The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Obama administration can continue to subsidize health-insurance purchases by lower-income Americans, preserving a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act. It’s a major victory for the president.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
June 25, 2015 - Law of the Land- Supreme Court upholds Obama-care
End Of Days News
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Obama administration can continue to subsidize health-insurance purchases by lower-income Americans, preserving a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act. It’s a major victory for the president.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Obama administration can continue to subsidize health-insurance purchases by lower-income Americans, preserving a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act. It’s a major victory for the president.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
PIMPIN OUT OBAMACARE!!! Compare Obama to Hitler in the below articles!!!
End Of Days News
Indocturenation: California Schools to Train Kids to Sell ObamaCare
"Teens are part of a 'pilot' program to test whether young people can be trained as messengers to deliver outreach and limited education to family and friends in and around their homes," said Gayle Pollard-Terry, a LAUSD spokesman, in an email. "Teens will be educating adults that they already know (e.g., family or friends) and not other adults." If the project is successful, Los Angeles families can expect more use of students to push government-preferred messaging.
Indocturenation: California Schools to Train Kids to Sell ObamaCare
"Teens are part of a 'pilot' program to test whether young people can be trained as messengers to deliver outreach and limited education to family and friends in and around their homes," said Gayle Pollard-Terry, a LAUSD spokesman, in an email. "Teens will be educating adults that they already know (e.g., family or friends) and not other adults." If the project is successful, Los Angeles families can expect more use of students to push government-preferred messaging.
How did The Hitler Youth start? And why?
The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler's belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children. The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was.
The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler's belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children. The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was.
Friday, March 8, 2013
California governor prepares implementation of Obama health care bill
End Of Days News
The vehicle of this plan is President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as ObamaCare, which, beginning January 2014, requires most Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Democratic politicians have made every effort to sell the health care overhaul as a progressive achievement.
Under the ACA, California would have the option of extending medical benefits to families living at between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty line, abysmally set at about $22,000 per year for a family of four. The federal government would subsidize the additional cost for the first three years, then scale down its subsidy to 90 percent of such cost by 2020.
At its core, the ACA is aimed at a further privatization and gutting of the health care for ordinary Americans, concealed behind an adequate extension of benefits to poor and working class families.
Medi-Cal serves nearly 9 million people, almost one in four California residents, who depend on the program for access to any kind of health service. The expansion being currently discussed would bring in 1.2 million new enrollees by 2017. While Governor Brown, a Democrat, touts the expansion of Medi-Cal coverage for this layer, the state has the option of withdrawing such coverage at any time. Brown has already made clear that the long-term costs for implementing the coverage are unknown and may undermine California’s precarious budget. There is also the possibility that the federal government may shift costs to the state.
In the next few years, federal support for Medi-Cal will run out, while health care costs will continue to grow rapidly. Given that state funding for medical benefit programs will remain optional, it is reasonable to assume that the option of reducing payments will be exercised. Republican Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, for instance, has already “opted out” of the expanded Medicaid payments, a decision that will leave between 482,000 and 683,000 adults uninsured.
California governor prepares implementation of Obama health care bill
While falsely trumpeting the commitment of state funds to provide limited medical coverage for families living in poverty, California Governor Jerry Brown and the ruling establishment are building the case for cuts to Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid welfare program) in the coming years.
Under the ACA, California would have the option of extending medical benefits to families living at between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty line, abysmally set at about $22,000 per year for a family of four. The federal government would subsidize the additional cost for the first three years, then scale down its subsidy to 90 percent of such cost by 2020.
At its core, the ACA is aimed at a further privatization and gutting of the health care for ordinary Americans, concealed behind an adequate extension of benefits to poor and working class families.
Medi-Cal serves nearly 9 million people, almost one in four California residents, who depend on the program for access to any kind of health service. The expansion being currently discussed would bring in 1.2 million new enrollees by 2017. While Governor Brown, a Democrat, touts the expansion of Medi-Cal coverage for this layer, the state has the option of withdrawing such coverage at any time. Brown has already made clear that the long-term costs for implementing the coverage are unknown and may undermine California’s precarious budget. There is also the possibility that the federal government may shift costs to the state.
In the next few years, federal support for Medi-Cal will run out, while health care costs will continue to grow rapidly. Given that state funding for medical benefit programs will remain optional, it is reasonable to assume that the option of reducing payments will be exercised. Republican Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, for instance, has already “opted out” of the expanded Medicaid payments, a decision that will leave between 482,000 and 683,000 adults uninsured.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
State Rep: Surrender Your Guns For Obamacare?
End Of Days News
Montana lawmaker Krayton Kerns warns that President Obama’s recent executive orders on gun control could lead to a chilling future scenario where Americans are forced to hand in their firearms in order to receive critical hospital treatment under Obamacare.
Republican Kerns, sponsor of a recently passed bill that prohibits “a healthcare provider from refusing or conditioning care if a person refuses to provide information relating to firearm ownership, possession or use,” blogs about his personal experience of ammunition shortages in gun stores before warning that his legislation could represent, “the single act which stands between your fundamental right to keep and bear arms and their confiscation.”
“On January 16, 2013, President Obama released 23 “Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions” of which Action #2, #14, #16, #17, #21, and #22 utilize the national healthcare system to collect gun ownership information. As Obamacare grows over the next decade, unwary citizens will voluntarily divulge firearm ownership information including serial numbers in exchange for routine healthcare. Through the power of incrementalism, placing this information in a federal database seems harmless at first,” writes Kerns.
“However, someday in the future, imagine a loved one in your care needing critical medical attention, so you rush into an Obamacare facility because no other option exists. Healthcare enforcers examine your medical records and announce the Public Safety Authority has handed down Rule 1040 declaring all semiautomatic rifles, including .22s, are applicable only for military purposes. You must surrender your previously identified Ruger, 10/22 prior to your loved one receiving treatment. With no other choice you do. Scoffers might dismiss my warnings as fear mongering; something which would never happen. If you believe me and I am wrong, America has lost nothing. If you ignore me and I am right, America has lost everything. How much are you willing to risk? Shouldn’t we stop this now?”
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Pentagon informs Congress of plans to furlough 800K civilian workers
End Of Days News
The Pentagon notified Congress on Wednesday it will be furloughing its civilian workforce of 800,000 employees if sequestration goes into effect March 1.
Defense officials have warned lawmakers that sequestration will devastate the military and lead to a hollow force, but the civilian furloughs will be one of the first major impacts felt by the across-the-board cuts. The Pentagon furloughs will affect civilians across the country. Pentagon officials have said that civilians could face up to 22 days of furloughs, one per week, through the end of the fiscal year in September. The employees would receive 30 days' notice before being furloughed.
“We are doing everything possible to limit the worst effects on DOD personnel — but I regret that our flexibility within the law is extremely limited,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote in a message to the department. “The president has used his legal authority to exempt military personnel funding from sequestration, but we have no legal authority to exempt civilian personnel funding from reductions.”
The Joint Chiefs also testified before both the House and Senate last week to lay out the dangers of sequestration, as the Pentagon has taken a much more proactive approach to the cuts than when they were set to hit in January.
Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale told reporters Wednesday that the furloughs would save between $4 bill and $5 billion in 2013. The Pentagon would have to cut $46 billion under sequestration.
Hale said that most of the Defense Department’s near-800,000 civilian workforce would face furloughs, but there would be exceptions, including foreign workers on overseas bases and those working in combat zones.
Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica Wright said that furloughs were “not a Beltway phenomenon,” as roughly 80 percent of DOD civilian workers lived outside the Washington, D.C., metro area.
The potential for furloughs was one of the few things DOD officials announced before the Jan. 2 deadline, which was delayed two months in the “fiscal-cliff” deal.
The Pentagon notified Congress on Wednesday it will be furloughing its civilian workforce of 800,000 employees if sequestration goes into effect March 1.
Defense officials have warned lawmakers that sequestration will devastate the military and lead to a hollow force, but the civilian furloughs will be one of the first major impacts felt by the across-the-board cuts. The Pentagon furloughs will affect civilians across the country. Pentagon officials have said that civilians could face up to 22 days of furloughs, one per week, through the end of the fiscal year in September. The employees would receive 30 days' notice before being furloughed.
“We are doing everything possible to limit the worst effects on DOD personnel — but I regret that our flexibility within the law is extremely limited,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote in a message to the department. “The president has used his legal authority to exempt military personnel funding from sequestration, but we have no legal authority to exempt civilian personnel funding from reductions.”
The Joint Chiefs also testified before both the House and Senate last week to lay out the dangers of sequestration, as the Pentagon has taken a much more proactive approach to the cuts than when they were set to hit in January.
Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale told reporters Wednesday that the furloughs would save between $4 bill and $5 billion in 2013. The Pentagon would have to cut $46 billion under sequestration.
Hale said that most of the Defense Department’s near-800,000 civilian workforce would face furloughs, but there would be exceptions, including foreign workers on overseas bases and those working in combat zones.
Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica Wright said that furloughs were “not a Beltway phenomenon,” as roughly 80 percent of DOD civilian workers lived outside the Washington, D.C., metro area.
The potential for furloughs was one of the few things DOD officials announced before the Jan. 2 deadline, which was delayed two months in the “fiscal-cliff” deal.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Obama's Martial Law for Private Army & FEMA Camps - HR 3590 - Obama Care
End Of Days News
Obama's Martial Law for Private Army & FEMA Camps - HR 3590 - Obama Care
HR 3590
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-...
http://www.wesurroundrochester.com/me...
Civilian inmate labor program
http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r2...
FEMA camp manual
http://info.publicintelligence.net/US...
FDIC
http://fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/unli...
Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-gov...
KBR & FEMA camps
http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/...
Red Alert: FEMA Camp Manual for Internment & Re-education Prisoners
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WYqm_...
DHS Prepares For Civil War - Red Alert!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQcjmi...
"We are Preparing for Massive Civil War," Says DHS Informant
Read more: http://www.beaconequity.com/we-are-pr...
http://www.beaconequity.com/we-are-pr...
Obama's Martial Law for Private Army & FEMA Camps - HR 3590 - Obama Care
HR 3590
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-...
http://www.wesurroundrochester.com/me...
Civilian inmate labor program
http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r2...
FEMA camp manual
http://info.publicintelligence.net/US...
FDIC
http://fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/unli...
Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-gov...
KBR & FEMA camps
http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/...
Red Alert: FEMA Camp Manual for Internment & Re-education Prisoners
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WYqm_...
DHS Prepares For Civil War - Red Alert!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQcjmi...
"We are Preparing for Massive Civil War," Says DHS Informant
Read more: http://www.beaconequity.com/we-are-pr...
http://www.beaconequity.com/we-are-pr...
Monday, January 28, 2013
For smokers who voted for Obama...Here is his gift to you! ObamaCare Makes Smokers Pay $5,100 More A Year!
End Of Days News
WASHINGTON (AP) —Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.
The Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.
For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.
Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Obama Asks Doctors to Help Deal With Guns
According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here's the relevant passage:
PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.
Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.
Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
This is an upstanding Christian family! Hobby Lobby CEO open letter: “Honoring God is more important than turning a profit”
Normally I’d be inclined to run something like this on a Sunday, when I like to explore more faith-based topics. However, today is Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day,
where consumers who support the Christian ownership’s stand against the
HHS mandate that attempts to impose a highly restrictive definition of
religious expression can put their money where their mouths are. Since I
don’t really have a hobby at the moment, I’ll instead offer a passage from the open letter
written by Hobby Lobby CEO David Green, who explains why he’s decided
to spend a lot of money and risk even more to fight the HHS regulation
that would force him to act against his religious principles.
The mandate for free birth control, which is already cheap and readily available for anyone who wants it (and has federal subsidies for Medicaid recipients already in place through Title X), is just a Trojan horse in an attack on religious liberty — and even more, for freedom of choice. If businesses want to offer “free” birth control (which will get funded by premium hikes), they can already do so; no one is stopping them. Same for schools, hospitals, and private citizens who want to donate money to family-planning clinics on their own. Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius want to strip that choice from Americans and force everyone to subsidize the procreative choices of everyone else, even those tens of millions whose religious beliefs have heretofore never had to be part of public policy. That’s the invasion of privacy, and it’s people like David Green who are being exploited.
Update: Added a bit to the second-to-last paragraph, and also wanted to include Hobby Lobby’s online shopping website link. You can support the company from the comfort of your own home.
We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.It’s worth pointing out that the mandate doesn’t exempt actual religious organizations either, such as Catholic charities, Presbyterian hospitals, Lutheran schools, and so on. Why? That’s the crux of the issue: the Obama administration is attempting to redefine religious expression to only those activities which take place within the four walls of a place of worship, or those activities restricted only to those of a single faith. That means that Catholic hospitals would qualify only if they refused to treat and employ any non-Catholics, for instance. Can you imagine those lawsuits?
But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.
So, Hobby Lobby – and my family – are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.
The mandate for free birth control, which is already cheap and readily available for anyone who wants it (and has federal subsidies for Medicaid recipients already in place through Title X), is just a Trojan horse in an attack on religious liberty — and even more, for freedom of choice. If businesses want to offer “free” birth control (which will get funded by premium hikes), they can already do so; no one is stopping them. Same for schools, hospitals, and private citizens who want to donate money to family-planning clinics on their own. Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius want to strip that choice from Americans and force everyone to subsidize the procreative choices of everyone else, even those tens of millions whose religious beliefs have heretofore never had to be part of public policy. That’s the invasion of privacy, and it’s people like David Green who are being exploited.
Update: Added a bit to the second-to-last paragraph, and also wanted to include Hobby Lobby’s online shopping website link. You can support the company from the comfort of your own home.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
This Is How a Secret Gun Provision Made its Way Into Obamacare Legislation
There’s a widely-unknown provision in the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) — legislative wording that is capturing attention in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a newly-noticed regulation that was placed deep within the bill back in 2010, among other things, bans doctors from documenting patients’ answers to questions that focus upon guns.
The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”
As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):
On Tuesday, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on-air with “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer. The two discussed how the gun provision made its way into health care legislation, while also explaining portions of the text for viewers.
Gupta noted that the initiative to have the wording included during the contentious health care debate was rooted in the NRA’s stance that patients should not be penalized or discriminated against for owning firearms. As can be seen from the above portion of the legislation, while doctors are not banned from asking about guns, they are forbidden from documenting the information and using it for research purposes.
In addition to gun-owner information and how it must be handled by doctors, the text also notes that the law cannot be used to keep and maintain records of individuals’ firearm possession, nor can it be used to track ammunition. Additionally, the language deals with the price of health care coverage, noting that cost cannot be impacted by the possession or ownership of guns, the Post also reported.
Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the presence of this provision has gained some press, with select politicians and medical groups taking a stand against it. Advocates are worried that research and medical care could suffer as a result of the wording; some are even pushing the Obama administration to consider changes to the text in light of recent events and an impending battle over new gun control legislation.
The Post has more about the ongoing battle between the NRA and physicians and advocates who stand opposed to the language inserted into the Affordable Care legislation:
While a spokesperson for Reid told the Post that the leader never spoke with the NRA about the wording and that he did not believe that “it changed gun laws in any way,” that hasn’t stopped critics from wondering why Reid so staunchly supported the measure.
The language was purportedly added to stem off criticism from the NRA that could have railroaded, delayed or prevented the controversial health care bill from passing. Also, the wording was placed deep within the bill in an effort to convince people not to embrace so-called conspiracy theories about Obamacare — mainly that the legislation would be used to keep and maintain a massive gun-ownership database. Once the langage was added, the NRA reportedly remained neutral regarding passage of the law.
While Reid has been a gun rights advocate for quite some time, the politician may be having a change of heart in the wake of recent shootings and controversy surrounding this language. An adviser who spoke off-the-record, recently told CNN that the senator is “in a different place than he was in 2010″ when it comes to firearms.
The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”
As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):
On Tuesday, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on-air with “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer. The two discussed how the gun provision made its way into health care legislation, while also explaining portions of the text for viewers.
Gupta noted that the initiative to have the wording included during the contentious health care debate was rooted in the NRA’s stance that patients should not be penalized or discriminated against for owning firearms. As can be seen from the above portion of the legislation, while doctors are not banned from asking about guns, they are forbidden from documenting the information and using it for research purposes.
In addition to gun-owner information and how it must be handled by doctors, the text also notes that the law cannot be used to keep and maintain records of individuals’ firearm possession, nor can it be used to track ammunition. Additionally, the language deals with the price of health care coverage, noting that cost cannot be impacted by the possession or ownership of guns, the Post also reported.
Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the presence of this provision has gained some press, with select politicians and medical groups taking a stand against it. Advocates are worried that research and medical care could suffer as a result of the wording; some are even pushing the Obama administration to consider changes to the text in light of recent events and an impending battle over new gun control legislation.
The Post has more about the ongoing battle between the NRA and physicians and advocates who stand opposed to the language inserted into the Affordable Care legislation:
NRA officials say they requested the provision out of concern that insurance companies could use such data to raise premiums on gun owners. The measure’s supporters in the Senate say they did not intend to interfere with the work of doctors or researchers.Just as interesting as the debate over the provision, itself, is the notion that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), an NRA-supporter, who added the wording to the bill back in 2010.
But physician groups and researchers see the provision as part of a decades-long strategy by the gun lobby to choke off federal support for studies of firearms violence.
The research restrictions began in the 1990s, when the NRA urged Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division that studied gun violence. In 1996, Congress sharply limited the agency’s ability to fund that type of research.
While a spokesperson for Reid told the Post that the leader never spoke with the NRA about the wording and that he did not believe that “it changed gun laws in any way,” that hasn’t stopped critics from wondering why Reid so staunchly supported the measure.
The language was purportedly added to stem off criticism from the NRA that could have railroaded, delayed or prevented the controversial health care bill from passing. Also, the wording was placed deep within the bill in an effort to convince people not to embrace so-called conspiracy theories about Obamacare — mainly that the legislation would be used to keep and maintain a massive gun-ownership database. Once the langage was added, the NRA reportedly remained neutral regarding passage of the law.
While Reid has been a gun rights advocate for quite some time, the politician may be having a change of heart in the wake of recent shootings and controversy surrounding this language. An adviser who spoke off-the-record, recently told CNN that the senator is “in a different place than he was in 2010″ when it comes to firearms.
GUN NEWS COMPILED BY: arewelivinginthelastdays.com
EXCLUSIVE: Cuomo Close To Announcing Sweeping New Gun Control
Laws
A deal to give New York one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation is being negotiated by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who, sources said Tuesday, is hoping to announce the plan Wednesday during his State of the State speech in Albany.
Iowa Lawmaker: Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons, Then Start Taking Them From Gun Owners if Needed
This Is How a Secret Gun Provision Made its Way Into Obamacare Legislation
" Under a section with the headline Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights, the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law."
A deal to give New York one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation is being negotiated by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who, sources said Tuesday, is hoping to announce the plan Wednesday during his State of the State speech in Albany.
Iowa Lawmaker: Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons, Then Start Taking Them From Gun Owners if Needed
This Is How a Secret Gun Provision Made its Way Into Obamacare Legislation
" Under a section with the headline Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights, the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law."
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Obamacare Could Double Health Care Premiums: Aetna CEO
To provide all Americans with health insurance, premiums will have to rise to
pay for it, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC's "Closing Bell"
on Wednesday.
"If we're going to insure all Americans, which is a worthy and appropriate cause, then somebody has to pay for it," Bertolini said of the expected premium increases under Obamacare.
"If we're going to insure all Americans, which is a worthy and appropriate cause, then somebody has to pay for it," Bertolini said of the expected premium increases under Obamacare.
Bertolini said that insurance premiums could double in some places just on
the basis of what types of policies people buy today.
He also said that when Obamacare is fully implemented, it won't start the way
people had hoped and it won't be cheaper.
Over the longer run, the key to bringing down premiums will be controlling
health care costs, he added. "It'll be fits and starts, but we'll get there,"
Bertolini said.
Higher premiums also will not necessarily mean higher margins for Aetna. "The
people coming into the system will be sicker because they have not used
services," Bertolini said. "So in the initial part of this program it will cost
more to take care of people because they have been going without health care for
so long."
The Aetna executive also weighed in on the debate over the country's fiscal
situation.
(Read More: Forget the 'Fiscal Cliff,' Look at These
Cliffs)
Bertolini said a big deal would be the best deal for the country, but that
it's looking increasingly unlikely that politicians do anything more than a
short-term fix which won't be enough to restore confidence.
And confidence is key to increasing business investment and spurring economic
growth. "A grand bargain won't create a slow economy," Bertolini said. "It will
restore confidence and we'll all invest."
He added, "Americans don't want Plan B, they don't want a short term fix.
They want the very best we can come up with. They want Plan A."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)