to receive a) upon designation as a refugee and b) upon resettlement in the Spartanburg area?
9. How many refugees will be resettled in the Spartanburg area?
10. How are the refugees chosen to resettle in Spartanburg?
11. What is the country of origin of each of the refugees to be resettled in the Spartanburg area?
12. Who is responsible for ensuring housing, employment, and education services for the resettled refugees?
13. Who is responsible for ensuring resettled refugees maintain employment, as opposed to tracking employment for the first few months after being resettled?
14. How many of the refugees to be resettled in the Spartanburg area are of the age to attend K–12 schools? Of those, how many need the local government to provide interpreters or teachers who speak the native language of the refugee for the students?
15. Do any of the refugees to be resettled in the Spartanburg area have criminal convictions? If so, for what crimes has each been convicted?
16. Please explain the background check process performed on refugees scheduled to be resettled in Spartanburg.
17. Will this be the only time refugees will be resettled to the Spartanburg area pursuant to the agency’s proposal? Or can additional refugees be resettled pursuant to the proposal?

I request that any plans to resettle refugees in the Spartanburg, South Carolina, area be placed on hold until my constituents and I receive your substantive responses to the questions and information requested in this letter.

Additionally, before moving forward, both the Spartanburg community and I should have time to substantively review the information and be comfortable with the information provided.

As previously stated, I am troubled by the lack of notice and coordination with my office and the Spartanburg community, particularly local officials, regarding the plans to resettle refugees in the area. In that vein, I request at least one month’s notice prior to the arrival of the first refugee in the Spartanburg area. Please contact my Chief of Staff, Cindy Crick, with such notice (864-241-0175 or cindy.crick@mail.house.gov).

Thank you in advance for your prompt response and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/congressman-demands-answers-on-influx-of-syrian-refugees/#0SULL0db2opJ9bkl.99

SMART TALK ON OBAMACARE

pic_giant2_111114_SM_Jonathan-Gruber_0-300x180,Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped fashion the Affordable Care Act, recently gained notoriety for saying the law counted on the “stupidity” of voters, who could be tricked into believing it was not a tax.

His comments conveyed a contempt for the public on the part of the developers of the law that outraged Americans.

But Americans might be further outraged if they considered the analysis of an economist who isn’t interested in misleading voters.

Casey Mulligan, a University of Chicago professor of economics, recently discussed how Obamacare’s taxes would affect economic productivity during a Hillsdale College Free Market Forum in Indianapolis.

His alarming findings are worth attention, particularly as Republicans take control of the Senate next year and consider ways to revise or scrap the law.
(Hillsdale College, founded in 1844, is an independent liberal arts college that does not accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies.)

Mulligan writes how taxes cause “distortions” — changes in business behavior that would not occur were it not for the taxes.

And he describes how two Obamacare provisions represent a tax on full-time employment: the requirement that businesses with more than 50 employees either provide health insurance for full-time employees or pay a penalty, and the exchanges where individuals can buy health care independent of employment.
He explains how the employer mandate discourages employment: “ … the penalty applies only in the case of full-time employees and only to employers that don’t offer health coverage, and it applies only in those months during which those full-time employees are on the payroll. If an employee cuts back to part-time work, the employer no longer has to pay the penalty.”

Obviously, the tax distortion here gives employers a financial incentive to hire part-time workers.

Similarly, the government offering subsidies to citizens seeking health insurance on the exchanges provides a perverse incentive:
“If you want to get the subsidy, you need to become a part-time worker or spend time off the job. In other words, this discount, too, is a tax on full-time employment.”
Mulligan says when you tax something, you get less of it and “if you tax labor, you get less labor. As a result of the ACA then, we are going to have fewer people working and less value created overall.”

Moreover, Obamacare’s requirements will have enduring and profound impacts on business practices.

“Businesses will change the way they do business, whether it’s by bending over backwards to stay below 50 employees or by having more part-time employees and fewer full-time employees — not because these policies create value or satisfy customers, but because they avoid penalties or enhance subsidies.”

Although most Americans could not have put their objections in Mulligan’s terms, they’ve recognized something was terribly wrong with this elaborate federal entanglement of the nation’s economy. It is a major reason, as The Wall Street Journal points out, 30 of the 60 senators who voted for the ACA are no longer in office.

The nation does need health care reform, and the newly empowered GOP needs to remember that the situation prior to the Affordable Care Act was hardly satisfactory, particularly for the working poor. Republicans need to offer reasonable alternatives or revisions.

But as Mulligan details, Obamacare in its present form represents a major obstacle to the country’s economic growth. Change is mandatory

Obamacare site served just 1 person on Day 1

Calamity far worse than previously reportedobamacare121Obamacare
by Garth Kant
It was widely reported that the Obamacare rollout was a disaster, but it turns out, the calamity was far worse than thought.

The Obama administration has now been forced to reveal that the Obamacare multimillion-dollar website received only one enrollment on its first day of operation.

That means, the federal health insurance website was able to process the application of just one single person on Oct. 1, 2013.

Also, the website failed to register a whopping 48 percent of those who applied, on its second day.

That information was disclosed in a 106-page document Judicial Watch obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, by filing Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit against HHS on Nov. 25, 2013.

“Once again, Judicial Watch is able to get information through FOIA that no one else had gotten – the specifics about the unmitigated failure of the Obamacare healthcare.gov collapse,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“The Obama administration tried to cover this up, Congress failed to follow through, but we managed to get the truth about the $667 billion Obamacare website,” added Fitton.

“Imagine what would have happened to Obamacare if the American people knew only one person was able to enroll on its first day. What other Obamacare failures is President Obama hiding?”

The administration even admitted that just 248 people enrolled for health care on the website in the first few days of operation.

Information uncovered by Judicial Watch indicates problems with the website were even worse:

On Oct. 1, there were 43,208 accounts created and one enrollment.
As of Oct. 31, 2013, there were 1,319,425 accounts created nationwide – but only 30,512 actual enrollments in Obamacare.
On Oct. 1, 2013, at the end of the first day (4:30), the senior adviser at Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Brigid M. Russell, sent out an email to her staff with a subject line celebrating “2 enrollments!” The body of the email read: “We have our second official FFM enrollment! The first two Form 834s sent out are to: 1) CareSource in Ohio, 2) BCBS of North Carolina.
Official figures contained in the HHS report provide conflicting figures as to the number of enrollments. Federally Facilitated Marketplace, or FFM, statistics show 23,259 cumulative to-date applications submitted as of Oct. 2, 2013, and 286 completed plan selections. Earlier numbers show 356 enrollments created as of 7 p.m. on Oct. 2, 2013, that were completed with Form 834s sent.
An Oct. 2, 2013, email from HHS Special Assistant Marianne Bowen indicated serious problems with congressional enrollments: “The Congressional issue (68 attempts for Direct enrollment) was an issue stemming from incomplete applications being sent through (started, not finished, sent anyway) and the way the issuers are assigning unique numbers. Turns out there were only 4 complete Direct Enrollment applications that went through, the other 64 were not complete.” (Congress has approximately 24,000 professional staffers.)
On Oct. 2, 2013, the Obamacare website had 70,000 page views but only 5,000 were unique visitors, and 48 percent of registrations failed. The large number of page views may have been the result of visitors repeatedly hitting the “refresh” button due to long waiting times.
On April 17, 2014, President Obama announced that eight million people had signed up for health insurance on Affordable Healthcare Act exchanges.

Judicial Watch said that figure may be substantially over-inflated.

The group cites testimony in May by the America’s Health Insurance Plans Association before the House Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, stating, “Because of the challenges that surfaced with the launch of the Exchanges in October 2013, some consumers were advised to create a new account and enroll again. As a result, insurers have many duplicate enrollments in their system for which they never received any payment.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/obamacare-site-served-just-1-person-on-day-1/#MKqWW48xHbMWUzBZ.99

THEY THINK THAT YOU ARE DUMB

sunday

OBAMA DOES THE RA,RA, BUT THE REAL TRUTH IS -ObamaCare's Hidden Hit On Businesses

BY BERNIE MARCUS

President Obama’s promise that Americans could keep their health insurance if they liked it was the most infamous of the Affordable Care Act’s sketchy sales pitches. But many of the law’s most damaging aspects are less known, buried in thousands of pages of regulations.

Consider the “fee”—really a hidden sales tax—that all health-insurance companies have been forced to pay since the first of this year on premiums for policies sold to individuals and small and medium-size businesses. The health-insurance tax—known as HIT in business circles—is expected to generate revenues of about $8 billion this year and as much as $14.3 billion by 2018, according to the legislation.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation predict that insurance companies will pass the cost on to customers, as any company subject to such a tax would. In other words, millions of Americans lucky enough to keep their current health insurance under ObamaCare will be paying much higher premiums because of this tax, with the added cost rippling through the economy and stifling job creation.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses projects the health-insurance tax will add an additional $475 per year for the average individually purchased family policy—nearly $5,000 over the course of a decade. Small businesses will take an even bigger hit, with the cost of an employer-provided family policy rising a projected $6,800 in the next decade.

Corbis
Since most large companies self-insure, they aren’t affected by the new tax. But smaller- and medium-size businesses don’t have that luxury and will bear the brunt of the tax. Many will be forced to raise their employees’ share of premium payments or, worse, lay off workers to pay the escalating costs of health care for their core employees.

The NFIB projects private-sector employment through 2022 will be reduced by at least 146,000 jobs because of the health-insurance tax, and perhaps as much as 262,000 jobs. That’s like vaporizing some of the largest employers in the country. Just the low-end estimate—146,000 jobs—is still more than the total number of employees currently working for companies like Costco, COST -0.33% Microsoft MSFT -0.37% and Delta Airlines. DAL +1.17%

Sadly, the NFIB predicts that 59% of the reduced job growth will be in small- and medium-size businesses, America’s biggest engines of job creation. Worse, 26% of the problem will be concentrated in very small businesses—the Main Street cafes, retailers and family businesses that are the backbone of the U.S. economy. America’s 28 million small businesses make up 99.7% of all American employers. They also create 63% of new private-sector jobs.

The jobs never created because of the health-insurance tax will be a “death of a thousand cuts” on Main Street that adds up to a major wound for the economy. As a result, NFIB predicts total gross domestic product in 2022 will be $23 billion to $35 billion smaller than it would have been absent the HIT.

To get a handle on what this means, consider that McDonald’s Corp. MCD -0.43% grossed $27.6 billion last year, selling to 68 million customers per day in 119 countries. So this one new tax on our health insurance is projected to drill a hole in our economy as big as McDonald’s in just eight years, with the overwhelming majority of the damage falling on already struggling small businesses.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act was designed to fix only half the problem of uninsured Americans, by bringing the number of uninsured from 53 million down to 27 million—equal to the current population of Texas. Yet this half-solution has brought with it full-sized problems—like lost health coverage for the previously insured, and job-killing policies like the health-insurance tax.

Poor enrollment figures and endless stories of Americans losing insurance indicate the law won’t even be able to accomplish its incomplete goals. Building a sicker economy will not create healthy Americans. Congress and the president must reform this “reform.”

Mr. Marcus, co-founder and former chairman and CEO of Home Depot, is founder of the Job Creators Network.

IN OBAMACARE YOU CAN'T HAVE CANCER TREATMENT AFTER 76 AND YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR IT ON YOUR OWN

Obamacare Blocks Patients Paying For Treatmentobamacare1

Why else would you want this in there other than to make sure that you are in total control?
Check it out:

A new report by the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics at National Right to Life warns that one of the Obamacare provisions that ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Americans would discover if Congress passed the bill is that some seniors will not be allowed to spend as much as they wish on their health care.

The extreme position was revealed in a special report by the NRLC titled “The Affordable Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States,” which analyzes four fundamental policy areas of Obamacare.

It finds several ways that the federal health care law “will drastically limit access to life-saving medical treatment under the law.”

“These four areas include: the ‘excess benefit’ tax coming into effect in 2018, the current exclusion of adequate health insurance plans from the exchanges, present limits on senior citizens’ ability to use their own money for health insurance, and federal limits on the care doctors give their patients to be implemented as soon as 2016.”

Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, said that “for pro-life Americans concerned about the impact on innocent life – both born and unborn – the policies of Obamacare couldn’t be worse.”

“Americans are just as concerned with the law’s impact on our ability to access life-saving medical treatment for ourselves, our family members, and our loved ones as with Obamacare’s funding of abortions. Obamacare is bad medicine for America,” she said.

Pelosi famously said Congress should pass the law so Americans could find out what was in it, and its unpleasant surprises have been shocking citizens ever since.

The study finds, for example, that the “Independent Payment Advisory Board,” which starting next January is supposed to make “recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures,” will set “quality and efficiency” standards for hospitals and demand that doctors meet government minimums in order to contract with any qualified health insurance plan.

“Essentially, doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers can be told by Washington just what diagnostic tests and medical care are considered to meet ‘quality and efficiency’ standards. These standards will be enforced not just for health care paid for by federally funded programs like Medicare, but also for health care paid for by private citizens and by the health insurance they or their employers purchase,” the study explains.

“These standards are specifically designed to limit the funds that Americans may choose to spend on health care so that they cannot keep up with the rate of medical inflation. Treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed or advisable to save the patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health, but which runs afoul of the imposed standards, can be denied, even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it,” the study warns.

The study says that means that Washington “bureaucrats” will set a national standard for care “that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend to save their own lives.”

“On its face, the law maintains that this limitation does not amount to ‘rationing.’ Indeed, the [law] states, ‘The proposal [by the IPAB] shall not include any recommendations to ration health care.’ … However, the law never actually defines what it means by the word ‘ration.’

“Obamacare authorizes federal bureaucrats to impose limits on what life-saving medical treatments Americans are allowed to get. It may not call this ‘rationing.’ But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t,” the report says.

The report addresses several other limits on life-saving care in Obamacare, including the 40 percent excise tax on some employer-paid premiums.

“Consequently, insurance companies will be forced to impose increasingly severe restraints on policy-holders’ access to medical diagnosis and treatment – limits that will make it hard to get often-expensive treatments essential to combating life-threatening illnesses.”

Third, “Under Obamacare, consumers using the exchanges may only choose plans offered by insurers who do not allow their customers to spend what government bureaucrats deem an ‘excessive or unjustified’ amount for their health insurance – regardless of whether the insurers offer such plans.”

And fourth, there are provisions “allowing Washington bureaucrats to prevent [senior citizens] from making up the Medicare shortfall with their own funds by limiting their right to spend their own money to obtain insurance less likely to limit treatments that could save their lives.”

Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center, said Obamacare “authorizes Washington bureaucrats to create one uniform, national standard of care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend to save their own lives.”

“We are convinced most Americans do not believe that the government should limit the right of Americans to use their own money for health care necessary to save their lives. Yet, that is exactly what Obamacare does,” he said.

In the study, Dr. Marc Siegel warns that Obamacare is threatening the future of health care and, consequently, the lives of Americans.

“The kind of insurance that is growing under Obamacare’s fertilizer is the exact kind that was jeopardizing the quality of health care in the first place: the kind that pays for seeing a doctor when you are well, but where guidelines and regulations predominate and choice is restricted when you are seriously ill,” he said.

“How can quality of care not be affected if the antibiotic or statin drug or MRI scan I feel you need isn’t covered under your plan?”

Obamacare’s limits on Americans’ health care often is done through trickery, the report says.

The law says Health and Human Services can “negotiate” premiums to be charged by private Medicare plans, but the government had no power to impose a premium price control on private fee-for-service plans.

“Thus, under the law before Obamacare, senior citizens could choose, if they wished, to add extra money of their own on top of the government payment in order to get health insurance less likely to ration, and Washington bureaucrats could not limit their right to do this,” the report says.

But that’s changed. Obamacare has a new provision that says: “Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.”

“This means,” says the report, “that the pre-existing law that effectively forbade the secretary to exclude a private fee-for-service plan on the basis that CMS considers its premiums to be too high has been trumped by the new ability of the secretary to reject ‘any or every’ premium bid submitted by a private fee-for-service plan.

“Thus, under Obamacare, Washington bureaucrats are given the authority to limit – or even eliminate – senior citizens’ ability, if they choose, to spend their own money on health insurance less likely to ration.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/feds-to-cap-what-citizens-can-spend-on-own-healthcare/#ATS9ZPZSZoWGhHJ7.99

ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption

More Than Half Of Counties Covered By Healthcare.gov Can’t Afford Obamacare’s ‘Affordable’ Prices

by Ben Bullard
Obamacare-411
A USA Today report Thursday shows that the Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable in more than half of the counties in the 34 States where eligible buyers must purchase insurance through Healthcare.gov, the Federal government’s online insurance marketplace.
According to the analysis, more than half of the counties on the exchange don’t even offer customers a basic bronze-level health care plan. Among the color tiers that denote insurance plans that run the gamut from affordable to luxurious, the low-tier bronze plans are regarded as the cheapest, in part because they require higher copays and have higher maximum payout limits that customers must meet each year before the insurance plan kicks in.
“More than half of the counties in 34 states using the federal health insurance exchange lack even a bronze plan that’s affordable — by the government’s own definition — for 40-year-old couples who make just a little too much for financial assistance,” the piece reports:
Many of these counties are in rural, less populous areas that already had limited choice and pricey plans, but many others are heavily populated, such as Bergen County, N.J., and Philadelphia and Milwaukee counties.
More than a third don’t offer an affordable plan in the four tiers of coverage known as bronze, silver, gold or platinum for people buying individual plans who are 50 or older and ineligible for subsidies.
…”The ACA was not designed to reduce costs or, the law’s name notwithstanding, to make health insurance coverage affordable for the vast majority of Americans,” says health care consultant Kip Piper, a former government and insurance industry official. “The law uses taxpayer dollars to lower costs for the low-income uninsured but it also increases costs overall and shifts costs within the marketplace.”
The newspaper considered whether premiums for the most affordable insurance plan, at any “color” level, amounted to more than 8 percent of an eligible customer’s annual household income – a method similar to that employed by the government to calculate whether people are eligible to opt out of buying coverage under Obamacare based on their ability to cover the cost of the premiums they’d have to pay.
“[T]he analysis clearly shows how the sticker shock hitting many in the middle class, including the self-employed and early retirees, isn’t just a perception problem,” the paper found. “The lack of counties with affordable plans means many middle-class people will either opt out of insurance or pay too much to buy it.”

SEO Powered By SEOPressor