Visit Counter

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

A Public Service Announcement



On a tip from Senior International Correspondent
Ed Kilbane














Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Hitler finds out about ObamaCare rollout problems



(If video won't load click post title)


video
Video 57












Share/Bookmark

Monday, November 4, 2013

For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger





When the opponents of ObamaCare (Palin among others) warned of the appending storm of millions of Americans loosing their current insurance Barry scoffed ..."don't listen to them" another favorite catch phrase was, "despite what you may have heard." The MSM was only to happy to go along with the charade writing them off as... "right wing TeaParty wacko's."

Although the opponents are now proven right, and the Supremes said it's constitutional, the train has long since left the station and the rest of America is just now catching on to what habitual liar Barry is



(Believe me...this cartoon doesn't even scratch the surface)




I don't care how you dice it, slice it, sugarcoat this statement:

 "No 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 is what it is an out and out lie and he can't spin his way out of it!




BTW...This latest fiasco does make one wonder why those college transcripts are under lock and key?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Source Washington Post



Americans who face higher ­insurance costs under President Obama's health-care law are angrily complaining about "sticker shock,"




 threatening to become a new political force opposing the law even as the White House struggles to convince other consumers that they will benefit from it. 

The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don't meet the law's more-stringent standards. They're finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.

After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city's new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.

That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. "That's just not fair," said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. "This is ridiculous."

If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.

Others are upset because they don't want coverage for services they'll never need or their doctors don't participate in any of their new insurance options.

"There are definitely winners and losers," said Sabrina Corlette, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. "The problem is that even if the majority are winners . . . they're not the ones writing to their congressmen."

The administration says that about 12 million Americans, or 5 percent of the population, buy individual polices — they don't get coverage through their employers or programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Millions of them will be required to get new policies, but many will qualify for federal aid to pay for the premiums. Thus, they will end up with better coverage at lower costs, officials say. If they are sick, they won't be denied coverage or charged more.

But conveying such information is difficult because of the "calamitous" launch of HealthCare.gov, former White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said that "many of the people who have to transition are going to get better insurance for less money, but they just can't tell that right now because they can't get on the Web site."

Republicans have showed little sympathy. Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, appearing on the same program, attacked Obama for his often-repeated pledge that people would be able to keep their health plans if they liked them. Romney said that Obama has engaged in "fundamental dishonesty" that has "undermined the foundation of his second term."

The disruptions being caused by the new law have been especially jolting for those who support the ideals of the health-care overhaul. 

Marlys Dietrick, a 60-year-old artist from San Antonio, said she had high hopes that the new law would help many of her friends who are chefs, actors or photographers get insured. But she said they have been turned off by high premiums and deductibles and would rather pay the fine. 

"I am one of those Democrats who wanted it to be better than this," she said.

Her insurer, Humana, informed her that her plan was being canceled and that the rate for herself and her 21-year-old son for a plan compliant with the new law would rise from $300 to $705. On the federal Web site, she found a comparable plan for $623 a month. Because her annual income is about $80,000, she doesn't qualify for subsidies.

A cheaper alternative on the federal exchange, she said, had a premium of $490 a month — but it was an HMO plan rather than the PPO plan she currently has. "I wouldn't be able to go to the doctor I've been going to for years," she said. "That is not a deal."

And both the HMO and PPO exchange plans she examined had family deductibles of $12,700, compared with her current $7,000.

Robert Laszewski, an industry consultant, said he thinks the rise in rates was inevitable. The new law, he said, has resulted in an estimated 30 to 50 percent increase in baseline costs for insurers.

"We've got increased access for sick people and an increase in the span of benefits, so something's got to give," he said.

Beginning Jan. 1, the new plans must cover 10 essential benefits including pediatric care, prescription drugs, mental-health services and maternity care. In general, policies that don't offer those can't be sold after 2013. (Plans that were in place before March 2010 and essentially ­haven't changed are "grandfathered" and allowed to continue.) Critics, such as Obama, say that the discontinued policies are too skimpy to offer real protections, but some consumers contend the plans meet their needs.

David Prestin, 48, who operates a gas station and diner at a truck stop in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, was unhappy to learn recently that his premiums are slated to rise from $923 to $1,283 next year under Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The insurer said it needed to add maternity care to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

The issue of maternity coverage is a sensitive one for Prestin and his wife, Kathie. They had one child seven years ago, but after she had five miscarriages, they discovered she had an immune issue that prevented her from successfully completing a pregnancy.

At the same time, Prestin said, the new plan would reduce coverage for things he and Kathie need, such as free annual checkups.

The Prestins explored HealthCare.gov. They are not eligible for subsidies, but they found a cheaper plan than the one being offered by their insurer. However, there was another problem: It would have required the couple to switch from the doctors they have seen for more than 16 years and travel more than 100 miles from their home to the nearest major hospital center for treatment — in Green Bay, Wis.

"I pay my taxes. I'm assistant chief of the volunteer fire department here in Cedar River and a first responder for Mid-County Rescue," Prestin said. "You try to be personally accountable and play by the rules, but the more you play by the rules, the more you get beat up on."





Share/Bookmark

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Point the finger or give it?




If there is someone to blame...if there was a man who could have put a stop to ObamaCare...it was John Roberts. A Bush appointee no less. His vote was the deciding vote on the Supreme Court which ruled ObamaCare constitutional.


I wonder how he feels now after Barry promised emphatically, up and own, inside out, you can keep your doctor and health plan? A promise made knowing full well it was an unadulterated lie. One of the leading assertions of ObamaCare was based on a lie to trick millions of Americans into falling for this scam. 


I'm not a lawyer but I found this on another website. 
 “Fraud in the Inducement.” 
 Here’s the definition from a legal dictionary: “the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act.


If the law itself is based on a lie the obvious question is should it not be overturned? 

When did lying become constitutional?





Yeah you.
He's a major player as to why millions of Americans will receive a cancellation notice from their insurance company.

Maybe you should read the Constitution John. It does not grant the federal government the power to force private commercial transactions.






Share/Bookmark

Friday, November 1, 2013

Sexual predator honored with U.S. postage stamp





First a Muslim stamp and now this.

 2014 stamp to honor Barney Fwaank. 



Wonder how long it'll be before Sandusky gets his?

-------------------------------------------------------




WND


Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Franklin evidently failed to envisage today's postmodern left. For the conservative, there exists at least one other certainty, and it is this: The degree to which "progressives" attack you corresponds precisely to the degree with which you challenge any among their assorted, distorted and sordid sacred cows.

What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)

What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, "Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems"?

In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man "demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys."

But you can call him Harvey Milk.

Harvey Milk's only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.

And a "progressive" martyr was born.

Merriam Webster defines "pederast" as "one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy." It defines "statutory rape" as "the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law."

Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist. After I publicly addressed this objective reality in the above-mentioned interview, the liberal blogosphere reacted in, shall we say, an informatively defensive manner.

A Huffington Post headline screamed: "Harvey Milk Was An 'Evil Man' Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber."

The always-amusing Right Wing Watch blog breathlessly posted my comments with the header: "Barber: 'Harvey Milk Was Demonstrably, Categorically an Evil Man.'"

And so on.

Here's what's especially telling about their reaction. Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.

That's because they can't.

One of Milk's victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.

Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the "LGBT" community.

Shilts was also Harvey Milk's biographer. In his glowing book "The Mayor of Castro Street," he wrote of Milk's "relationship" with the McKinley boy: " … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him."

In a sane world, of course, the only direction his "new lover" should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today's America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane.

Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation's foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, "Explaining Milk's many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one 'lover' why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously: 'As homosexuals, we can't depend on the heterosexual model. … We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don't have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There's no reason why you can't love more than one person at a time.'"

Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a "father figure" to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

Years later McKinley committed suicide.

Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the "very nice" Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.

According to Dols, Milk told him, "Don't tell your parents," and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols' parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general's office.

The incident was evidently swept under the rug.

So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday ("Harvey Milk Day") and, more recently, his own commemorative postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration's USPS.

God bless America?

As troubling as the postage stamp may be, to me – the father of a soon-to-be-teenage boy – the specter of having a "Harvey Milk Day" forced upon millions of California children, parents and educators is even more troubling. Especially in light of Milk's own sordid history with minors.

Even so, and quite obviously, not everyone agrees. Some have said that my reality-based assessment of Harvey Milk is "uncivil." Our historical revisionist friends on the left tend to get a bit snooty when you publicly deconstruct one of their meticulously fabricated mythical martyrs.

I find that odd.

To me, even the mere notion of elevating, to hero status, a man who statutorily raped teenage boys, is what's uncivil.









Share/Bookmark