ObamaCare patients with serious pre-existing diseases could face expensive drug costs

People with serious pre-existing diseases, precisely those the president aimed to help with ObamaCare, could find themselves paying for expensive drug treatments with no help from the health care exchanges.
Those with expensive diseases such as lupus or multiple sclerosis face something called a "closed drug formulary."

ADVERTISEMENT

Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute explains,"if the medicine that you need isn't on that list, it's not covered at all. You have to pay completely out of pocket to get that medicine, and the money you spend doesn't count against your deductible, and it doesn't count against your out of pocket limits, so you're basically on your own."
The plan had claimed it would rescue those with serious pre-existing conditions.
"So it could be that a MS patient could be expected to pay $62,000 just for one medication," says Dr. Daniel Kantor, who treats MS patients and others with neurological conditions near Jacksonville, Florida. "That’s a possiblity under the new ObamaCare going on right now."
In fact, one conservative group, Americans for Prosperity, is running an ad on exactly this subject, featuring a woman with lupus, an auto-immune disease.
She starts by saying, "I voted for Barack Obama for president. I thought ObamaCare was going to be a good thing."
But Emilie Lamb says she later got a letter saying her insurance was canceled because of ObamaCare, pushing her premiums from $52 to $373 a month.
"I'm having to work a second job, to pay for ObamaCare,” she adds. “For somebody with lupus, that's not an easy thing. If I can't afford to continue to pay for ObamaCare, I don't get my medicine. I don't get to see my doctors."
One of the problems is that drugs for some diseases such as MS do not have generic versions. So without cheaper alternatives and no help from ObamaCare, patients could face huge personal out-of-pocket bills, forcing some to skimp on their medications.
Kantor worries that "this may drive more patients" to not buy their medicines, "which we know is dangerous," he says. "We know MS can be a bad disease when you’re not treating it. When you’re treating it, for most people they handle it pretty well, but we know when you don’t treat (it), it’s the kind of disease where people end up in wheel chairs potentially."
In the commercial market, of course, drugs not on a preferred list would also be more expensive, but with a major difference, according to Gottlieb.
"You go outside that list, you have to pay out of pocket for it, but you do get some co-insurance, meaning the plans will pay some of the cost of that."
Some say ObamaCare hoped to do better on that problem but ran out of time. Matthew Eyles of Avalare Health, a consulting firm, says although officials wanted "to be able to make sure that all the systems were operational in 2014, they realized that they needed to give an extra year to get those systems changes in place."
Officials intend to try again next year.
Additional benefits cost more, though, meaning premiums would have to rise, or the networks of providers would shrink even further.

Medical Center won't let patients watch Fox News

• 
  
  

  Oct.2, 2013: A man looks over the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) signup page on the HealthCare.gov website in New York in this photo illustration. (Reuters)

I imagine the only thing worse than being forced to watch CNN inside an airport terminal is being forced to watch it in a doctor’s office.
So you can imagine my surprise when I discovered a Michigan health care facility, funded by federal tax dollars, blocked Fox News Channel from its waiting room television sets.
The president of Family Health Care directed staff to block Fox News after a board member complained about our network’s coverage of the Affordable Care Act, an employee told me.
“The board member complained that patients were turning the channel to Fox News,” said the employee who asked not to be identified for reasons related to the unemployment line. “They are pro-ObamaCare and they felt (Fox’s) stance did not mesh with our stance.”
Family Health Care is a private, non-profit business that operates community health centers in five Michigan towns. According to the employee, the health centers have ObamaCare facilitators on site to help people apply for the program.
The employee provided me a copy of an internal office memorandum that confirms the home of “Fair & Balanced” news is blocked.
“A while ago Kathy Sather had asked all sites not to air the Fox News channel on the public waiting room TV’s,” wrote a network manager in an email to staff members on Feb. 4. “Today I blocked the channel on both the medical and dental waiting rooms.”
Sather is president of Family Health Care.
“I did check with staff and they mentioned often the visitors are changing channels on the TV’s,” the network manager wrote. “I now have both TV’s blocking that channel, so the public won’t be able to change the station. If anyone asks for the TV to be put on that channel please let them know we cannot air that channel.”
That edict didn’t set well with the employee who contacted me.
“I feel like we are being manipulated,” the employee said. “Who are they to say you can’t watch something? If the patient wants to put on Fox they should be able to put on Fox.”
It’s almost impossible to believe, right? Surely, there must have been some sort of misunderstanding. What could possibly be so offensive about Fox News? I mean sure, Bob Beckel is known to use a few “colorful metaphors,” but he’s just a lovable curmudgeon. And who doesn’t love the Factor Word of the Day? We are a pithier nation because of the No Spin Zone.
So I reached out to Sather who promptly confirmed that Steve and Elizabeth and Brian were no longer welcome in the waiting rooms.
She said the health center had a responsibility to do everything humanly possible to “ensure a positive patient experience in the waiting room.”
“Simply put, several complaints have been brought to my attention asking that we not air the Fox News channel in our televised waiting areas,” Sather wrote. “I responded by addressing the issue promptly asking that the channel be blocked in response to those complaints.”
I can’t imagine a patient finding a more positive experience than watching Fox News Channel.
A few years ago my mother was hospitalized. Because of her medical condition she was unable to talk. One day I received a telephone call from my mother’s nurse. She told me that mom was thrashing about and throwing things at the television set. She couldn’t figure out why she was so rattled.
We went through a list of possibilities, until I suggested it might have something to do with the television show she was watching.
“Well,” the nurse replied, “When I walked in she was watching Fox & Friends, but after she fell asleep I changed the channel.”
Which channel, I asked?
“CNN,” she said.
“Sweet mercy,” I hollered into the phone. “Change it back to Fox News! And hurry – before she breaks the television set.”
My mother was not a big fan of CNN. She said that was one of the reasons she hated to fly. But she sure loved Fox News – especially when Shep would tell her what the game day temperature was in Oxford.
Back in Michigan, the employee told me Sather’s explanation is a bunch of “baloney.”
The employee said that there were no complaints from patients – only a board member of the organization.
“It’s all very politically correct,” the employee said. “This complaint thing is baloney. They don’t want anyone to get the idea that affordable care is not good.”
Surely there must be some way to reach a compromise. Maybe they could blur the Fox News logo. Or perhaps they could bleep out all the conservative words?
My suggestions fell on deaf ears.
“We are a health care provider, not a news analyst,” Sather wrote to me.”We are in no position to comment on the quality of news programming. We simply responded to a patient request.”
As it now stands, patients at federally-funded Family Health Care will not be allowed to watch Fox News Channel in their waiting rooms.
And you won’t believe what the health center is forcing patients to watch.
“CNN,” the employee told me. “Ugh.”
 By Todd Starnes

Cave In?

Insurance industry raises questions about new ObamaCare enrollment numbers being ‘inflated’

The Obama administration’s latest rosy scenario about 3.3 million consumers signing up for health care plans is facing skepticism from top insurance industry officials, who estimate that somewhere in the range of 10 to 25 percent of those “enrollees” actually have not yet paid their premiums and are not fully enrolled.
“The numbers are not as high as 3.3 million -- it’s lower,” one senior insurance industry source told Fox News. “Those numbers are inflated. The question is how much.”
Industry officials tell Fox that some insurance companies have privately reported up to 30 percent of enrollees have not paid up, while other companies believe a higher percentage of customers have taken care of their premiums. The senior insurance industry source suggested it averages out to roughly 10 to 25 percent of enrollees not yet paying into the system, and thus those individuals do not really have insurance.
Scenarios for not paying include people who went through the struggles of logging on to HealthCare.gov and eventually decided it was not worth it to go through the final steps of payment, and others who may simply not be able to afford the premiums. Industry officials believe others have gone through the process of choosing a plan and simply have not gotten around to writing a check, but eventually may make the payment to complete the process and wind up being a success story.
It’s hard to pinpoint precisely how many people have paid their premiums, since companies like Humana and United have not yet disclosed numbers. Aetna has said that 70 percent of their enrollees paid premiums in January, and of those who signed up before January, 90 percent paid their premiums. WellPoint has reported that a majority of its 500,000 enrollees have paid premiums but not a “vast majority” as of yet.
Insurance industry officials are also raising questions about whether the White House really does not know how many people have paid into the system, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has suggested.
Pressed by Fox on Wednesday about how many of the 3.3 million enrollees have paid premiums, Carney said the data rests with the industry. “It is a contract between an individual or – well an individual even representing his or her family – and a private insurance provider,” he said. “So insurance companies obviously have data about when those payments were made, but this would be no different from any other insurance contract that you would – you would purchase.”
A senior insurance industry source said the administration actually does have at least a rough idea of how many people have paid into the system because that determines who gets government subsidies, so the administration has to eventually know who’s paying into the system in order to make sure subsidies are going to the right people.
As a rough example, an industry source said if a consumer has to pay a $100 monthly premium for coverage and the government subsidy is worth $80, the consumer only pays the $20 difference to the insurance company. The $80 subsidy is later paid by the government directly to the insurance company, so the insurance companies have to show the administration who is paying into the system in order to get that reimbursement.
An administration official confirmed that the key federal agency involved does get some payment data, but stressed the administration is more focused on getting the payment system completed over the long term.
“CMS receives aggregate-level enrollment data on a monthly basis from issuers that are owed payments of marketplace financial assistance,” said the official. “However, enrollments on the individual level for all issuers will be measured in the long term” using documents known as 834 forms.
The official added that some health plans have already begun providing those forms, “which will eventually be the mechanism for making payment and reporting enrollment data as part of our automated system.” Once that system is fully operational, the official said, “we will determine the most appropriate way to make detailed payment information available.”

Democrats who oppose Keystone XL pipeline own shares in competing companies

Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have thousands of dollars invested in direct competitors to the company looking to build the pipeline, public records show.
A recent environmental assessment by the State Department was seen as a step toward the pipeline’s approval, but Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., remains opposed to its construction.
“In my view, there is now enough evidence to conclude that construction of this pipeline is not in America’s long-term interest,” Kaine said in a statement on the review.
The freshman Democrat has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Kinder Morgan is looking to build a pipeline that would directly compete with Keystone.
Kinder Morgan is considering expanding its Canadian pipeline infrastructure with an expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which carries oil sands crude from Alberta to refineries and export terminals on Canada’s west coast.

Missouri Senate endorses bill that would nullify federal gun laws

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –  Missouri senators endorsed legislation on Tuesday that seeks to nullify U.S. gun restrictions and send federal agents to jail for enforcing such laws, though the measure would likely face a court challenge if it gets approved in the state.
Courts have consistently ruled that states cannot nullify federal laws, but that hasn't stopped Missouri and other states from trying.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Brian Nieves, the Republican sponsoring the bill, said the legislation would protect law-abiding gun owners from federal encroachments and regulations. Missouri Republicans began pushing for the legislation following President Obama's call last year for increased background checks and a ban on assault weapons.
The legislation would subject federal agents to civil and criminal penalties for knowingly enforcing federal gun laws. Agents could face up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine.
"This is primarily purposed to protect liberties of Missourians," said Nieves, of Washington.
The measure also would give school districts the option to designate personnel to carry a concealed weapon in school buildings after undergoing training. Opponents argue that provision would increase access to firearms, which could then lead to more instances of gun violence.
"I cannot support this legislation in good conscience," said Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis. "Kids are killing kids in school."
An amendment was added to require school districts to hold a public meeting before allowing personnel to carry in buildings. That provision's sponsor said he hopes that would cause districts to think twice before letting guns in the classroom.
"I believe my parents would say we don't want our teachers to carry guns and our school board members would then have to look at the consequences of that decision," said Rep. Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City.
Holsman's amendment would also allow designated personal to choose to carry pepper spray instead of a weapon.
Another provision of the bill would let holders of concealed gun permits carry firearms openly, even in municipalities with ordinances banning open carry. It would also lower the minimum age to get a concealed weapons permit to 19, down from 21. Under the bill, health care professionals could not be required to ask or document whether a patient owns a firearm.
The Senate also approved an amendment sponsored by Nasheed that would give gun owners 72 hours to report a stolen firearm to law enforcement.
Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a similar measure that the Republican-controlled Legislature passed last year.
Nieves' bill is less specific than last year's version about which federal laws it seeks to nullify. It removes references to the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts, while keeping generic references to fees, registration and tracking policies that are considered "infringements" or "have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership" of guns and ammunition by law-abiding citizens.
The measure needs one more affirmative vote in the Senate before heading to the House.

House Republicans fighting Treasury Dept. effort to limit political activities of tax-exempt groups

Republican lawmakers are fighting back against what they call an effort by the Obama administration to silence the political speech of tax-exempt groups, including those originally targeted by the IRS. 
A House panel passed a bill Tuesday that would delay regulations by the Treasury Department designed to limit the political activities of so-called social welfare groups.
Treasury officials claim the regulations would help clarify vague rules about which groups qualify for tax-exempt status, but congressional Republicans believe the regulations are an attempt to legalize the targeting of conservative groups.
“Make no mistake about it: the Obama administration is doing this as a blatant attempt to silence political speech,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said in a statement.
The proposed regulations came after IRS officials acknowledged last spring that agents had improperly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.
The Ways and Means Committee voted 23-13 to pass a bill that would block the regulations for a year. It was a straight party-line vote, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. The full House is expected to take up the bill after the House returns from its Presidents' Day vacation.
Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said delaying the regulations would give Congress and the Justice Department time to finish their investigations.
"The notion that the administration would rush forward with rules intended to remove these groups from the public forum is simply unacceptable," Camp said. "I have long made clear that this committee will fight any and all efforts to restrict the rights of groups to organize, speak out and educate the public."
Senate Republicans have embraced the effort but the bill has little chance of becoming law because Democrats oppose it. Democrats said the bill is little more than an election-year ploy by Republicans to rally the party base. They note that final regulations probably wouldn't be issued for at least a year, anyway.
"Unfortunately, the proposed regulations are being used by Republicans in Congress to renew a tireless campaign to turn the issue into a scandal that would pay political dividends," said Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.
The regulations would apply to social welfare groups applying for tax-exempt status under section 501(c) 4 of the tax code. Under current regulations, these groups can engage in politics, but their primary mission cannot be to influence the outcome of elections.
"It is about disclosure," said Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. "Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have the right to say anything you want — and also not pay any taxes."
The current regulations have led IRS agents to ask groups intrusive questions about the amount of time they spend on activities that are potentially political.
The proposed rules would limit certain "candidate-related political activity,” but leave open the question of how much the activity would be restricted.
Limited activities would include voter drives and voter registration efforts, as well as ads that "expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party." Also included would be ads that mention a politician or a political party within 60 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary.
Republicans have raised myriad concerns in recent weeks about the status of the IRS controversy. The Justice Department has received complaints over the slow pace of the investigation and the discontent grew louder after officials announced last month they aren’t expecting criminal charges will be filed in the case.

The Hillary Papers: Archive of 'closest friend' paints portrait of 'ruthless' first lady

On May 12, 1992, Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake, top pollsters for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign, issued a confidential memo. The memo's subject was "Research on Hillary Clinton." 
Voters admired the strength of the Arkansas first couple, the pollsters wrote. However, "they also fear that only someone too politically ambitious, too strong, and too ruthless could survive such controversy so well." 
Their conclusion: "What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary." 
The full memo is one of many previously unpublished documents contained in the archive of one of Hillary Clinton's best friends and advisers, documents that portray the former first lady, secretary of State, and potential 2016 presidential candidate as a strong, ambitious, and ruthless Democratic operative. 
The papers of Diane Blair, a political science professor Hillary Clinton described as her "closest friend" before Blair's death in 2000, record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky. 
The archive includes correspondence, diaries, interviews, strategy memos, and contemporaneous accounts of conversations with the Clintons ranging from the mid-1970s to the turn of the millennium. 
Diane Blair's husband, Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of "Cattlegate," a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife's papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death.

Contractor hired to fix Healthcare.gov reportedly has history of problems

Accenture, the contractor fired to fix ongoing problems with the federal health exchange website, has been heavily criticized by some of its largest clients, including federal agencies, according to a published report. 
The Washington Post reports that the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General's Office recommended this past June that the agency consider terminating more than $200 million in contracts with Accenture. The recommendation cited an "absence of business ethics" by the firm, including a 2011 settlement with the Justice Department to resolve allegations of "kickbacks" and "bid-rigging" in federal contracts. Accenture, which paid $63 million to resolve the claims, denied the allegations. 
The Obama administration announced last month that it had tapped Accenture to become the lead contractor for Healthcare.gov after cutting ties with CGI Federal, which handled the site's troubled launch this past Oct. 1. Technical glitches blocked many prospective customers from initially using the site, and while enrollment has picked up, the numbers have struggled to recover from the early setback and reach the administration's benchmarks. 
Accenture's contract to oversee Healthcare.gov is believed to be for one year and worth an estimated $91 million. Experts interviewed by the Post were divided over whether Accenture was the right choice to tackle the ongoing problems of the site, with one IT consulting firm executive saying Accenture was "at the top of the stack" in the industry. However, the same executive also questioned whether Accenture's relative lack of experience in health care would be an issue. Citing the government spending tracker website USASpending.gov, the Post reported that less than $50 million of Accenture's $10 billion in federal contracts has involved the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 
The Post reports that nearly 30 projects undertaken by Accenture over the past 10 years have encountered problems like technical malfunctions and cost overruns. Among the troublesome federal projects spotlighted by the Post include a computer system for the Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service, which regulates the oil industry. A 2007 report  quoted an accounted as telling auditors that the system took longer to use than the one it replaced. 
Between 2004 and 2007, the Post reports that the Pentagon and four states canceled Accenture contracts to develop online voting for voter registration systems. And in 2006, a report by the IT firm The Wendell Group blasted a tax office computer system for the District of Columbia developed by Accenture. The report found that the system incorrectly calculated penalties and interest on tax bills and called it "poorly designed" and "mismanaged."
"There is a real concern," Daniel I Gordon, the former head of government procurement policy for the Obama administration, told the Post. "This company has problems in their past performance that are relevant and recent ... The real question is whether the government did its due diligence."

Vets face crashes, delays on fed's online benefits system like those that plagued ObamaCare site

The glitches and other problems with the ObamaCare website that sparked a national firestorm are similar to those military veterans using the federal government’s online benefits system have routinely faced for about the past 18 months.
Eric Jenkins, a veteran and American Federation of Government Employees representative, recently told Congress that during January, the Veterans Benefits Management System crashed about once a week, with downtimes ranging from one hour to multiple days.
“The constant … technical issues and frequent shutdowns make it difficult for me and others to serve veterans,” Jenkins told a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee.
The $537 million system went online in fall 2012 at a Department of Veteran Affairs office in New England and is now in all 56 regional offices.
The change to a paperless system was a major part of the Veterans Affair’s goal of eliminating a massive backlog of compensation claims by 2015 with 98 percent accuracy.
The number of claims started skyrocketed in 2010, to more than 1 million annually, in large part because of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
But Jenkins and other critics say the push to slash the backlog has created its own problems, similar to those experienced by insurance shoppers on the ObamaCare website, HealthCare.gov.
Jenkins said the VA computer system had to be rebooted four times during one week, resulting in him losing all the electronic claims on which he was working, with no paper documents as backup.
The problem is “quantity over quality,” he said in testimony Wednesday before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
The federal ObamaCare website and the 14 state-run exchanges went online in October, but their early debut also was spoiled by crashes, as well as slow response times and the dissemination of inaccurate information.
Jenkins, a disabled combat veteran and a VA service representative,  also pointed out that the benefits management system has another problems similar to one during the rollout of ObamaCare -- more users compound slow response times.
Subcommittee Chairman John Runyan, R-Pa., said the regular, weekly shutdowns “weren’t the only problems” with Veterans Affairs systems, pointing to a recent security breach of the electronic benefits system that reportedly compromised the personal data of 1,400  users.
“The lack of security is of tremendous concern,” he said.
Nevada Rep. Dina Titus, the subcommittee’s top ranking Democrat, said: “We’re not overly impressed by the systems’ security and consistency.”

Exclusive: AIDS patients in Obamacare limbo as insurers reject checks

By Sharon Begley and Julie Steenhuysen

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hundreds of people with HIV/AIDS in Louisiana trying to obtain coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform are in danger of being thrown out of the insurance plan they selected in a dispute over federal subsidies and the interpretation of federal rules about preventing Obamacare fraud.

Some healthcare advocates see discrimination in the move, but Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana says it is not trying to keep people with HIV/AIDS from enrolling in one of its policies under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The state's largest carrier is rejecting checks from a federal program designed to help these patients pay for AIDS drugs and insurance premiums, and has begun notifying customers that their enrollment in its Obamacare plans will be discontinued.

The carrier says it no longer will accept third-party payments, such as those under the 1990 Ryan White Act, which many people with HIV/AIDS use to pay their premiums.

"In no event will coverage be provided to any subscribers, as of March 1, 2014, unless the premiums are paid by the subscriber (or a relative) unless otherwise required by law," Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana spokesman John Maginnis told Reuters.

AIDS FUNDS EXEMPT FROM FRAUD CONCERNS

The dispute goes back to a series of statements from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the lead Obamacare agency.

In September, CMS informed insurers that Ryan White funds "may be used to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments" for Obamacare plans.

In November, however, it warned "hospitals, other healthcare providers, and other commercial entities" that it has "significant concerns" about their supporting premium payments and helping Obamacare consumers pay deductibles and other costs, citing the risk of fraud.

View gallery

In this Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2013, file photo, Rosemary Cabelo uses a computer at a public library to …

The insurers told healthcare advocates that the November guidance requires them to reject payments from the Ryan White program in order to combat fraud, said Robert Greenwald, managing director of the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, a position Louisiana Blue still maintains.

"As an anti-fraud measure, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana has implemented a policy, across our individual health insurance market, of not accepting premium payments from any third parties who are not related" to the subscriber, Maginnis said.

On Friday, CMS spokeswoman Tasha Bradley told Reuters that, to the contrary, Ryan White grantees "may use funds to pay for premiums on behalf of eligible enrollees in Marketplace plans, when it is cost-effective for the Ryan White program," meaning that having people with HIV/AIDS enroll in insurance under Obamacare could save the government money.

"The third-party payer guidance CMS released (in November) does not apply to" Ryan White programs.

Maginnis did not respond to further requests, sent after business hours, for comment on CMS's Friday statement.

Hundreds of indigent HIV/AIDS patients are dependent on Ryan White payments for Obamacare because they fall into a gap. They are not eligible for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, because Louisiana did not expand the low-income program, and Obamacare federal subsidies don't kick in until people are at 100 percent of the federal poverty level.

Before Obamacare, the 1990 Ryan White Act offered people with HIV/AIDS federal financial help in paying for AIDS drugs and health insurance premiums, especially in state-run, high-risk pools.
Obamacare, which bans insurers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, was designed to replace these high-risk pools.
Starting on October 1, AIDS advocates and others in Louisiana "were enrolling anyone and everyone we could" through the Obamacare exchange, said Lucy Cordts of the New Orleans NO/AIDS Task Force.
Last month, her clients and those of other AIDS groups began to hear from Louisiana Blue that their enrollments were in limbo because the company would not accept the Ryan White checks for premium payments.
The only other carrier that is refusing to accept such payments is Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, according to a CMS official.

North Dakota Blue "restricts premium payment from third parties including employers, providers, and state agencies," said spokeswoman Andrea Dinneen, but "is currently reviewing its eligibility policies with respect to recipients of Ryan White Program funding."

'SURE LOOKS LIKE DISCRIMINATION'

Healthcare advocates are worried that the refusal to accept Ryan White payments is an effort by insurers to keep AIDS patients from enrolling in their plans and last month began pressing the issue, including with the office of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu.

In an email reviewed by Reuters, a healthcare expert on Landrieu's staff wrote, "BCBS LA told me their decision was not due to the CMS guidance or any confusion (as we thought before) but was in fact due to adverse selection concerns. I have also recently learned North Dakota's BCBS plan has implemented the same policy."

Jessica Stone, the Landrieu staff member, declined to elaborate on the email further or to discuss her interactions with Louisiana Blue.

Adverse selection refers to the situation where an insurer attracts patients with chronic conditions and expensive care. Louisiana Blue's action "sure looks to us like discrimination against sick people," said John Peller, vice president for policy at the AIDS Foundation of Chicago.

Asked if it were engaging in efforts to avoid adverse selection by refusing to accept Ryan White payments for would-be customers with HIV/AIDS, Louisiana Blue said it was not trying to keep such customers out of its plans. "We welcome all Louisiana residents who chose Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana," said Maginnis.

LA Times: California’s ObamaCare execution has been something of a hot mess

Because getting through the signup process, dear enrollees, was only the beginning. It was only ever going to be the beginning, really.

After overcoming website glitches and long waits to get Obamacare, some patients are now running into frustrating new roadblocks at the doctor’s office.
A month into the most sweeping changes to healthcare in half a century, people are having trouble finding doctors at all, getting faulty information on which ones are covered and receiving little help from insurers swamped by new business.
Experts have warned for months that the logjam was inevitable. But the extent of the problems is taking by surprise many patients — and even doctors — as frustrations mount.
Aliso Viejo resident Danielle Nelson said Anthem Blue Cross promised half a dozen times that her oncologists would be covered under her new policy. She was diagnosed last year with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and discovered a suspicious lump near her jaw in early January.
But when she went to her oncologist’s office, she promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.

Conservatives have been warning about the limited networks and fewer healthcare options that insurers were bound to use as a way to help control costs since before the law’s passage; some of the law’s cheerleaders finally caught on just a tad bit later; and now that the law has gone into effect, Americans are living it. And if organizing just the signup process through the website was such a shame spiral of royal bureaucratic incompetence on so many fronts, you know that trying to administer the actual healthcare system through it is going to be just as bad — as California also aptly showcased today. Again via the LA Times:

Admitting it gave some consumers bad information, California’s health insurance exchange pulled its physician directory for having too many errors.
Covered California made the move late Thursday amid growing frustration among both consumers and doctors over inaccurate information about insurance networks in the state marketplace.
The exchange yanked its online directory of medical providers in mid-October after acknowledging there were serious problems then with the data. It published an updated list in November. …
The exchange said Thursday that “while the combined provider directory was a useful service for many consumers, some enrollees located physicians thought to be in their plan, and subsequently discovered they were not.”

The state suggested that enrollees “who are unsatisfied with their provider network still have time to cancel their coverage and sign up with a different insurer” before enrollment ends in March — but I doubt that that’s much comfort to the people for whom signing up in the first place was a tortuously drawn-out trial, or for the people who are discovering that they cannot, in fact, keep their doctor. Or, you know, “if you want to, you can pay for it.” It’s a matter of “choice,” or something.

posted at 7:21 pm on February 7, 2014 by Erika Johnsen     hotair.com

Justice Dept. latest to apply privileges, protections for same-sex spouses

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Saturday evening that the Justice Department will now follow a landmark Supreme Court ruling on same-sex spouses, which means they will no longer be compelled to testify against each other in civil and criminal cases.
The policy changes mean same-sex spouses also should be eligible to file jointly for bankruptcy and have the same rights and privileges in federal prison as inmates in heterosexual marriages.
Prosecutors have used various legal challenges against the spousal privilege. But Holder made clear the federal government will no longer make such challenges, even in states where same-sex marriages are not recognized.
The changes will officially be made through a policy memorandum to be issued Monday.
“This means that, in every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States -- they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law,” Holder said at the Human Rights Campaign’s Greater New York Gala.
Among the agencies under the Justice Department that will be impacted by the changes are the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Holder also said same-sex couples will now qualify for several Justice Department benefits programs, including the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and benefits to surviving spouses of public safety officers who suffer catastrophic or fatal injuries in the line of duty.
“This landmark announcement will change the lives of countless committed gay and lesbian couples for the better,” said campaign President Chad Griffin. "While the immediate effect of these policy decisions is that all married gay couples will be treated equally under the law, the long-term effects are more profound. Today, our nation moves closer toward its ideals of equality and fairness for all."
Holder's speech was criticized by the conservative National Organization for Marriage.
"This is just the latest in a series of moves by the Obama administration, and in particular the Department of Justice, to undermine the authority and sovereignty of the states to make their own determinations regulating the institution of marriage," said Brian Brown, the group's president. "The changes being proposed here to a process as universally relevant as the criminal justice system serve as a potent reminder of why it is simply a lie to say that redefining marriage doesn't affect everyone in society."
Holder compared this generation’s efforts to achieve same-sex marriage rights to those in the 1960s for achieving civil rights and said the stakes “could not be higher.”
"The Justice Department's role in confronting discrimination must be as aggressive today as it was in Robert Kennedy's time," Holder said of the attorney general who played a leadership role in advancing civil rights.
The changes are the most recent application of a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision applies to legally married same-sex couples seeking federal benefits.
After the Supreme Court decision last June, the Treasury Department and the IRS said that all legally married gay couples may file joint federal tax returns, even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.
The Defense Department said it would grant military spousal benefits to same-sex couples. The Health and Human Services Department said the Defense of Marriage Act is no longer a bar to states recognizing same-sex marriages under state Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management said it is now able to extend benefits to legally married same-sex spouses of federal employees and annuitants.
Holder told his audience:
--The Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases should have the same legal rights as all other married couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouse.
--The U.S. Trustee Program will take the position that same-sex married couples should be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly and that domestic support obligations should include debts such as alimony owed to a former same-sex spouse.
-- Federal prisoners in same-sex marriages will be entitled to visitation by a spouse, inmate furloughs during a crisis involving a spouse, escorted trips to attend a spouse's funeral, correspondence with a spouse and compassionate release or reduction in sentence based on an inmate's spouse being incapacitated.

The Waste List

$100 Million On DOJ Conferences  - $100,000,000

In addition, the DOJ staff hosted numerous conferences around the country. In 2010 alone, the department spent nearly $100 million on conferences, which is twice what was spent two years earlier. This includes more than $600,000 in event-planner costs for five conferences, even though the need for this was not shown.
The food at these conferences was also exorbitant. For example, coffee and tea cost from 62 cents to $1.03 an ounce. At the $1.03-per-ounce price, a 12-ounce cup of coffee would have cost $12.36!

Source: Chairman Bob Goodlatte, “Excessive waste at Department of Justice,” Politico, 4/10/13

IRS-Gate

GOP proposal would require food stamp recipients to show photo ID

Several House Republicans have introduced a proposal that would require food stamp recipients to show photo identification when making purchases -- a move they say is necessary to prevent fraud in the program that aids 1 in 7 Americans.
Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., introduced the SNAP Verify Act, which would require individuals who receive acceptance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to present a photo ID when buying products at stores that accept food stamp recipients. 
"My bill simply requires the photo identification of authorized users of SNAP electronic benefit cards at the point of transaction," Salmon said in a statement. "With over $750 million in SNAP card and food trafficking fraud each year, it is time Congress take action to address the rampant waste in this program." 
Salmon said conducting effective oversight for the program has proven difficult as food stamp spending grows. He cited a Government Accountability Office report showing that $2.2 billion in benefits were erroneously handed out in 2009 alone.
Several Republicans have signed onto the bill as co-sponsors, including Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Bill Posey, R-Fla., David Schweikert, R-Ariz., and Jack Kingston, R-Ga.
There is no federal requirement to show photo identification at the time of food purchases, though some states have the option to require a photograph of individuals using SNAP program's Electronic Benefits Transfer system. 
In Rhode Island, legislation has been filed in the state's General Assembly that would force residents trying to buy products using a food stamps to present photo ID.
The proposal by Rep. Patricia Morgan, R-West Warwick, would apply to those using electronic benefit cards to redeem other public assistance too. It would be up to retailers to check the photo ID against the name on the government-issued EBT card. 
On Friday, President Obama signed into law an agriculture spending bill that will expand federal crop insurance and ends direct government payments that go to certain farmers, while trimming the nation's  $100-billion-per-year food stamp program. 
The bill finally passed with support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers from farming states, but the bipartisan spirit didn't extend to the signing ceremony at at Michigan State University where Obama was flanked by farm equipment, hay bales and Democratic lawmakers.
Conservatives wanted much larger cuts to food stamps than the $800 million Congress finally approved in a compromise. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told reporters he did not expect the cut of about 1 percent of the food stamp budget to have a significant impact on recipients.

James Carville joining Fox News as contributor

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville has been hired as a Fox News contributor. 
The former Bill Clinton adviser will join the network to provide political commentary. Bill Shine, executive vice president of programming, announced the move on Thursday. 
"James' successful and storied career in politics over several decades is an enormous asset to Fox News," Shine said. "We are privileged to have him lend his breadth of experience, wit and dynamic perspective on the network." 
Carville helped lead Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign; he continued to serve as a senior political adviser in the Clinton White House. 
Carville went on to work as a consultant, and also as a political contributor at CNN. 
Carville is currently a political science professor at Tulane University. He has written several books, including with his wife, GOP strategist Mary Matalin.

WaPost: Obamacare Computers Not Yet Equipped to Fix Errors

The HealthCare.gov website is not yet equipped to handle appeals by thousands of people seeking to correct errors the system made when they were signing up for the new federal healthcare law, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.
The newspaper, citing sources familiar with the situation, said appeals by about 22,000 people were sitting untouched in a government computer.
"And an unknown number of consumers who are trying to get help through less formal means — by calling the health-care marketplace directly — are told that HealthCare.gov's computer system is not yet allowing federal workers to go into enrollment records and change them," according to the Post.
It added that the Obama administration had not made public the problem with the appeals system.
Despite efforts by legal advocates to press the White House on the situation, "there is no indication that infrastructure . . . necessary for conducting informal reviews and fair hearings has even been created, let alone become operational," attorneys for the National Health Law Program were quoted as saying in a December letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, which oversees HealthCare.gov.
The Post quoted two knowledgeable people as saying it was unclear when the appeals process would become available.
The system is designed to allow people filing appeals to do so by computer, phone or mail. But only mail is currently available, the newspaper said.
Asked to comment, a CMS spokesman said: "As we work to fully implement the appeals system, CMS is working directly with consumers to address concerns they have raised through this process.
"We have found that the appeals filed are largely related to previous system errors, most of which have since been fixed. We are inviting those consumers back to healthcare.gov where they can reset and successfully finish their applications without needing to complete the appeals process," Aaron Albright said in an email.
"We are also working to ensure that consumers who wish to continue with their appeal are able to do so," he said.
The healthcare law, known as Obamacare, is designed to provide health coverage to millions of uninsured people in the United States, but was plagued by a botched rollout in October.
The Obama administration said in late January that enrollment soared in recent weeks to about 3 million.
Addie Wilson, 27, of Fairmont, W.Va., said she is paying $100 more a month than she should for her insurance. "It is definitely frustrating and not fair," she said.
In December, Wilson found herself in a bind. Her old insurance was running out and she needed surgery. The healthcare.gov site was not capable of calculating the federal subsidy due to her and Wilson did not want her coverage to lapse.
She asked a navigator at a federal call center what to do and was advised to sign up, pay the full price, and appeal later. Now, she has discovered there is no system in place to process her appeal.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-computers-cant-handle/2014/02/03/id/550481#ixzz2sdPaqDEr
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

House GOP bill aims to end ‘secret science’ in EPA rulemaking

Republican lawmakers in the House are pushing legislation that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing new regulations based on science that is not transparent or not reproducible.
The Secret Science Reform Act, introduced Thursday by Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., would bar the agency from proposing or finalizing rules without first disclosing all "scientific and technical information" relied on to support its proposed action.
"Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups,” Schweikert said in a statement. “For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions.”
Several of Schweikert’s fellow House Science Committee members have signed onto the bill as co-sponsors, including Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas., Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., and Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas.
In December, members of the House Science Committee accused agency of disregarding ignoring dissenting voices on its independent science advisory review board in its push to impose carbon dioxide limits on new power plants.  
Smith said the proposal “prohibits EPA from using secret science to justify new regulations."
"The American people foot the bill for EPA's costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based upon publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA's claims,” Smith said in a statement.
Meanwhile, some states are considering legislation aimed at banning or curtailing future environmental regulations that would be costly to local energy industries.
In Idaho, Rep. Paul Shepherd, a conservative legislator, has introduced a proposal to declare restrictions handed down by the EPA unconstitutional, touting the bill as a way for Idaho to call the shots while disregarding federal regulations on air and water pollution.
In particular, his bill would help dredge miners whose work was being impeded by what they say is unnecessarily restrictive pollution rules.
Although the House State Affairs Committee voted Thursday to send the proposal to a full hearing, it was met with deep skepticism from lawmakers who questioned its legality.
The Idaho Legislature has a history of using largely symbolic legislation as a gesture of defiance against what they view as oppressive government controls.
In Indiana, the Republican-controlled Indiana House approved a bill that would bar state environmental regulators “from adopting a rule or standard that is more stringent than” corresponding federal rules or standards.
If the bill passes the Legislature, it could reportedly have numerous ramifications, including limiting what rules the Indiana Department of Environmental Management could propose to address the large amounts of manure produced by the state’s big livestock farms.

Obamacare

Insurers face pressure for limiting doctor choice for ObamaCare enrollees

Bailey Comment: " I'm thinking this is one of the reasons that the Canadians come over here for medical. Now that ours is just as crappy, where are they gonna go?"

Federal and state regulators and lawmakers are stepping up pressure on the insurance industry for offering plans under ObamaCare that limit access to doctors and hospitals -- a strategy insurers say is necessary to keep coverage prices low in the health law's marketplaces. 
The Wall Street Journal reports that some state legislatures are weighing bills that could force insurers to add more hospitals and doctors to plans, while federal regulators have proposed a tougher review process for plans to be sold next year through HealthCare.gov.
The access problem is a byproduct of the effort to drive down costs of subsidized coverage, prompting insurance companies to offer limited choices of doctors and hospitals.
Under a federal proposal announced this week, insurance companies selling plans in the federally-run marketplace would be required to submit to the government a full list of providers in a network before the plans are approved for the exchanges, The Wall Street Journal reported.
A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told the newspaper it is "working to strengthen the network adequacy requirements that took effect for this year."
In Washington state, Seattle Children's Hospital has sued over the state insurance department's decision to approve networks that didn't include the facility. The hospital is excluded from five of seven plans on Washington’s state insurance exchange, according to Bloomberg News.
The hospital says is struggling to get paid for care given to about 125 children it has treated since Jan. 1, when ObamaCare coverage took effect. The facility will be required to pick up costs beyond the standard deductible if insurers refuse to cover their services.
"We made the decision to see all the children," Sandy Melzer, the facility's strategy officer, told Bloomberg News. "Maybe we’ll be paid, maybe we won’t. It’s completely done on faith." 
The family of 5-month-old Gabriella Blankers visited Seattle Children’s last month for a CT scan that found a rare birth defect. They said they were initially rejected by their insurer because the hospital wasn't in their network, though the insurer later made a temporary exception, according to the report.
"There’s nowhere else I could go," to get the care Gabriella needed, Rebekah Blankers, the girl’s mother, told Bloomberg News. "Unless I went out of state, out of network, or out of pocket."
Lawmakers in a Washington state Senate committee heard a proposal this week that would reportedly allow health insurance companies to keep offering insurance plans that don't meet the new federal and state requirements. But they would only be offered to people who were enrolled in such plans as of Oct. 1, 2013.
Senate Bill 6464 also would let insurers from other states sell plans to Washingtonians without requiring the carriers to meet Washington state insurance regulations.
When President Obama announced he would leave it up to the states to decide whether to continue to offer some old plans for a while, Washington's Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler said he would not allow it.
Meanwhile, in Mississippi, proposed legislation would bar insurers from cutting off most doctors and hospitals that agree to prices set by insurers. The bill also would prohibit insurers from charging higher copayments at certain doctors' offices or hospitals, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

The Obamacare Security Nightmare: It Gets Worse

 
Michelle Malkin | Feb 05, 2014

 Fraudsters on the inside, hackers on the outside. Here we are, stuck in the middle with the security nightmare called Obamacare. Can it get any worse? Yes, it can.
After the spectacular website crashes during last fall's federal health insurance exchange rollout, enrollees will soon wish the entire system had stayed down and dead. "404 Error" messages and convicted felon Obamacare navigators may be the least of our health care tech problems now. The latest? U.S. intelligence agencies notified the Department of Health and Human Services last week that the Healthcare.gov infrastructure could be infected with malicious code.
Who's responsible? Washington Free Beacon national security reporter Bill Gertz writes that U.S. officials have "warned that programmers in Belarus, a former Soviet republic closely allied with Russia, were suspected" of possible sabotage. A government tech bureaucrat in the Belarusian regime bragged last summer on Russian radio that HHS is "one of our clients" and that "we are helping Obama complete his insurance reform."
Gulp. When an authoritarian minion from the country known as "Europe's last dictatorship" boasts about "helping" the Obama White House, be afraid. One of our intel people spelled it out for Gertz: "The U.S. Affordable Care Act software was written in part in Belarus by software developers under state control, and that makes the software a potential target for cyber attacks."
No kidding. The friends of Vladimir Putin are not our friends. If you've been paying attention, you know that Belarus and other Eastern European hacking gangs have been at the center of several recent international cybercrimes. These aren't merely schemes to steal credit card numbers or vandalize websites with annoying graffiti. They're acts of espionage and sabotage -- like using malware in a phishing scheme aimed at White House employees to gather military intelligence and pilfer sensitive government documents.
It's not just the federal health care system's problem. Former Obamacare website contractor CGI still holds dozens of contracts with other federal agencies and state governments worth billions of dollars -- and wide access to health and financial data. In my state of Colorado, for example, CGI has a $78 million contract to "modernize, host and manage" the state's financial system. Have they checked to see whether Belarus hackers are standing by?
For their part, Obamacare officials are making their usual "don't worry about it, the problem's under control" noises. But we already know the problem is far out of control. Last month, GOP oversight hearings exposed persistent failures by Obamacare overseers to fix security lapses.

Administrators reverse ban on American celebration at high school

The sun was just beginning to rise over the Rocky Mountains, but Sheriff Justin Smith was already awake. He was standing outside Fort Collins High School – shivering in the frigid cold.
It was 12 degrees. Snow was falling. But Mr. Smith, wearing his dress blues, stood resolute, waving an American flag.
The sheriff of Larimer County, Colorado had come to school Tuesday to send a message to those responsible for educating the county’s children. The sheriff was not in a good mood.

Whoever would have thought that American teenagers would be treated as second-class citizens in their own country?

He was standing in the winter snow to protest the school’s decision to ban a celebration of American patriotism.
The student council had wanted to designate a day during Spirit Week to celebrate the red, white & blue. The young people called it “’Merica Monday.” But the school turned down their request.
“They said they didn’t want to offend anyone from other countries or immigrants,” a 16-year-old member of the student council told me. “They just really did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.”
But after a day of righteous Rocky Mountain outrage, the principal at Fort Collins High School reversed course and apologized. 
Principal Mark Eversole sent a letter to parents announcing that next Monday would in fact be America Day.
Following is the entire letter that was obtained by Fox News Radio affiliate KCOL:

“We apologize for our recent decision regarding My Country Monday and that it was seen as not patriotic. This could not be further from the truth. The original intent of Spread the Love week at Fort Collins High School was to unify the student body. When students first proposed "Merica Monday," we felt that it was against this unifying theme and disrespectful to our country. Merica is a slang term that is often used in a negative stereotypical way to describe life in the United States. This is what led us to discuss alternatives with students. We were surprised that our community interpreted our actions as anti-American. We are a proud public school in America and support many activities to celebrate our great nation. Due to this outpouring of sentiment and misinterpretation of our intentions, we have decided to rename the first day of Spread the Love week to "America Day" as opposed to "Merica Day." We look forward to enjoying the creativity and energy of our students as they celebrate their patriotism next week."

That’s not exactly how parents or students recall the events. They said they suggested “America Monday” but administrators rejected that idea. And members of the student council were adamant that the only reason the event was barred was to prevent non-Americans from being offended.
It seems to me that a public school administrator got caught with his hand in the multicultural cookie jar.
While  the school should be commended for doing the right thing and allowing students to celebrate America, whoever would have thought that American teenagers would be treated as second-class citizens in their own country?
And that’s why Sheriff Smith was standing in the bitter cold, waving his American flag – the one that normally flew outside his home.
“We can’t and we won’t stand for that kind of attitude in our schools,” Sheriff Smith told me in a telephone interview. “It’s our country. They’re our community schools. We will take them back and restore the values – the ones that made America the great nation it is today.”
“I realized I could not just sit on the sidelines,” he said. “I had to stand up and do something.”
Within minutes, he was joined by a dozen others – an uprising of patriots sick and tired of the anti-American venom spewing from public school administrators.
“This is really a sign of root problems we have,” he said. “A lot of us understand -- this anti-American sentiment has poisoned our schools – the ideas and beliefs that are preached to them.”
A sort of grassroots protest movement unfolded early Tuesday on KCOL, the local news radio station that carries my daily commentary. Callers unleashed their fury over the airwaves. Students from the high school emailed passionate messages.
Among them, was a young man – a tenth grader who asked not to be identified.
“I'm personally outraged at the school that we can celebrate every other culture but our own,” this young American teenager wrote. “We have activities that go on during Cinco de Mayo but we can't celebrate and honor our own country [where] we live I'm very angry.”
As Sheriff Smith and his frozen band of patriots waved their flags, drivers honked their horns, bus drivers waved and students stopped to watch.
“It was important to send a message to students,” the sheriff said. “They needed to know they are not alone and that they did the right thing by standing up. I hope when they and their parents saw their sheriff standing out in front of the school – they knew they weren’t alone.”
The sheriff is correct. These brave young men and women are not alone.
We are compelled to stand alongside our fellow countrymen at Fort Collins High School.
Patriotism must never be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
“This is a wake up call,” Sheriff Smith said. “We’ve been given the blessing of a wake up call as to what is going on (in our school). Now the question is -- what do we do about it?”

Hillary’s ‘inevitability’: Is it her fault, or the media echo chamber?

The media drumbeat began the day after the 2012 election: Hillary’s inevitable.
It grew louder when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sat for a joint “60 Minutes” interview: Hillary’s inevitable.
It grew louder still as she was plastered on one magazine cover after another: Time, the New York Times Magazine, and on and on.
It grew deafening when media polls showed her 60 points ahead of any potential Democratic challenger. And really, goes the journalistic refrain, what Republican is going to beat her?
She’s a juggernaut. She’s unstoppable. She’s the next president of the United States.
And now comes the carping: How dare Hillary project an aura of inevitability? Where does she get off? This is a huge mistake!
That’s right: the media, which have wrapped Hillary in the cloak of inevitability, are now echoing complaints that she hasn’t taken to the rooftops to shout: No I’m not!
This debate is crystallized by a story in Buzzfeed, which is a good piece of reporting in that it gets some Obama aides and strategists on the record in warning about Hillary’s strategy. But the underlying assumption is that the former secretary of State is mounting this huge campaign-like effort, when she insists she hasn’t made up her mind about running.
“Top advisers and former aides to Barack Obama say Hillary Clinton is repeating the mistakes she made in 2008, building a machine in lieu of a message and lumbering toward the Democratic nomination with the same deep vulnerabilities that cost her the nomination eight years earlier,” says Buzzfeed.
White House pollster Joel Benenson is quoted as saying: “I just don’t see any strategic value in stories positioning her as inevitable or the pre-emptive nominee, and I don’t think people who are out there talking about this help her, and I think she should make that clear.”
And 2012 Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt says: “Even if it is a well-known candidate — sometimes more so — activists, donors, and voters like to see candidates fighting for every vote.”
They have a point. Hillary’s top-heavy operation proved the media wrong in 2007 and 2008 as she blew an election in which she was overwhelmingly favored—and was upset by an upstart named Obama.
It’s also true that despite her occasional speeches, she doesn’t have a message. But that’s essentially because she’s not a candidate. And if she starts acting more like a candidate, she will be subjecting us to a three-year campaign and taking lots of incoming Republican fire.
Lots of other front-runners have laid low until they had to announce. But there’s never been anyone like Hillary: potentially the first female president, wife of a controversial ex-president, and a political persona that overshadows all possible rivals, even an incumbent vice president.
To underscore that point, a CNN poll showing her with a 55-39 lead over Chris Christie, after he had been leading her by 2 points in December. Of course, that has more to do with the governor’s bridge troubles, but it adds to the Hillary aura. She leads every other major GOP contender by at least 15 points. (Standard warning: such early polls are largely meaningless.)
Clinton is acquiescing as groups such as Ready for Hillary raise money on her behalf, but I doubt that’s the root of her problem since she can’t be legally involved.
She also has to retool for the Twitter age. One mistake that Clinton made in her last campaign was barely showing her warmer side. So she tries a joke--a Super Bowl tweet that tweaked Fox--and everyone goes bananas and overanalyzes it.
The biggest problem she will face, in my view, is that by 2016 many people will be sick of her. She will seem like a status quo incumbent, running for a third Obama term, while the Republicans are promising change. That’s why a lower-profile 2014 makes sense for her.
 In the meantime, the press will keep on saying Hillary is inevitable. And I can’t see how she muffles that.

Senator rebukes IRS over decision to reinstate 2013 employee bonuses

The IRS' announcement Monday that it will pay cancelled 2013 bonuses has infuriated Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who wants to know why an agency with employees who “inappropriately” targeted conservative political groups would reinstate the rewards.
“The IRS is accused of targeting conservative groups, with many of its employees having conducted themselves in a manner inappropriate for government officials, and the agency decides to reinstate employee bonuses?” asked Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. “This is outrageous.”
The announcement was made by new IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who said the performance bonuses were reinstated after agency employees repeatedly asked him about them during his first weeks on the job and after reaching a deal with the Union for Federal Employees.
The targeting scandal broke in spring 2013 when the agency revealed it had targeted for closer scrutiny Tea Party groups and other politically conservative organizations that were applying for tax-exempt status.
The revelations resulted in an inspector general report as well as FBI and congressional investigations. Though agency officials said originally the targeting was limited to a Cincinnati, Ohio field office, the probes revealed that higher-ranking officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters knew about the situation and that liberal groups also were targeted but to a lesser extent.
President Obama in May 2013 asked for the resignation of acting Commissioner Steven Miller. And Louis Lerner, the agency’s director of Exempt Organizations, resigned in Sept. 2013 after refusing to testify before Congress several months earlier.
“It’s hard to think of a group of people less deserving of bonuses than IRS employees,” Hatch said. “I understand that not every IRS worker was responsible, but this just is the wrong signal to send the American people who were rightly outraged by how this agency treated people for their political views.”
Koskinen said last year was an “extremely challenging budget year” because of sequestration so “a tough decision had to be made last summer to eliminate the bonuses.”
He also said that in light of the agency’s “continuing dire budget situation” the award payouts will be about 1 percent, less than the 1.75 percent provided in previous years.

‘Not even a smidgen of corruption’: Obama downplays IRS, other scandals

President Obama, in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, tried to put behind him the scandals that have hung over his second term, suggesting his administration did not mislead the public on the Benghazi attack and going so far as to say the IRS targeting scandal had “not even a smidgen of corruption.”
Obama addressed concerns over Benghazi, the launch of HealthCare.gov and the IRS, during the interview Sunday before the Super Bowl. He adamantly rejected the suggestion that the IRS was used for political purposes by singling out Tea Party groups seeking tax exemption.
“That’s not what happened,” he said. Rather, he said, IRS officials were confused about how to implement the law governing those kinds of tax-exempt groups.
“There were some bone-headed decisions,” Obama conceded.
But when asked whether corruption, or mass corruption, was at play, he responded: “Not even mass corruption -- not even a smidgen of corruption.”
He acknowledged that then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman had been to the White House more than 100 times but said he couldn’t recall speaking to him on any of those occasions.
Obama also downplayed the controversy over how the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks were described by the administration.
He said he considers any such strike an act of terror and that he was told by then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the time only that it was an “attack” -- and that the more important issue is whether security lapses have now been fixed.
“All of the security precautions that needed to be taken didn’t happen,” the president said. “The key is that we’ve implemented the reforms that have been recommended.”
He also said his administration didn't try to “hide the ball” regarding the attacks, in which four Americans were killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
“We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time,” the president said.
Obama also claimed that the attackers were made up of a mix of people, some affiliated with terror organizations and others who were just “troublemakers.” A recent report from the Senate Intelligence Committee, though, definitively declared that individuals tied to Al Qaeda groups were involved.
On the rocky launch of the health care exchange system, Obama said he anticipated problems with the rollout of ObamaCare in October, particularly with the HealthCare.gov website because computer programs have glitches.
“But neither I nor anybody else anticipated the degree of problems with HealthCare.gov,” he said.
The president argued that total enrollment is now just about a month behind schedule and that young people, key to making ObamaCare work, are enrolling at a good rate.
He would not answer when asked repeatedly why he kept Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on the job.
“I try to focus not on the fumbles but on the next play,” he said.

Thousands of ObamaCare site error appeals reportedly going unfixed

Thousands of people who tried to sign up for a health plan via the federal healthcare exchange website, Healthcare.gov, have seen their appeals to fix site issues go unanswered.
The Washington Post, citing internal government data, reports that approximately 22,000 Americans have filed appeals to try and get site errors corrected. The complaints range from being denied coverage altogether to being overcharged for coverage to being steered into the wrong program. 
So far, months after the site launched October 1, the appeals have been untouched. What's more, the Post reports, people who have tried to call the marketplace directly for assistance, have been told that the Healthcare.gov computer system is not yet allowing workers to correct enrollment records. 
In theory, error appeals can be filed through the site itself, by phone, or by mail. However, only the mail appeal is currently available. But according to the Post, the appeal by mail process only goes as far as scanning the seven-page forms and transferring them to a computer system, where they currently sit unread and uncorrected. 
A CMS spokesman told the Post "We are working to fully implement the appeals system." In the meantime, the paper reported, applicants are being told to go back to Healthcare.gov and start over, thought it is not clear how many of the 22,000 who complained of errors have done so. 
However, the lack of action on appeals means that some who signed up for plans taking effect January 1 have been stuck with health plans costing them too much. One of those, 27-year-old West Virginian Addie Wilson, told the Post she was paying $100 more per month than necessary for her insurance, with a deductible that's $4,000 too high.

Total Value of Government Waste: $36,986,404,949

$8 Million PR Contract To Promote Obamacare  - $8,000,000

The Obama Administration is spending $8 million of taxpayer dollars to promote Obamacare.

Christie pushes back against NY Times, former ally

 Bailey Comment: " If Chris is the best choice for the 2016 GOP presidential candidate, the Republicans are in trouble."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie fought back Saturday against new allegations regarding his involvement in the bridge-closing scandal, criticizing The New York Times and a former political ally-turned-accuser.
The embattled Republican governor defended himself in an email to friends and supporters in which he says former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey appointee David Wildstein “will do and say anything to save David Wildstein.”
The email -- titled “5 Things You Should Know About The Bombshell That's Not A Bombshell” -- was sent by the governor’s office and obtained by Fox News.
The scandal focused on the bridge closings of access lanes on the George Washington Bridge in September, causing massive traffic disruption. The closures appeared to be political retribution by Christie appointees at the Port Authority against a Democratic mayor who did not support Christie's successful 2013 re-election bid.
The New York Times story published Friday, based on a letter from Wildstein’s lawyer, suggested “evidence exists” that shows Christie knew about the lane closings, despite the governor vehemently and publicly saying he neither ordered them nor knew why others did.
The 5-point e-mail from Christie's office begins by targeting The Times, accusing the paper of shoddy reporting, subject to numerous corrections.
“A media firestorm was set off by sloppy reporting from the New York Times and (its) suggestion that there was actually ‘evidence’ when it was a letter alleging that ‘evidence exists,’ ” begins the email, obtained first by Politico.
The initial story said stated Wildstein in fact had evidence to prove Christie’s knowledge.
The email also argues that Wildstein, who has asked for immunity in the scandal, has past that includes people and newspaper accounts describing him as "tumultuous" and that he  created a “culture of fear” within the Port Authority.
Wildstein resigned in December after being sought for testimony by the Assembly committee investigating the lane closures.
Christie, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, has been under attack by Democrats and others since revelations about the bridge closing surfaced, and was forced to hold a 2-hour-long news conference in January to deal with the scandal.

Welcome Illegals FREE STUFF

Islamic group once tied to terror trial received thousands in farm subsidies, without growing crops

Bailey Comment: "What the h***'s wrong with our government, and how are we going to fix it"? 


An Islamic organization once listed by the Justice Department as a co-conspirator in a high-profile terror case is among many groups that have received thousands in federal farm subsidies, without producing any crops. 
The subsidies to the North American Islamic Trust are just a slice of the questionable payments that, as has been well documented, go to millionaires and non-farmers every year. But as Congress moves to rein in the program, these subsidies stand out considering the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation case of 2008. During the trial, the group's farm subsidies stopped, only to be reinstated after a federal judge cleared them.
Records show that since 1998, the North American Islamic Trust has received over $10,000 across 34 separate taxpayer-funded programs. NAIT's two relatively small land plots are tax-zoned as "agricultural" -- but they aren't developed.
The group has been able to obtain farm subsidies legally without producing any crops because it is a nonprofit "charity group" landowner -- so it received subsidies on top of being tax-exempt.
"Organizations with no history in agriculture are getting in on taxpayer-provided farm subsidies," said Adam Andrzejewski, founder of the transparency database OpenTheBooks.com and former Republican candidate for governor of Illinois.
He said the NAIT's subsidies are "probably legal," adding: "The federal farm bill has become so large that it has nothing to do with 'preserving the family farm' or 'creating a stable food supply'."
The North American Islamic Trust's history is complicated -- as the offshoot of the Muslim Students Association and its financial arm, NAIT was founded in 1973 by Middle Eastern-born college students. The majority of NAIT's founders were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the group continues to be backed by Saudi Arabia. NAIT uses Shariah-approved investing with its own company, Allied Asset Advisors, to buy and pool mosques and community centers. Former Allied Asset Advisor board member, Jamal Said, preached the most conservative forms of Islam and was specifically named as a co-conspirator in the terror-funding case.
In the Holy Land Foundation case of 2008, which prosecuted investors charged with sending  money to Hamas, NAIT was named by U.S. federal prosecutors as a co-conspirator and an entity that is or was "a member of the Muslim Brotherhood" (the parent organization of Hamas).
The Holy Land Foundation's five accused individuals were sentenced for funneling $12.4 million to the terror group, which controls the Gaza Strip and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. NAIT never was formally charged in the case.
NAIT's sheer size may have worked against it. An estimated one in five mosques in the United States is owned by NAIT; those properties are estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Several of these mosques, though, have been places of worship for those convicted in terror activities.
But even before a verdict in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation case had been reached, NAIT appealed their co-conspirator status, saying that they had "suffered injuries" from a "public branding."
In October of 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court overturned the group's "co-conspirator" status after NAIT's appeal and pressure from the ACLU. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said "if NAIT could have been accurately characterized as a joint venture," that "does not carry an inherently criminal connotation."
NAIT's farm subsidies stopped in 2008 during the trial and were first received again in 2011.
Every farm subsidy to the North American Islamic Trust has been received at the mailing address of the Islamic Center of Central Missouri Mosque, records show. The USDA lists the "farm location" as Boone County, Mo. But aerial searches of the "agricultural" properties owned by the North American Islamic Trust reveal that the plots are undeveloped, tree-dotted land combined to form just over 100 acres valued at about $59,000.
The North American Islamic Trust and the Islamic Center of Central Missouri did not reply to multiple requests for comment.
According to the USDA and OpentheBooks.com, about half of NAIT's subsidies were "Direct Payments," a program which costs taxpayers an annual $5 billion. By 2011, the North America Islamic Trust began obtaining subsidies under the auspice that it is a "church, charity, or non-profit organization."
The payment program in question, though, could be under the budget knife in the latest farm bill which passed through the House earlier this week.
The federal government began farm subsidies during the Great Depression, in part because farmers were producing surplus crops and could not sell to a struggling market. The total cost for farm pay-outs in 1995 was just over $8.1 billion, when planted farm acreage in the United States stood at roughly 260 million. By 2012, taxpayers were subsidizing farmers by nearly double when planted acreage had decreased by millions of acres.