Thursday, December 31, 2015

MSNBC's peak leftism of 2015

By Thomas Lifson  December 31, 2015

We may never see another year of progressive madness like that broadcast by MSNBC in 2015.  Tired of dismal ratings (and possibly under pressure from its corporate owners at Comcast), those at the network have been implementing a turn toward hard news and away from hard left opinion programming.  Al Sharpton lost his weekday program but hangs on in the Sunday morning ratings canyon, while other lefties like Ronan Farrow, Ed Schultz, and Alex Wagner lost their shows entirely.
Thankfully, Melissa Harris Perry, the goddess of progressive inanity, still has her weekend show and continues to amuse us.
So savor the worst moments broadcast by MSNC in 2015, as compiled by David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon.  Unless George Soros buys Al Jazeera America, in a bankruptcy auction following a massive libel judgment awarded to Payton Manning, and converts it back to Current TV, we may never see this level of deranged leftism again in one year.







Form a Committee!

        


Oilman T. Boone Pickens has jumped into the political fray once again. Like many of us, he’s fed up with the current political climate and the dearth of “qualified” candidates for president. So he’s got a revolutionary new idea. We (he?) should put together a “bipartisan screening committee that vets presidential candidates like we do anyone else applying for a job.” Capital idea, T. (Or do you prefer to be called Boone?) As you point out, the current system of picking a leader is more akin to Reality TV than the hallowed system our forefathers envisioned. (Or is it? I’d have to double check but it seems it’s been quite some time since we had politicians literally shooting each other or beating each other with their canes on the floor of Congress.)

But I do have to ask, who gets to serve on this brilliant committee of yours? Who elects the electors, so to speak? And I will assume that, by “recommend” you actually mean “recommend” and that the decisions of this committee are in no way binding on the electorate as a whole so I’ll leave that dystopian thought alone.

And therein lays the rub. Like I said, capital idea. The only thing is, you’re about 227 years too late to the game. Sure, your ideal committee may be considerably smaller than the committee known as the registered voters of the United States, but the fact remains, we have a vetting process. And our vetting process, unlike many other nations, is more thorough than most. We all like to bemoan the seemingly endless campaign season but would a two-week campaign like they have in France, or even a three-month campaign like they recently had in Canada (it’s usually shorter than that) really be preferable? Maybe folks would pay more attention, but I doubt it. If the press and the people can’t properly vet a candidate in two years, I don’t see how they’re going to do it in two months. Politicians are masters at obfuscation and the less time they have to obfuscate the better for them and the worse for us.
And as to your smaller committee, provided its decision is not legally binding, we already have those too. Sure, most of them are not bipartisan the way you call for, but what the heck does “bipartisan” even mean anymore? People tend to coalesce around single issues; tax policy, foreign policy, guns, “family values”, the environment, etc. I’d like to think most of us are intelligent enough not to be single-issue voters but most of us also tend to hold one issue above all others regardless of party. So we join forces and form committees like the League of Women Voters or the Conservative Political Action Committee or the Americans for Tax Reform. Then most of us tend to coalesce around the two biggest committees; the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee.
So maybe I shouldn’t call it such a capital idea after all, Boone. Or perhaps it is best to quote Winston Churchill’s famous line about democracy being “the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Pickens ends his idea with a challenge for readers to come up with something better. What have I got? Well, as Reagan said in his landmark speech of 1964, “there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple.” And that answer is education, both in reason and in morality. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying the founders gave us “a republic, if you can keep it.” John Adams stated that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The apparent decay of our nation rests at no one’s feet but our own. We cannot blame our politicians. We cannot blame the faceless bureaucracy as comforting and convenient as those scapegoats may be. We turn out the first Tuesday of November every year to elect leaders from among us. Any of us can run and because of this “experiment” started more than two centuries ago we alone are responsible not only for the triumphs we face, but also for the failures.

So I agree. Form a committee, but not one to recommend a president. Instead, form a committee to raise our children up with knowledge, wisdom, and morality. Form a committee to help the struggling family buy groceries, then invite them over to your home for Christmas dinner and share something so much more important than food; your table and your love. Form a committee to help the kid struggling with his civics homework and tutor him after school every Tuesday. Form a committee to plant a tree or clean up a park. Form a committee with your neighbors and promise to watch over each other’s homes when you are away. Form a committee to be that shining city on a hill that Christ spoke of in his Sermon on the Mount. Be an example; for change happens not from pontificating and the passage of laws, but from example. We will never legislate our way to peace and prosperity. The only way to reach these hallowed ends is through personal action. We do this, we form not just committees but communities that serve as moral and reasonable examples for the rest, it won’t matter much who our president or other political leaders are for we will be the leaders of our own destinies. And we need not even wait until next November for our election is today.

Mark Griswold is a conservative radio show host and writer and lives in the Seattle area.  His opinions can be read at ThePoliticalBistro.com and heard on Seattle’s AM 1590 The Answer.




Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/form_a_committee.html#ixzz3vyWE1rRd
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate crimes: Different strokes

American Thinker

    



By Carol Brown

The Christmas Day firebombing of a Houston mosque got plenty of attention.  Perhaps because of all the pressure, a perp was rapidly arrested – and, to the embarrassment of all those Islamophobia-mongers, turned out to be a faithfull attendee, five times a day, seven days a week.  CAIR was quick to cry "bias":
Mustafaa Carroll, who is the executive director for the Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called on law enforcement to investigate, citing a recent spike in vandalism to mosques that have prompted hate crime investigations.
"We urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire," he said in a statement.
To the north and west of Texas, in the state of Nevada, some stupid prankster left a strip of bacon draped over the handles of a mosque located outside of Las Vegas.  Not only is it being treated as a possible hate crime, but the FBI is offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of the man seen on surveillance video placing the bacon on the door handles.

Wow.

And to think that about a year ago, when multiple swastikas appeared scattered throughout my neighborhood, I was told by law enforcement that it was probably just a bunch of kids acting up.  The message was loud and clear: the police didn’t take it very seriously and, indeed, it took several weeks before the swastikas were removed.

Obnoxious prank involving food that is forbidden under Islamic law on the door to a mosque = hate crime that warrants an FBI reward vs. swastikas, which are a symbol of genocide against Jews = childish prank.

OK.  Got it.

Of note, the majority of hate crimes based on religion are against Jews.  But what’s typically covered in the media are hate crimes (including those that are fabricated, such as here, here, and here) against Muslims.  And ironically, it’s worth noting that as religiosity rises in Islamic communities, so does anti-Semitism.  As a result, as the Muslim population in America rises, so too will anti-Semitism (as we see occurring in Europe).

But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the mainstream media to cover that story.

Hat tip: Jihad Watch, Your Houston News, Atlas Shrugs, Las Vegas Review Journal, Algemeiner




Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/antimuslim_and_antijewish_hate_crimes_different_strokes.html#ixzz3vyS2f8cn
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Congress moves to endorse Islamic blasphemy laws

American Thinker




By Carol Brown

There is a bill before Congress (HR569) that singles out hate speech against Muslims.  And then some.  As of this writing, the resolution, which is nothing short of sharia law, has 82 co-sponsors.  All of them are Democrats.  And while the bill has little to no chance of passing, it is a window into our future if we don’t change the self-destructive course we are on with respect to how we understand and relate to the Quran and those who follow its teachings.
The Gates of Vienna reports on this chilling reality – one we may have called creeping sharia in the not so distant past but is advancing at such a rapid pace and across such a broad spectrum of our society that “creeping” is now an outmoded term.  It’s racing, and it’s infecting every nook and cranny of our culture.
HR569 is just one of the latest stabs aimed at the heart of America.  It is Islamic supremacy and dhimmitude in action, as it elevates Muslims to a protected class, superior in position to all others.
Here is what the resolution says:
Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.
Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;
Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;
Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;
Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;
Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;
Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and
Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
  1. expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
  2. steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
  3. denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
  4. recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
  5. declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
  6. urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
  7. reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.
Listed below, in alphabetical order, are the ignorant cowards in Congress who are co-sponsoring this outlandish resolution.  These are the 82 people who want to make us second-class citizens in our own country.  These are the Democrats who are either ignorant or intentionally whitewashing the truth about Islam.  Either way, none of them deserves to be a dog catcher, much less a congressional representative.
Ashford, Beyer (sponsor; Va.-8), Brady (Penn.), Bustos, Butterfield, Capps,  Carson (Ind.), Castor (Fla.), Chu (Calif.), Clark (Mass.), Cohen, Connolly, Conyers, Crowley, Delaney, DelBene, Dingell, Doyle (Penn.), Edwards, Ellison, Esty, Farr, Gallego, Grayson, Green (Texas), Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hastings, Higgins, Hinjojosa, Heck (Wash.), Honda, Johnson (Ga.), Johnson (Texas), Kaptur, Keating, Kelly (Ill.), Kennedy, Kildee, Langevin, Lee, Loebsack, Lofgren, Maloney, Matsui, McCollum, McDermott, Meeks, Meng, Moore, Norton, (N.Y.), Pallone, Pascrell, Peters, Pocan, Polis, Price (N.C.), Quigley, Rangel, Ryan (Ohio), Sanchez (Calif.), Schakowsky, Serrano, Schiff, Schultz, Sires, Takai, Takano, Tonko, Tsongas, Van Hollen, Wasserman Wilson (Fla.), and Yarmuth.
As noted at the Gates of Vienna, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored will be used to validate the Muslim Brotherhood’s claims (via their various front groups) that hate crimes against Muslims have increased.  Never mind that Jews are targeted more than any other religious group for hate crimes, at a rate five to ten times more than Muslims.  In addition, although the resolution won’t pass, it’s an effective tool the M.B. can use to garner support in the Muslim community, in the media, among uninformed members of the electorate, and/or with useful idiots.  In addition, the M.B. can tout the resolution having 82 co-sponsors while also creating a backdrop against which to frame Republicans as racist, Islamophobic bigots who don’t care about or who outright support hate speech against Muslims.
This is a snapshot of things to come if we don’t change course.  Creeping sharia no longer creeps.  It is fully out in the open, and it is on the march.  This is what happens when you have an Islmophile for a president, your government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the clueless masses are hapless victims of media malpractice on the subject of Islam (and so many other topics).
Ring in the New Year by finding a hapless soul and exposing him to a taste of the truth.
There is a bill before Congress (HR569) that singles out hate speech against Muslims.  And then some.  As of this writing, the resolution, which is nothing short of sharia law, has 82 co-sponsors.  All of them are Democrats.  And while the bill has little to no chance of passing, it is a window into our future if we don’t change the self-destructive course we are on with respect to how we understand and relate to the Quran and those who follow its teachings.
The Gates of Vienna reports on this chilling reality – one we may have called creeping sharia in the not so distant past but is advancing at such a rapid pace and across such a broad spectrum of our society that “creeping” is now an outmoded term.  It’s racing, and it’s infecting every nook and cranny of our culture.
HR569 is just one of the latest stabs aimed at the heart of America.  It is Islamic supremacy and dhimmitude in action, as it elevates Muslims to a protected class, superior in position to all others.
Here is what the resolution says:
Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.
Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;
Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;
Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;
Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;
Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;
Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and
Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
  1. expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
  2. steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
  3. denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
  4. recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
  5. declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
  6. urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
  7. reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.
Listed below, in alphabetical order, are the ignorant cowards in Congress who are co-sponsoring this outlandish resolution.  These are the 82 people who want to make us second-class citizens in our own country.  These are the Democrats who are either ignorant or intentionally whitewashing the truth about Islam.  Either way, none of them deserves to be a dog catcher, much less a congressional representative.
Ashford, Beyer (sponsor; Va.-8), Brady (Penn.), Bustos, Butterfield, Capps,  Carson (Ind.), Castor (Fla.), Chu (Calif.), Clark (Mass.), Cohen, Connolly, Conyers, Crowley, Delaney, DelBene, Dingell, Doyle (Penn.), Edwards, Ellison, Esty, Farr, Gallego, Grayson, Green (Texas), Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hastings, Higgins, Hinjojosa, Heck (Wash.), Honda, Johnson (Ga.), Johnson (Texas), Kaptur, Keating, Kelly (Ill.), Kennedy, Kildee, Langevin, Lee, Loebsack, Lofgren, Maloney, Matsui, McCollum, McDermott, Meeks, Meng, Moore, Norton, (N.Y.), Pallone, Pascrell, Peters, Pocan, Polis, Price (N.C.), Quigley, Rangel, Ryan (Ohio), Sanchez (Calif.), Schakowsky, Serrano, Schiff, Schultz, Sires, Takai, Takano, Tonko, Tsongas, Van Hollen, Wasserman Wilson (Fla.), and Yarmuth.
As noted at the Gates of Vienna, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored will be used to validate the Muslim Brotherhood’s claims (via their various front groups) that hate crimes against Muslims have increased.  Never mind that Jews are targeted more than any other religious group for hate crimes, at a rate five to ten times more than Muslims.  In addition, although the resolution won’t pass, it’s an effective tool the M.B. can use to garner support in the Muslim community, in the media, among uninformed members of the electorate, and/or with useful idiots.  In addition, the M.B. can tout the resolution having 82 co-sponsors while also creating a backdrop against which to frame Republicans as racist, Islamophobic bigots who don’t care about or who outright support hate speech against Muslims.
This is a snapshot of things to come if we don’t change course.  Creeping sharia no longer creeps.  It is fully out in the open, and it is on the march.  This is what happens when you have an Islmophile for a president, your government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the clueless masses are hapless victims of media malpractice on the subject of Islam (and so many other topics).
Ring in the New Year by finding a hapless soul and exposing him to a taste of the truth.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/congress_moves_to_endorse_islamic_blasphemy_laws.html#ixzz3vxwfb3Kx
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The ObamaCare Wolf, Scratching at Your Door


By William Tate December 31, 2015 
 
"It's awful," the stressed-sounding voice on the phone declared. "It's just awful."
The voice belonged to my primary care doctor's office manager. She had just told me that my doc would not accept my health insurance in 2016, and that the nearest physician who would accept it is in a town a thirty-minute drive away. She was describing the dilemma that many of the doctor's patients now face. For our health insurance -- which we are now required by law to purchase, of course -- to be of any value, we will have to make an hour-long round trip just to see a doctor.
"If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."
The problem isn't that my insurance is from some fly-by-night insurance company; it's from one of the country's largest providers. Nor is the problem caused by a lack of doctors in our community. While relatively small -- its population is about 20,000 -- the town I'm in has a large medical community for its size. It's something of a retirement community and, with the various medical needs of a primarily older population, has accredited specialists in almost all fields. Further, it has both a regular hospital and a VA facility.
The problem is that the insurance company (not to name names, but it rhymes with Sue Moss), with which I've had an individual health insurance policy for a decade or more, has cancelled, not just my policy, but the entire class of such individual health insurance policies they'll offer in my area.
Not only can I, and many other people with individual policies, not keep our plans, but we can't even keep the type of plan we had before.
Before, I had what is termed PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) policies. These policies encouraged patients to see doctors in the insurance company's network, but would provide at least some benefits if the doctors were not in that network.
Starting in 2016, the company has cancelled PPO policies, in my region at least. It is now offering only HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) policies. HMO policies do not provide benefits for doctors who aren't in the company's network.
One other thing about the HMO-type plan: unlike the PPO plan, to see a specialist the patient is first required to see their primary care doctor to get a referral. Thus, another hour-long round trip -- and lengthy wait in the doctor's office -- to get a referral, whether it's to see a new specialist or the one specialist I've been seeing who'll accept the new policy.
HMO policies are also (a little, at least) cheaper than PPO policies. One reason is that the companies negotiate lower fees with doctors.
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period."
Doctors are not dumb. In my town, at least. They've decided that they're not going to lose money just because the big, bad insurance company told them to.
My primary care physician, and the three specialists I regularly see, were all in the company's PPO network. They're not in the company's HMO network. Now, to continue seeing my primary doc, who knows my medical history better than anyone else, and two of the specialists, I'll have to pay out of pocket.
That would be entirely reasonable according to my values, except that I will -- by force of law -- be paying $480 a month for a health insurance policy that, essentially, I won't use. Unless I decide to make that hour-long round trip -- and even then only if I can get in to see the doc in the other town. (As the only HMO primary care provider in the region, he's probably already overbooked.) Or unless -- and this is the biggie -- something catastrophic happens: a heart attack, serious injury, or other major medical condition which would otherwise bankrupt me.
Before the (Un)Affordable Care Act, or (U)ACA, I paid $336 a month for a PPO plan with a $3500 deductible (the amount the insured pays before the insurance company begins paying for most or all reasonable medical costs.) At the time, that was considered a high-deductible policy. Under that policy, again before the (U)ACA, I would have spent a maximum of about $7,500 a year for health care: the cost of my insurance and the cost of my out-of-pocket expenses.
This year, my PPO policy with the same company cost $570 a month with a $5000 deductible. Because of some conditions that have developed, I almost -- but not quite --reached the deductible in out-of-pocket medical expenses. That means my total medical costs, health insurance plus expenses, in 2015 totaled approximately $11,800.
Under the (U)ACA, my premium from the same company for essentially the same policy shot up 69%, my deductible went up 43%, and my total potential medical costs -- which were realized in 2015 -- increased by 57%.
That's the bad news. The good news is that -- thank you, Sandra Fluke -- I, as a middle aged man, now have access to free birth control pills.
That brings us back to the insurance company's decision to offer only HMO plans in my region. The plan I've chosen is their next to cheapest: $480 a month, with a $6,000 deductible. Thus, if I again near my plan's deductible this year -- which appears likely, given that my medical conditions aren't the kind that are likely to improve -- I will spend almost exactly the same amount of money ($11,760) as I did last year, but for a poorer quality plan with fewer choices in providers.
Only one other insurance company offers health insurance policies for people in my area. It does offer one PPO plan that doctors might actually accept... for $800 a month, with the same $6000 deductible. Total health expenses under that plan, essentially the same as I had before the (U)ACA -- would be $15,600, or an increase of 108% from before Democrats rammed this misguided policy down our throats.
I should point out that these are not 'ObamaCare' policies. They are individual policies bought directly from the insurance companies, not from the ObamaCare Exchange.
Why should this matter to you? So far, the major harm wrought by the (U)ACA has fallen on individual health insurance policy holders. We represent only 6% of all Americans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. They say eight times as many people get their health insurance through group policies from their employers. To minimize the political blowback, the Obama Politburo, uh, White House has postponed implementing many changes for employers' policies until 2016.
If the experience of individual policy holders holds true, and it should, those employers' health plans will soon see similar price hikes and service cuts. Many employers -- as even Obamacare-cheerleading PBS admitted -- will just drop health insurance forcing their employees to buy health insurance on their own, leaving them in the same vulnerable position as those of us who already have individual policies.
Either way, Americans who currently have health insurance through group policies will soon have fewer choices in doctors, costlier premiums, increased deductibles, and much higher -- possibly economically devastating -- overall health expenses.
Numerous studies show that as the cost of health care rises, people delay or refuse treatment, leading to more serious medical conditions, even death.
In the light of all the above, let's look at Obama's full quote about the (U)ACA:
"(N)o matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
It was declared Lie of the Year -- actually it should be Lie of the Decade, or Century even -- by left-leaning Politifact in 2013.
Obama lied. People will die.
It's awful. It's just awful.
"It's awful," the stressed-sounding voice on the phone declared. "It's just awful."
The voice belonged to my primary care doctor's office manager. She had just told me that my doc would not accept my health insurance in 2016, and that the nearest physician who would accept it is in a town a thirty-minute drive away. She was describing the dilemma that many of the doctor's patients now face. For our health insurance -- which we are now required by law to purchase, of course -- to be of any value, we will have to make an hour-long round trip just to see a doctor.
"If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."
The problem isn't that my insurance is from some fly-by-night insurance company; it's from one of the country's largest providers. Nor is the problem caused by a lack of doctors in our community. While relatively small -- its population is about 20,000 -- the town I'm in has a large medical community for its size. It's something of a retirement community and, with the various medical needs of a primarily older population, has accredited specialists in almost all fields. Further, it has both a regular hospital and a VA facility.
The problem is that the insurance company (not to name names, but it rhymes with Sue Moss), with which I've had an individual health insurance policy for a decade or more, has cancelled, not just my policy, but the entire class of such individual health insurance policies they'll offer in my area.
Not only can I, and many other people with individual policies, not keep our plans, but we can't even keep the type of plan we had before.
Before, I had what is termed PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) policies. These policies encouraged patients to see doctors in the insurance company's network, but would provide at least some benefits if the doctors were not in that network.
Starting in 2016, the company has cancelled PPO policies, in my region at least. It is now offering only HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) policies. HMO policies do not provide benefits for doctors who aren't in the company's network.
One other thing about the HMO-type plan: unlike the PPO plan, to see a specialist the patient is first required to see their primary care doctor to get a referral. Thus, another hour-long round trip -- and lengthy wait in the doctor's office -- to get a referral, whether it's to see a new specialist or the one specialist I've been seeing who'll accept the new policy.
HMO policies are also (a little, at least) cheaper than PPO policies. One reason is that the companies negotiate lower fees with doctors.
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period."
Doctors are not dumb. In my town, at least. They've decided that they're not going to lose money just because the big, bad insurance company told them to.
My primary care physician, and the three specialists I regularly see, were all in the company's PPO network. They're not in the company's HMO network. Now, to continue seeing my primary doc, who knows my medical history better than anyone else, and two of the specialists, I'll have to pay out of pocket.
That would be entirely reasonable according to my values, except that I will -- by force of law -- be paying $480 a month for a health insurance policy that, essentially, I won't use. Unless I decide to make that hour-long round trip -- and even then only if I can get in to see the doc in the other town. (As the only HMO primary care provider in the region, he's probably already overbooked.) Or unless -- and this is the biggie -- something catastrophic happens: a heart attack, serious injury, or other major medical condition which would otherwise bankrupt me.
Before the (Un)Affordable Care Act, or (U)ACA, I paid $336 a month for a PPO plan with a $3500 deductible (the amount the insured pays before the insurance company begins paying for most or all reasonable medical costs.) At the time, that was considered a high-deductible policy. Under that policy, again before the (U)ACA, I would have spent a maximum of about $7,500 a year for health care: the cost of my insurance and the cost of my out-of-pocket expenses.
This year, my PPO policy with the same company cost $570 a month with a $5000 deductible. Because of some conditions that have developed, I almost -- but not quite --reached the deductible in out-of-pocket medical expenses. That means my total medical costs, health insurance plus expenses, in 2015 totaled approximately $11,800.
Under the (U)ACA, my premium from the same company for essentially the same policy shot up 69%, my deductible went up 43%, and my total potential medical costs -- which were realized in 2015 -- increased by 57%.
That's the bad news. The good news is that -- thank you, Sandra Fluke -- I, as a middle aged man, now have access to free birth control pills.
That brings us back to the insurance company's decision to offer only HMO plans in my region. The plan I've chosen is their next to cheapest: $480 a month, with a $6,000 deductible. Thus, if I again near my plan's deductible this year -- which appears likely, given that my medical conditions aren't the kind that are likely to improve -- I will spend almost exactly the same amount of money ($11,760) as I did last year, but for a poorer quality plan with fewer choices in providers.
Only one other insurance company offers health insurance policies for people in my area. It does offer one PPO plan that doctors might actually accept... for $800 a month, with the same $6000 deductible. Total health expenses under that plan, essentially the same as I had before the (U)ACA -- would be $15,600, or an increase of 108% from before Democrats rammed this misguided policy down our throats.
I should point out that these are not 'ObamaCare' policies. They are individual policies bought directly from the insurance companies, not from the ObamaCare Exchange.
Why should this matter to you? So far, the major harm wrought by the (U)ACA has fallen on individual health insurance policy holders. We represent only 6% of all Americans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. They say eight times as many people get their health insurance through group policies from their employers. To minimize the political blowback, the Obama Politburo, uh, White House has postponed implementing many changes for employers' policies until 2016.
If the experience of individual policy holders holds true, and it should, those employers' health plans will soon see similar price hikes and service cuts. Many employers -- as even Obamacare-cheerleading PBS admitted -- will just drop health insurance forcing their employees to buy health insurance on their own, leaving them in the same vulnerable position as those of us who already have individual policies.
Either way, Americans who currently have health insurance through group policies will soon have fewer choices in doctors, costlier premiums, increased deductibles, and much higher -- possibly economically devastating -- overall health expenses.
Numerous studies show that as the cost of health care rises, people delay or refuse treatment, leading to more serious medical conditions, even death.
In the light of all the above, let's look at Obama's full quote about the (U)ACA:
"(N)o matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
It was declared Lie of the Year -- actually it should be Lie of the Decade, or Century even -- by left-leaning Politifact in 2013.
Obama lied. People will die.
It's awful. It's just awful.

SEAL TEAM 6 EXECUTED: 17 FAMILIES SAY CRASH Was an INSIDE JOB by OBAMA & HILLARY



VIA – Back in August [2013], I told you that Extortion 17, the downing of a Chinook helicopter with members of SEAL team 6 onboard (those that allegedly carried out the raid on Osama bin Laden), could be Barack Obama’s biggest scandal and one of his administration’s biggest acts of treason.

That report came after an interview I conducted with Billy Vaughn, father of slain Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn, who told Freedom Outpost that he wanted answers and those who were responsible for his son’s death to be held accountable. Now, many of the families believe that the incident, which has been deemed the largest loss of life in the Afghan war theater (38 deaths, including nearly two dozen Navy SEALs), was an inside job.
The Washington Times reports:
The investigative file made available to The Washington Times shows that the helicopter’s landing zone was not properly vetted for threats nor protected by gunships, while commanders criticized the mission as too rushed and the conventional Chinook chopper as ill-suited for a dangerous troop infiltration.

Larry Klayman, who runs the nonprofit watchdog group Freedom Watch, has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Pentagon, as well as the Air Force, Army and Navy. He wants a judge to order the military to turn over an array of documents under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. He said the Defense Department stonewalled his written requests, so Freedom Watch went to court last month and succeeded in forcing the government to turn over records.
For the first time, Mr. Klayman allowed The Washington Times to view the military’s investigative files turned over to family members two years ago.
“The families of our fallen heroes, who I am proud to represent, need closure to this tragedy,” Mr. Klayman said. “There are many unanswered questions and the military’s explanations of the causes of the crash do not add up.”
He said families also want changes to the military’s restrictive rules of engagement that made it more difficult for U.S. helicopter pilots to fire back at the Taliban fighters they believed brought down the Chinook.
“The families also want our military’s rules of engagement to be changed, as a testament to and in honor of their dead sons,” Mr. Klayman said. “When our nation enters into battle, it must be to win the battle, not the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Islamic jihadist enemy and the Muslim civilian population it uses as human shields.”
He also wants to know the identities of Afghan soldiers onboard, and why the aircraft’s black box, washed away in a fierce rainstorm, was never found — even though it has a homing device.
“We want to make sure our fallen heroes are respected and that answers are provided,” he said.
About a possible insider betrayal, he says: “We’re not saying that happened, but it needs to be explored because increasingly Americans are being killed at the hands of Afghans.”
While many of the family members expressed sentiments very similar to those of Billy Vaughn during our interview, it isn’t just the families of those lost that are questioning what happened. Many military personnel who were involved that night have questioned the operation afterwards.
“One of the other things that we did talk about — kind of what you’re hitting on, sir, is about the fact that, you know, for three hours we had been burning holes in the sky,” the navigator aboard the AC-130 gunship that loitered for three hours over Tangi Valley. “You’ve got [Apaches] flying around, so there’s a lot of noise going on and, basically, this entire valley knows that there’s something happening in this area. So, to do an infil on the X or Y, you know, having that element of surprise in the beginning of an operation is good, but by the time we’ve been there for three hours, and the party’s up, bringing in another aircraft like that, you know, may not be the most tactically sound decision.”
Some of the families believe their sons were betrayed by the Afghan government and that someone inside tipped off the Taliban. This would be right in line with the “green on blue” attacks that have escalated in Afghanistan, resulting in the loss of many American lives.
The families also believes that the SEALs took off in the wrong aircraft, something that Billy Vaughn pointed out during our interview. A special operations officers also confirmed to the Times this was the case.
“In this case, the CH-47 was used in a completely inappropriate manner given its design and the result was the deaths of everyone aboard,” the officer said.
“Tier 1 personnel must be employed with careful planning,” he added. “The cost and time to train them means that using them in such a haphazard manner as a reaction force in this context places critical personnel at too great a risk, especially in this concentration on such a noncritical mission.”
Both SEAL Team 6 and Army Delta Force are considered Tier 1 personnel.
The report also shows a discrepancy between whether the Chinook had Apache escorts or not, or whether the escorts failed to properly scout the landing zone.
Additionally, there is the question of why many of the soldiers were ordered to be cremated by the Army, including Charles Strange’s son Michael, who obtained a copy of Michael’s autopsy report and photographs of his body that showed no signs of fire damage.
“There’s nothing wrong with the body except for his ankle, but they claimed everybody was burned beyond recognition, yet there he was lying there whole and intact,” Strange said. “His hair and arms weren’t burned, and there was no sign of smoke in his lungs. When I called the command up and asked them about this they seem shocked that I had the photo. They told me ‘we’ll get back to you,’ but they never did.”
“Why did they cremate my boy? We are Christians and do not believe in cremation; there was no reason for them to do that,” Strange said.
There’s also that little issue that came up when 6 Navy SEALs’ funerals were conducted by a Muslim Cleric that condemned them to Hell during the service.
“Over two years after Extortion 17 was shot down, the families still have these unanswered questions,” said Klayman. “All of this raises the distinct possibility of a cover-up as to what really happened. We don’t know what happened, and none of these answers are forthcoming.”
Qari Tahir was thought to be the top leader in the area, and his home was raided by Army Rangers on that night in an attempt to kill or kidnap him. Following the Extortion 17 crash, a month later NATO command in Kabul announced it had killed Tahir with a precise airstrike as he stood alongside a fellow terrorist.
I must say that this has to be the clearest tying up of loose ends I’ve seen. A SEAL team allegedly takes out the most wanted jihadist in the world (I still question that entire story line), then they get taken out by the Taliban, then the Taliban leader gets taken out.
The most important question on my mind is, who in the Obama administration was involved? We know at least Leon Panetta and Joe Biden had loose lips when it came to keeping the SEAL team’s identity classified. However, Obama and his administration have not been held accountable for one single crime they’ve committed in his five years in office. Will Klayman and the families be the first to bring them to justice?