Earlier today, The Blaze’s Billy Hallowell reported the following: This afternoon, President Obama announced the “accommodation” his administration plans to offer church-affiliated groups. Speaking from the White House, he explained that, under the new plan, universities and institutions connected with faiths that oppose contraception and associated services will not have to directly offer them. Obama said that the new-and-improved birth control, sterilization and abortion-inducing drug policy will protect religious liberties, while assuring women’s access to contraception reports the AP . And although major media outlets were calling the president’s decision a “cave,” some critics believe that he’s simply applying the unconstitutional mandate to a different entity, namely, insurance companies. “Everybody’s reporting that Obama’s caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There’s not a cave here!” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Friday afternoon. “There may be an accommodation, but there’s no big cave-in here. It’s still the government mandating this stuff happen. They’re just changing the provider. It’s not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that’s not the point here.” He continued: So everywhere I’m reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches — well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. “What’s happened here is that Obama’s caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he’s gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!” … My point here is, ladies and gentlemen, we are losing freedom and liberty inch by inch. It’s not being taken — well, in some cases it is, but in most cases it’s not being taken from us in giant grabs. It’s little by little by little such that people don’t even see it. It doesn’t even register. Limbaugh then addressed an AP report that claimed religious employers would not have to cover birth control for their employees. “The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception,” the AP reported. Limbaugh was beside himself. “And we’re supposed to applaud this? We’re supposed to think that we have emerged with a big victory here? Obama can mandate that we buy insurance, and now Obama can mandate what insurance companies must offer — and after mandating what insurance companies must offer, then Obama can mandate what insurance companies can charge for it?” Limbaugh asked. So what was his take away from this supposed “cave”? “Freedom doesn’t mean anything to this guy! Freedom doesn’t mean anything to this regime or this administration. To me, this is breathtaking. This is an incredible sight to behold here,” Limbaugh said. “Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty? That’s the first thing.” Limbaugh then went on to explain that he believes all of this “kerfuffle” between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration has been by design. “And, by the way, I don’t think any of this a mistake. I don’t think this religious kerfuffle is something that they overreached on,” Limbaugh explained. “I think roiling this country and distracting people, setting up these extreme things like this and then walking them back to create the illusion, ‘Okay, you know what? We’re not gonna take your freedom,’ it’s all BS, folks.” Hear Limbaugh explain the so-called “compromise” via Daily Rushbo : “So here we have again from the top,” Limbaugh continued, “Obama’s gonna offer a compromise proposal said to be respectful of religious concerns. He started this. He started it by demanding that Catholic organizations provide birth control and other abortion-related services.” “That’s unconstitutional. He cannot do it. There is an appropriate uproar. The regime says, ‘Okay, we’ll walk it back and then we’ll make the insurance companies do it.’ He’s still getting everything he wants! He’s getting mandated federal funding of abortion services — and, in the process, trampling all over the Constitution. The right to religious liberty in this context is unequivocal in our country. It’s in the Constitution!” Read the full transcript of Limbaugh’s opening monologue here.
Read more here:
Limbaugh on So-Called HHS ‘Accommodation’: There‘s no ’Compromise,‘ It’s all BS!
Here’s more confirmation of the economic damage Romneycare did in the Bay State. The Boston Herald has the exclusive results of an analysis by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute. Romney’s baggage. It is so heavy: The Bay State’s controversial 2006 universal health-care plan — also known as “Romneycare” — has cost Massachusetts more than 18,000 jobs, according to an exclusive blockbuster study that could provide ammo to GOP rivals of former Gov. Mitt Romney as he touts his job-creating chops on the campaign trail. “Mandating health insurance coverage and expanding the demand for health services without increasing supply drove up costs. Economics 101 tells us that,” said Paul Bachman, research director at Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute, the conservative think tank that conducted the study. The Herald obtained an exclusive copy of the findings. “The ‘shared sacrifice’ needed to provide universal health care includes a net loss of jobs, which is attributable to the higher costs that the measure imposed,” said David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director. …Despite Romney’s vaunted business acumen as a successful venture capitalist, Bachman said the former governor “was a little naive about what would become of the law.” The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare: • cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs; • drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion; • slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and • reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million. And remember that RomneyCare relied on FedGovCare as a sturdy crutch: “He also noted the state’s health-care costs have been heavily subsidized by billions of dollars in federal aid through a Medicaid waiver program.” As I’ve observed previously, RomneyCare and ObamaCare share not only the same ideological architects, but similar waiver programs in part set up to benefit Big Labor – via Boston Globe in Feburary: Massachusetts regulators granted more exemptions last year to residents who said they could not afford the health insurance required by the state, waiving the tax penalty for more than half of those who appealed, according to state data. State officials said they excused the majority of waiver applicants in large part because of the protracted sour economy, which made insurance unaffordable for more people. Under the 2006 state law that requires most residents to have coverage, regulators have significant latitude to authorize waivers by taking into account factors such as a home foreclosure. The number of people seeking exemptions in 2010 was about the same as in 2009, and state figures show that roughly 98 percent of residents were insured last year. Even as Republicans and many states wage a bitter battle in Congress and the courts to block the mandatory insurance requirement in the national health care law, the provision appears to retain broad acceptance in Massachusetts. Regulators’ flexibility may be part of the reason. “We aren’t going to make someone pay just to make them pay,’’ said Celia Wcislo, a director of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East and a member of the Connector Authority, which oversees Massachusetts’ health care law and grants the exemptions. Background on the politicized “Connector Authority” via Cato: When Romney signed his plan he claimed “a key objective is to lower the cost of health insurance for all our citizens and allow our citizens to buy the insurance plan that fits their needs.” In actuality, insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10–12 percent next year, double the national average. …Although there are undoubtedly many factors behind the cost increase, one reason is that the new bureaucracy that the legislation created-the “Connector”-has not been allowing Massachusetts citizens to buy insurance that “fits their needs.” Although it has received less media attention than other aspects of the bill, one of the most significant features of the legislation is the creation of the Massachusetts Health Care Connector to combine the current small-group and individual markets under a single unified set of regulations. Supporters such as Robert E. Moffit and Nina Owcharenko of the Heritage Foundation consider the Connector to be the single most important change made by the legislation, calling it “the cornerstone of the new plan” and “a major innovation and a model for other states.” The Connector is not actually an insurer. Rather, it is designed to allow individuals and workers in small companies to take advantage of the economies of scale, both in terms of administration and risk pooling, which are currently enjoyed by large employers. Multiple employers are able to pay into the Connector on behalf of a single employee. And, most importantly, the Connector would allow workers to use pretax dollars to purchase individual insurance. That would make insurance personal and portable, rather than tied to an employer-all very desirable things. However, many people were concerned that the Connector was being granted too much regulatory authority. It was given the power to decide what products it would offer and to designate which types of insurance offered “high quality and good value.” This phrase in particular worried many observers because it is the same language frequently included in legislation mandating insurance benefits. At the time the legislation passed, Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation reassured critics that “the Connector will neither design the insurance products being offered nor regulate the insurers offering the plans.” In reality, however, the Connector’s board has seen itself as a combination of the state legislature and the insurance commissioner, adding a host of new regulations and mandates. For example, the Connector’s governing board has decreed that by January 2009, no one in the state will be allowed to have insurance with more than a $2,000 deductible or total out-of-pocket costs of more than $5,000. In addition, every policy in the state will be required to phase in coverage of prescription drugs, a move that could add 5–15 percent to the cost of insurance plans. A move to require dental coverage barely failed to pass the board, and the dentists-along with several other provider groups-have not given up the effort to force their inclusion. This comes on top of the 40 mandated benefits that the state had previously required, ranging from in vitro fertilization to chiropractic services. Thus, it appears that the Connector offers quite a bit of pain for relatively little gain. Although the ability to use pretax dollars to purchase personal and portable insurance should be appealing in theory, only about 7,500 nonsubsidized workers have purchased insurance through the Connector so far. On the other hand, rather than insurance that “fits their needs,” Massachusetts residents find themselves forced to buy expensive “Cadillac” policies that offer many benefits that they may not want. Governor Romney now says that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Connector board, because it’s “an independent body separate from the governor’s office.” However, many critics of the Massachusetts plan warned him precisely against the dangers of giving regulatory authority to a bureaucracy that would last long beyond his administration.
More here:
Romneycare: The wreckage
A new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott sheds new light on the life of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, including her final years. Scott found while assembling information for “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” that Dunham in fact did have health coverage for her ovarian cancer, based off Dunham’s own past correspondence. Washington Examiner’s Byron York: “Dunham decided to stay in Jakarta, where she underwent an appendectomy. But the pain did not go away, and Dunham feared, correctly, that she was terribly ill. In January 1995 she left Indonesia to go home to Honolulu, where she was diagnosed with advanced uterine and ovarian cancer. She began a regime of surgery and chemotherapy. That is the time during which Obama says his mother battled insurance companies to cover her illness. But Scott, who had access to Dunham’s correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. ‘Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment,’ Scott writes. ‘Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.” Often in his 2008 campaign and throughout his push for national healthcare reform, Barack Obama retold a compelling story of his mother’s struggle against non-budging insurance companies for care in the final years of her life before the cancer over took her. “‘I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence,’ Obama said in September 2007. ‘She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn’t have to reimburse her for her medical bills,’ Obama added in January 2008.” The seemingly heartfelt pitch by Obama now appears to have glossed over many of the facts. Scott’s book reveals that Dunham was compensated for most of her treatment aside from one denied claim in August 1995. Scott writes that Dunham was denied coverage by CIGNA for a separate claim under her employer’s disability insurance policy, where she wanted to be compensated for medical costs as well as her living expenses. Scott writes that Obama’s tale of his mother’s battle with insurance companies was “abbreviated,” for the fact that Ann Dunham did indeed have health insurance pay for her treatment: “Though he(Obama) often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition, it appears from her correspondence that she was only denied disability coverage’” In this video from February 2010 Obama claims his mother was self-employed and seemingly denied any coverage: Barack Obama at the February 2010 Healthcare summit: “My Mother, who was self-employed, didn’t have reliable healthcare, and she died of ovarian cancer. There probably is nothing modern medicine could have done about that, it was caught late and thats a hard cancer to diagnose. I do remember the last six months of her life, insurance companies threatening that they would not reimburse her for her costs. And her having to be on the phone in the hospital argueing with insurance companies when what she should have been doing is spending time with her family.” Scott’s investigation however shows that in 1994 Dunham took a job with an American company called Development Alternatives, which had a contract with the Indonesian State Ministry for the Role of Women. Dunham returned to Jakarta to work where Scott reports the job provided Dunham with health insurance, a housing allowance, and a car. Dunham was extremely ill, and her frustrations in the final year of her life are not for you or I to judge. However revelations in Scott’s new book suggest many personal statements made by the President in his campaign and national healthcare reform pitch to be inaccurate.
The rest is here:
Turns Out Obama‘s Story About His Mother’s Healthcare Struggle Is Inaccurate
Reuters – The Obama administration might nominate Federal Deposit Insurance Corp member Thomas Curry to oversee the largest banks as the next comptroller of the currency, according to a person informed about the deliberations.
More here:
FDIC member may get top bank regulator job
(Reuters)
The famous Marine drill instructor who created a stir last week when he said President Obama was trying to implement socialism has released a statement apologizing for those remarks. R. Lee Ermey said today that his comments were “misguided” and “emotionally based” and for that he is “truly sorry.” His full statement, which is posted on his website as a splash page, is below: A Message from the Gunny “I recently appeared at a fundraising event designed to collect toys and raise awareness for underprivileged children. While that event succeeded in raising thousands of dollars and hundreds of toys for this cause, I regret that I delivered a monologue that was inappropriately critical of the President. I was trying to be entertaining and simply went too far in this instance. I am mindful that my success as an entertainer relates in part to my experience in the Marine Corps, my devotion to its members, and the deep respect I have for members of all our Armed Forces. My comments should not be seen as reflecting on them or their views. I was just very disappointed in the amount of success that we were having raising toys and money for the underprivileged children this season. The poor economy has greatly hampered our efforts. My comments were misguided, and emotionally based, and for that I am truly sorry.” Semper Fi Mediaite wonders if the apology is a move to appease the insurance company GEICO. As many know, Ermey has had a resurgence as a GEICO commercial star. But recently, another GEICO voice actor was fired for a foray into political talk: A few months ago, GEICO fired voice actor Lance Baxter AKA D.C. Douglas for being critical of the Tea Party and Freedomworks . Not only did they fire him, they fired him for a political outburst on his own free time. Will they now fire Ermey? That could be the reason. But some may just wonder if this is Ermey crossing into “mamby pamby land”:
See the original post:
Famous Drill Instructor Apologizes for Obama ‘Socialism’ Comments
