Michael Moore: 'ObamaCare is awful'

Bailey comment: " WOW "!

Michael Moore is not happy with ObamaCare.
The liberal documentary filmmaker marked the Jan. 1 launch of coverage under the Affordable Care Act with a scathing op-ed that declared: "ObamaCare is awful."
This, he wrote in The New York Times, is the "dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president's enemies."
Moore's problems with the law, though, naturally are different than the complaints from Republican critics.
Moore continues to back a single-payer, government-run system and argues that the current one is too favorable to the insurance industry.
"I believe Obamacare's rocky start -- clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president's telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could -- is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go," he wrote.
Yet in the same op-ed, Moore also called ObamaCare a "godsend," because of its protections preventing insurance companies from denying or dropping sick patients.
He urged the public to pressure "blue states" to add a so-called "public option" -- a plan run by the government -- and "red states" to expand Medicaid.

ObamaCare brings new taxes, fees for 2014

Bailey Comment: " Did all of you Idiots that voted for Obamacare really think you were going to get it for FREE"??


Get ready for the next wave of ObamaCare fees. 
With the launch of coverage under the health care law on Wednesday, a new set of taxes and fees is kicking in this year -- as part of the hundreds of billions of dollars the government intends to raise over the next decade to help pay for the program. 
This year, the increases come in the form of fees on health insurance companies which could translate into higher premiums. And for those who don't buy coverage, the IRS plans to slap them with a fine -- some call it a "tax" -- for not complying.
"This is only the beginning," the conservative Heritage Foundation warned Thursday.
The biggest revenue-raiser kicking in this year is an annual fee on health insurers, meant to help fund premium subsidies and other provisions.
The fee is projected to bring in $8 billion this year and roughly $100 billion over the next decade. The insurance industry -- and more than 200 House lawmakers -- are trying to repeal it, warning that these costs will be passed onto the consumer (though some will get Affordable Care Act subsidies).
An industry-commissioned study by consultant Oliver Wyman estimated that rates will rise in 2014 by up to 2.3 percent for that reason alone. By 2023, the study said, rates could be rising annually by up to 3.7 percent because of the tax.
The other major fee to watch out for is the individual mandate penalty. Under the law, those who do not get insurance by the end of March and do not qualify for an exemption will be charged the fee. This year, that penalty will be $95, or 1 percent of household income, whichever is greater.
The penalty will increase considerably in 2015 and beyond, though it remains unclear whether it is big enough to compel reluctant individuals to enter the insurance market.
Finally, insurance companies are dealing with another set of increases. They are:
-- A so-called "reinsurance fee" will be applied to some health insurers this year. The temporary fee is meant to raise $25 billion over three years, to help pay for the cost of those with pre-existing conditions signing up for coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges.  The fee would start at $63 per person, but then drop to a bit more than $40 per person in 2015. It would drop again the following year. Critics warn that this could result in higher premiums, much like the annual tax on health insurers.
-- Individual and group health insurers will be required to pay a small fee to fund a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The fee is set at $2 per covered person this year, and will be adjusted annually based on "medical inflation."
-- Some insurers will also be hit with a fee to fund what is known as a "risk adjustment program." This is meant to spread the risk around, by charging policies with lower-risk customers and using that money to offset costs for policies with higher-risk customers.
-- The Department of Health and Human Services has proposed charging a monthly user fee equal to 3.5 percent of the premium for policies in the federal exchange. This money is meant to help fund the insurance exchanges.
Republicans argue that all these fees and more will contribute to rising premiums. House Speaker John Boehner recently called the law "unworkable and unaffordable."
But supporters, and the Obama administration, argue that the protections and benefits Americans are getting in return more than make up for the costs.
When coverage launched on Wednesday, the White House declared it a "new day for the millions of Americans who finally have the security that comes from quality, affordable health coverage."
Among the changes, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions; insurance companies cannot impose annual caps on health benefits; and millions may qualify for subsidies to help them buy insurance. Millions more will qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage.

Enrollment is up, but ObamaCare still faces uncertainty, politically and otherwise

ObamaCare appears at least for now to be off life support -- after a total 2.1 million Americans enrolled to get insurance coverage this year. But whether President Obama’s signature health care law survives -- at least in its entirety -- remains uncertain.
Despite House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other ardent supporters of ObamaCare declaring that it remains “the law of the land,” other congressional Democrats facing re-election this year have hinted at cannibalized the legislation in the face of a confused and frustrated electorate.
In early November, 39 House Democrats, including many in battleground districts, voted to allow millions of Americans to keep the health care plans they lost under ObamaCare, joining Republicans who have rigorously opposed the 2010 law since then-presidential candidate Obama proposed it in 2007.
Weeks after the recent House vote, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., among the most vulnerable Senate Democrats and who had roughly 90,000 people in her home state get their insurance revoked, also broke with her party by introducing a similar bill.
Yet the broader issue looming beyond the politics is whether the entire, federally-subsidized program can become self-sustainable by getting enough enrollees, preferably younger Americans, or fall into what critics are calling the “death spiral.”
Their argument is that the administration will need millions of younger, healthy Americans to sign up to cover the costs of older enrollees who typically need more medical care. And without the young and healthy, insurance companies will increase prices to cover their losses, which will result in even few enrollees and some sort of government intervention, the critics further argue.
“If they do [succeed,] it'll be pure, irrational dumb luck,” said Dan Holler of Heritage Action for America, which has helped lead efforts to “defund” ObamaCare. “The program they designed, and the incentives they put in place, look destined to fail.”
Holler argued Tuesday that ObamaCare problems are systemic, with doctors eventually no longer accepting low reimbursements and Americans “refusing to spend exorbitant amounts of money on plans that won't allow them to keep their doctor.”
However, the results of Kaiser Family Foundation study released last week suggest only a slight increase in insurance premiums in 2015, despite low enrollment so far by young people. (Rates are already locked in for 2014.)
"It is nowhere near what is sometimes referred to as a death spiral," Larry Levitt, a health economist at the foundation, said following the report's release, according to Reuters.
Preliminary figures suggest roughly 25 percent of Americans who have so far signing up for ObamaCare are in the crucial 18-to-34 age group, below the administration's goal of roughly 40 percent.
The administration has said it needs to enroll roughly 7 million Americans by March 31, on its way to expanding coverage to 25 million by 2016.
However, Levitt said, “It doesn’t matter how many people sign up. What matters more is the proportions.”
And on Monday, Howard Dean -- a former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman – suggested the so-called "individual mandate" in ObamaCare that requires Americans to purchase insurance or face a tax penalty might not have been needed for the program to be successful.
He told CNBC that actuarial data does not lead to the conclusion that huge cost overruns will result without the mandate.
"Insurance companies like it because it does bring young, healthy people who aren't likely to get sick into the system," he said. "But our experience [in Vermont,] although it's with young people under 18, not with everybody, is that the individual mandate was not that necessary."

ObamaCare insurance tax in effect

New Year's Day marks the start of coverage under ObamaCare for millions of people -- but it also marks the start of a massive tax increase which could further inflate premiums. 
Beginning Wednesday, the Affordable Care Act imposes an annual fee on health insurers. The fee is projected to bring in $8 billion next year and roughly $100 billion over the next decade, making it one of the biggest under the law.
The health insurance industry has been howling about the "tax" for years, and is trying to rally support for a bill in Congress that would repeal it. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., has 229 co-sponsors -- which represents a majority of members in the House.
But the White House will fight any effort to repeal it, and for now the measure is in effect.
On Tuesday, America's Health Insurance Plans President Karen Ignagni warned that the fee will end up hitting consumers in the form of higher premiums. 
"Taxing health insurance makes it more expensive and that undermines the goals of health care reform," she said.
The health care overhaul impacts what people pay for health insurance on the individual market in a host of ways.
For some, premiums will rise, but they'll be eligible for subsidies to offset the cost, ultimately bringing down their health care tab. Others, who make too much to qualify for subsidies, will see their health care costs rise. The impact will vary depending on the state, the level of coverage sought and other factors.
Some premiums were already on the rise, in part because insurance companies are being required to cover high-cost patients and offer more benefits; and in part because premiums have been rising for years.
But insurance companies are also expected to raise rates this year and beyond to offset the cost of the insurance industry fee.
An industry-commissioned study by consultant Oliver Wyman estimated that rates will rise in 2014 by up to 2.3 percent for that reason alone. By 2023, the study said, rates could be rising annually by up to 3.7 percent because of the tax. 
Such hikes would only increase the strain on individuals and businesses trying to comply with the law's mandate to buy, or provide, insurance -- which, for individuals, kicks in at the end of March. 
The primary X factor in 2014 will be enrollment. If droves of young, healthy Americans comply with the mandate and sign up for coverage by the March 31 deadline, it will reduce the need for insurance companies to jack up their rates.
The Obama administration says enrollment has picked up considerably overall since the rocky debut of HealthCare.gov and various state-based exchange sites. At last count, officials said Tuesday more than 2 million people had signed up through the federal and state sites.
But whether the young and healthy will rush in remains an open question. And the administration faces serious political headwinds, including from lawmakers pushing to chip away at the law's various mandates and fees.
Some lawmakers voiced skepticism that the boosted enrollment numbers signal a turnaround for the law. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee predicted "rate shock" in 2014.

2014

MSNBC's Harris-Perry apologizes for mocking Romney over black grandchild

MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry apologized this morning amid a growing media storm over the way she and her guests made fun of Mitt Romney's adopted grandchild -- who happens to be black. 
On her weekend show, the African-American host and her panelists started laughing almost immediately in the segment, in a way that made me cringe. 
The object of their derision, cloaked as it was in pointed humor? A Romney family photo, with the grandchild perched on Romney's knee. 
Hysterical, huh? 
Yes, Harris-Perry kept cooing about how the baby was cute. The real target, for her and the guests, was Mitt.
As in, isn't it funny that this white Mormon with a white family would find among his clan a black baby.
Maybe it was supposed to be okay because the host is African-American. But I think the segment took a horribly wrong turn.
Harris-Perry apologized on Twitter, shortly after a demand by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus that she do so for her "disgusting" comments.
"I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices," she wrote.
"As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/ Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise.
"Therefore, while I meant no offense, I want to immediately apologize to the Romney family for hurting them."
During the segment, as Harris-Perry showed the Romney family photo, one of the panelists, Pia Glenn, sang: "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same."
Harris-Perry chimed in that "my goal is that in 2040, the biggest thing of the year will be the marriage between Kieran Romney and North West. Can you imagine Mitt Romney and Kanye West as in-laws?"
Then came comedian Dean Obeidallah, chortling that the photo "really sums up the diversity of the Republican Party, the RNC. At the convention they find the one black person."
So the baby became a convenient symbol for ripping the GOP, with the added bonus of having Romney as a last name. A pleasant time was had by all.
Forgive me, but isn't adoption a good thing? Is interracial adoption something to be mocked? If the racial aspect had to be addressed, doesn't the adoption show an open-mindedness on the part of the Romney family?
Harris-Perry is not just some cable yakker; she's a Ph.D. and a political science professor at Tulane, fiercely liberal and generally civil. But she is not above making pointed racial arguments.
Earlier this month, for instance, Harris-Perry said of the term ObamaCare: "The word was conceived by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man."
I'm not an MSNBC-basher, and the network deserves credit for hiring a number of African-American hosts, several of them women. But MSNBC has had some big-time tone problems lately, what with Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin getting the boot. This episode isn't in the same category.
But it came off as condescending and insensitive.
The other panelists backpedaled before Harris-Perry weighed in on Tuesday. On Twitter, as Mediaite reports, Obeidallah wrote: "I apologize to the baby if the baby was offended by my joke mocking GOP's lack or (sic) racial diversity."
He offered a more full-throated regrets in a statement to CNN:
"Occasionally my jokes have been known to 'cross the line' and I can assure you that in the future some of my jokes will do that again. My joke on MHP was not intended in any way to mock the Romney family or the baby they adopted. Rather it was a joke about the lack of racial diversity that we see at the Republican National Convention. I apologize to the Romney family and especially the baby if any of them were offended by that joke."
Glenn, for her part, tweeted her defiance: "Yes, I sang the song. There are many children in the pic & only 1 black child. I don't see that as mocking or attacking the baby." 
Then she doubled down: "If I point out the 1 black person & you translate that as an attack ON HIM, who's racist? I don't personally see anything wrong with being black." 
She eventually realized the tone-deaf nature of her comments: 
"Adoptive parents giving a child of ANY ethnicity a loving home,I apologize.I absolutely did not intend to harm you but it seems that I have."
At least she finally got there.

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report

Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.
But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.
“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.
The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.
Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.
"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.
"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."
The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya. 
Recent reports also suggest that Libyan militia leader Ahmad Abu Khattallah is the mastermind of the attack and had no real connections to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.
Multiple sources, though, challenged that claim. They insist that while Khattallah was found responsible for the actions at the actual consulate and was essentially the ground force commander that night, he is also clearly tied to Ansar al-Sharia and to the broader terrorist network.
“There is direct evidence linking him before the attack and after the attack to terrorist groups. An opportunity came, and Khattallah conducted an assault on the consulate. To say that it wasn’t tied to Al Qaeda is completely false. There is literal evidence in many forms and shapes, directly linking him,” one source said.
Khattallah is also a member of the militia group the Libyan Shield, which was formed to protect Benghazi and is operating separate from Tripoli.
Other militias are not inclined to turn Khattallah in, because they are also tied to Ansar al-Sharia. Commanders from some of these militias thought to be friendly to the United States and who have worked with American special forces, the CIA and State Department personnel have flipped sides and affiliated with Ansar al-Sharia. Sources say the terrorist group is saturating the whole region of eastern Libya with money, training and personnel. "They are now the biggest organization in town,” one said.
Sources also tell Fox News that while Khattallah is responsible for the ground actions that night, he also reports to other commanders in Ansar al-Sharia. He is seen as a relatively small piece of the terror puzzle in the region, which includes Al Qaeda ambassadors. Some in the intelligence community call these terrorist ambassadors “Amirs,” and there has been one stationed in Libya for some time, as they are the liaison for intelligence and direction for operations.  Libyan Shield, which has different offshoots in different locations, also has members directly affiliated with terrorist organizations and Al Qaeda. Bomb-making materials have been found with some of these groups as well.
Fox News has also learned there was a week of briefings by the head of counterintelligence in the entire region that identified Al Qaeda as the largest and most significant element infiltrating Libya, with the final briefing on Sept. 10.
Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based correspondent.