Inmates getting coverage under ObamaCare, as states shift cost to feds

(Bailey) No matter how they try to spin it, we the taxpayers get the bill.
WASHINGTON –  The Obama administration often touts that people with pre-existing conditions and countless others can now get covered under ObamaCare. But there's another group that's starting to benefit from the law -- prison inmates. 
Cash-strapped state and local prisons increasingly are using the Affordable Care Act to pay for their inmates' medical costs, taking advantage of a little-known provision that lets them shift some of those expenses to the federal government.
Ohio, Illinois and Iowa are among the states trying to offload the rising costs of health care – which include mental health programs – by enrolling inmates into a new expanded Medicaid program when they get sick. 
But it doesn't stop there. The states also are working to enroll them even before they're released from prison, so they have coverage when they get out.
Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia are proceeding with a Medicaid expansion which allows them to extend medical coverage to single and childless adults. Jail operators in at least a half-dozen of those states are then, using that criteria, extending coverage to inmates. The shift means the federal government would pay some emergency costs that used to be entirely covered by the states and counties -- plus, inmates are starting to get coverage for when they leave.
Proponents of shifting prisoners into the expanded Medicaid -- in turn giving them access to health care, including mental health and rehab services, when they are released -- say this reduces recidivism. Others, though, argue that federal taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to foot the multibillion dollar bill.
“The political element of ObamaCare is that we were helping what we called the deserving poor or what we used to call the deserving poor,” Manhattan Institute fellow Avik Roy told Fox News. “A group of people who are just down on their luck … bring them the opportunities they need to get ahead and get back on their feet. And sometimes that’s true of people who served time in prison, and sometimes it’s not.”
Former Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota who was on the Senate Finance Committee when ObamaCare passed, put his concerns bluntly in an interview with Bloomberg.
“It starts to look a little like a scheme by the states and local jurisdictions to avoid responsibilities that are really theirs,” he said.
But for cash-strapped states that have figured this out, sending inmates onto the federal rolls may be hard to pass up -- a Pew study of 44 states found that in 2008, prisoner health costs hit $6.5 billion. Further, the benefits for inmates can be significant.
Unlikely to be able to afford private health care coverage when they are released, many inmates previously were unable to get covered. Pre-ObamaCare, Medicaid, a federally funded health option, was available to five categories of people: children below a certain age, the disabled, seniors, pregnant women and parents of Medicaid-eligible children (though some states offered it to more groups).
The ObamaCare expansion extends eligibility to single and childless adults. As for when they're still in jail, while Medicaid does not cover standard health care for inmates, it does pay for hospital stays off-site lasting more than 24 hours. For example, it would pay for complicated in-patient surgeries or stays in a psychiatric facility.
Roy argues that offering health care at a local level is often more efficient and more productive than handing off the responsibility to the federal government. He calls the Medicaid system “poorly designed and poorly structured.”
But states say freeing up millions in their recession-depleted budgets is worth it.
The process begins early for prisoners in Illinois’ Cook County Jail.
Cook County, the largest single-site jail complex in the United States, has started more than 13,000 insurance applications since last April. Once prisoners there are booked, fingerprinted and assigned a cell, they meet with a worker from Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities who helps them apply for Medicaid.
More than 2,000 prisoners already have gone on to receive coverage after their release, Marleza Jentz of the sheriff’s public policy office said.
Jails in California reportedly also are looking at making this shift. And in Iowa, state correction officials and human services departments are setting up a plan to enroll inmates in their public health insurance program before they are released from prison.
Prison officials will likely help inmates complete their applications shortly before they are released. Prison administrators will then send the applications to human services officials who will complete the process and ensure inmates are covered when they are paroled or finish their sentences.
“We want success,” Department of Corrections administrator Katrina McKibbin recently told a group of reporters. “We want increased public safety.”
Iowa releases about 4,000 prisoners a year.
Under the old Medicaid plan, the federal government would pay 58 percent of the cost of care while the state and local government picked up the other 42 percent. Under the expansion of the Medicaid program under ObamaCare, the federal government would absorb 100 percent of the extra costs for the first three years which would then go down to 90 percent by the end of the decade.
Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report.

Flood

Mozilla chief learns, if you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job

As we enter this golden age of tolerance and diversity, the nation’s gay rights community is sending a warning message to Americans: If you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job.
Apparently, Brendan Eich did not get that message. He’s the former chief executive officer at Mozilla, the technology group that gave us the Firefox Web browser.
Eich resigned under a firestorm of controversy after it was revealed he had donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that protected traditional marriage.
It’s unclear who outed Eich. But that really doesn’t matter. Once his donation was revealed, supporters of gay marriage launched all-out war.

I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.

The Wall Street Journal reported that OKCupid, the popular online dating website, asked its followers to stop using Firefox. The wireless company Credo Mobile gathered more than 50,000 signatures on a petition calling for Eich to resign.
OKCupid posted a letter denouncing the Mozilla CEO, The New York Times reported.
“Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure,” the letter stated.
Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property? Why not take away their right to vote? Why not take away their children? Why not just throw them in jail? Why not force them to work in chain gangs? Why not call for public floggings? Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.
Eich won’t say he was forced to resign, but based on the company’s press release, it’s safe to say his days were numbered.
“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote in a statement. 
“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”
She went on to opine about freedom of speech and equality. In her estimation, one trumps the other.
“Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” she wrote. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”
No, not really, Ms. Baker. Our Founding Fathers sort of worked that out in the Bill of Rights.
I write about this very issue in my upcoming book, “God Less America.” There are pages and pages filled with stories of workers and business owners who’ve either lost their jobs or faced public floggings for their support of traditional marriage.
The left does not believe people who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to engage in the democratic process. And they have a proven track record of intimidating and bullying those who do.
Just ask Angela McCaskill, the chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University. She was suspended after she signed a petition in her church to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.
Just ask Scott Eckern, the former artistic director of California Musical Theatre. He resigned under pressure after he gave money to support Prop 8. As one activist told The New York Times, “I do believe there comes a time when you cannot sit back and accept what I think is the most dangerous form of bigotry.”
Just ask our nation’s top military officials. They were called into President Obama’s office and told that if they could not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should resign their commissions.
“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked at all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” said Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp in remarks reported by Buzzfeed.
The road to political correctness is littered with the bodies of folks like Brendan Eich sideswiped by the tolerance and diversity bus.
I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.
I know this may sound old-fashioned, but gainful employment should not be determined by where you put your reproductive organs.
Tolerance is a bitch, ain’t it?

GOP lawmakers push EPA to ax proposed water rule amid outcry from farmers

  (Bailey) The EPA is another part of your American Government out of control. Everyone has to eat, even the dumb asses that pass these stupid regulations.

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider asserting regulatory authority over streams and wetlands amid intense backlash from farm groups over the agency's proposed water rule. 
In a letter Thursday, the GOP senators faulted the EPA for announcing a proposed rule last week before the government's peer-reviewed scientific assessment was fully complete. They are calling on the government to withdraw the rule or give the public six months to review it, rather than the three months being provided.
The senators' move puts them among several groups -- from farmers and land developers to Western governors worried about drought management -- in expressing concern about a long-running and heavily litigated environmental issue involving the Clean Water Act that has invoked economic interests, states' rights and presidential power.
The letter was led by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and signed by 14 other GOP senators.
"We believe that this proposal will negatively impact economic growth by adding an additional layer of red tape to countless activities that are already sufficiently regulated by state and local governments," the letter to EPA chief Gina McCarthy said.
Meanwhile, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, introduced appropriations language this week aimed at blocking the rule entirely. The proposed language states that "no funds shall be appropriated to study, promote, advertise, implement or otherwise promulgate" the rule. 
“This new rule is another power grab by [President] Obama. This is a brazen attempt to impose a radical redefinition specifically rejected by Congress and the Supreme Court,” Stockman said in a statement. "Green radicals have tried for decades to pass this redefinition by law, but it was too radical to pass even a Democrat-controlled Congress." 
Alisha Johnson, the EPA's deputy associate administrator for external affairs and environmental education, said the EPA's draft scientific assessment, used to inform the proposed rule, was being reviewed and wouldn't be complete until the end of this year or early next year. The EPA rule will not be finalized until the scientific assessment is fully complete, and will take into account public comments, she said. 
The proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary.
At issue is the federal Clean Water Act, which gives the EPA authority to regulate "U.S. waters." Two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 limited regulators' reach, but left unclear the scope of authority over small waterways that might flow intermittently. 
Landowners and developers say the government has gone too far in regulating isolated ponds or marshes with no direct connection to navigable waterways.
Some 36 states, including Pennsylvania, have legal limitations that prevent the EPA from regulating waters not covered by the Clean Water Act, according to the Environmental Law Institute.
Tile drainage systems would not be regulated and there would be no new requirements for irrigation and drainage ditches. Exemptions already granted for farming activities would continue and 53 agricultural conservation practices would be added to the list.   
But farmers who receive exemptions must also engage in an ongoing conversion practice that complies with Natural Resources Conservation Services standards, according to Stockman.
“Once the landowner completes the conservation practice or changes the use of his land, he loses his EPA exemption and must now comply with a new, and more complex, set of rules,” Stockman said. "In other words, the only way a farmer or rancher can exempt himself from the EPA rule is to adhere to a mountain of other new federal rules." 
Criticizing the proposal as a "serious threat" to farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation said Wednesday that the rule would impose new regulatory burdens on farmers, ranchers and other landowners and give the agency veto power over a farmer’s ability to work.
"This is not just about the paperwork of getting a permit to farm, or even about having farming practices regulated. The fact is there is no legal right to a Clean Water Act permit—if farming or ranching activities need a permit, [the] EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers can deny that permit," the group said in a statement.
The proposed regulation, broadly supported by environmental groups, has become a charged political issue in a midterm election year where President Obama has pledged to use his executive power as needed to push through environmental and climate change protections.
"It's the most breathtaking power grab I've seen in a long time, and they wonder why the economy is so weak," Toomey said in a Philadelphia radio interview this week.
Still, the issue is not divided strictly along partisan lines.
The proposed rule has drawn the concern of Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, chair of the Western Governors Association. He has warned federal officials that the rule change could impinge upon state authority in water management and that states should be consulted in the EPA decision-making. In recent years, Hickenlooper has urged the Obama administration to speed approval of water projects because of a looming water supply gap in Colorado.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Energy Department revives auto loan program despite Fisker flop

(Bailey) This is one of many examples of  American Government out of control.



The Obama administration announced this week it is reopening a loan program for advanced fuel-efficient vehicles that was derided by Republican lawmakers last year after two of the first five loan beneficiaries halted operations.
The Department of Energy said Wednesday it is reviving the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program and is reaching out to manufacturers of auto parts and components to apply for more than $16 billion in available funding, The Wall Street Journal reported. 
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the program, which has has provided $8.4 billion in funding since 2009, will have a revised application process to speed up reviews and address concerns from auto makers about the process being too complex.
"Today we are presented with an opportunity to hit the accelerator on U.S. auto manufacturing growth," Moniz said at a conference in Washington. "Motor vehicle parts manufacturers play a significant role in the development and deployment of new technologies to meet the demand for fuel-efficient vehicles." 
The program came under scrutiny after the department lost $139 million on a loan to electric car maker Fisker Automotive Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in 2013. Fisker received $192 million from the program before funding was pulled.
In September 2013, the Energy Department lost about $42 million on a loan to a shuttered Michigan company that made vans for the disabled. Vehicle Production Group, or VPG, suspended operations the same year after receiving $50 million in financing. 
The loan program did have success with electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc., which repaid its $452 million loan in 2013, according to the report. 
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who said at hearing last year that the program never should have considered Fisker, told the Wall Street Journal he questioned administration's plan to revamp the program.
"Despite the Energy Department's appalling track record of loan programs, which put taxpayer money on the line to fund junk-bond-rated companies, this administration will do anything to shove their ideology-driven policy forward.," Issa said in a statement.
The Reublican-led House is expected to vote on a budget proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that would essentially dissolve the auto loan program, the Washington Examiner reported.
At a Thursday hearing on the Energy Department's 2015 budget, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., voiced concerns about the reopening the program. 
"I remain highly skeptical of the federal government playing venture capitalist," Upton was quoted as saying. "The revival of the loan guarantee program that backed Solyndra ... is of serious concern."

Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina

(Bailey) Do you really think all these elections are on the up and up?
State elections officials in North Carolina are investigating hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud after identifying thousands of registered voters with personal information matching those of voters who voted in other states in 2012.
Elections Director Kim Strach told state lawmakers at an oversight hearing Wednesday that her staff has identified 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in two states during the 2012 presidential election.
Strach said the first names, last names, birthdates and last four digits of their Social Security numbers appear to match information for voters in another state. Each case will now be investigated to determine whether voter fraud occurred.
"Could it be voter fraud? Sure, it could be voter fraud," Strach said. "Could it be an error on the part of a precinct person choosing the wrong person's name in the first place? It could be. We're looking at each of these individual cases."
WRAL.com reported that 81 residents who died before election day were recorded as casting a ballot. While about 30 of those voters appear to have legally cast ballots before election day, Strach said "there are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that's not possible."
"We have the 'Walking Dead,' and now we've got the 'Voting Dead,'" said state Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg. "I guess the reason there's no proof of voter fraud is because we weren't looking for it." 
Strach cautioned, however, that in several past cases, instances of so-called zombie voters turned out to be the result of clerical errors. 
"We're in the process of looking at each of these to see," Strach said. "That means either a poll or precinct worker made a mistake and marked the wrong person, or someone voted for them. That's something we can't determine until we look into each case."  
A law passed last year by the Republican-dominated state legislature required elections staff to check information for North Carolina's more than 6.5 million voters against a database containing information for 101 million voters in 28 states.
The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states. However, in those cases middle names and Social Security numbers were not matched.
The analysis also found 155,692 registered North Carolina voters whose information matched voters registered in other states but who most recently registered or voted elsewhere. Strach said those were most likely voters who moved out of state without notifying their local boards of elections.
Republicans leaders immediately touted the preliminary report as evidence they were justified in approving sweeping elections changes last year that include requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls, cutting days from the period for early voting and ending a popular civics program that encouraged high school students to pre-register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.
“That is outrageous. That is criminal. That is wrong, and it shouldn’t be allowed to go any further without substantial investigations from our local district attorneys who are the ones charged with enforcing these laws,” state Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-Wilmington, told the Charlotte Observer.
State House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, and Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, issued a joint statement Wednesday on what they termed as the "alarming evidence." 
"While we are alarmed to hear evidence of widespread voter error and fraud, we are encouraged to see the common-sense law passed to ensure voters are who they say they are is working," said the statement. "These findings should put to rest ill-informed claims that problems don't exist and help restore the integrity of our elections process."
However, other states using the cross-check system have yielded relatively few criminal prosecutions for voter fraud once the cases were thoroughly investigated.
Only 11 people were prosecuted on allegations of double-voting as a result of the 15 states that performed similar database checks following the 2010 elections, according to data compiled by elections officials in Kansas, where the cross-check program originated.
Bob Hall, director of the non-profit group Democracy North Carolina, cautioned officials not to jump to conclusions based on the preliminary database check.
"I know there is more than one Bob Hall with my birth date who lives among the 28 states researched," Hall said. "There may be cases of fraud, but the true scale and conspiracy involved need to be examined more closely before those with political agendas claim they've proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Voting rights advocate Bob Phillips of Common Cause NC told WRAL.com that while he is concerned about the report, it still doesn't justify requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.
"I think a lot of [lawmakers] are saying, 'Aha, this proves what we did,'" Phillips said. "But if I have an ID, how is that going to stop me from voting in North Carolina if I've already voted in Florida?"
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Lower Costs?

Oregon State University pays $101,000 to settle suit over trashed conservative paper

(Bailey) All these so called Universities only want a one party system, theirs!

Oregon State University has paid $1,000 plus $100,000 in legal fees to a former student to settle a lawsuit over the confiscation of distribution boxes for a conservative-leaning student newspaper.
Supporters of the newspaper called The Liberty sued the school in 2009, alleging the university president and other school officials granted the official campus newspaper numerous bins while restricting The Liberty's distribution. 
The suit alleged that school officials confiscated distribution bins for The Liberty and tossed them onto a trash heap. The bins, which contained copies of the paper, were allegedly removed without notice and thrown next to a dumpster.
Lower-ranking campus officials said they removed The Liberty's boxes to beautify the campus, but distribution bins for the campus paper were reportedly left untouched. Top school officials said they had not ordered the destruction.  
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had revived the lawsuit after a U.S. District Court judge dismissed it. The appeals court ruled that it had “little trouble finding constitutional violations” and that the university's policy that led to the alleged trashing "materialized like a bolt out of the blue." 
The Oregonian reported that the university did not acknowledge wrongdoing but agreed to the six-figure payout to William Rogers to end the lawsuit, which was dismissed Wednesday. 
Months after the lawsuit was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, the university changed its policies to allow approved student groups that publish newspapers to distribute them on campus. 
“We hope this case will encourage public officials everywhere to respect the freedom of students to engage in the marketplace of ideas that a public university is supposed to be,” David Hacker, an attorney with the Arizona-based group said in a statement. “The university has done the right thing, not only through changing their unconstitutional policy, but also by compensating the students for the violation of their First Amendment freedoms.”
Rogers was the paper's executive editor at the time. The Oregonian reported that The Liberty ceased operations at Oregon State after 2009. 
The Associated Press contributed to this report.