SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (168189)5/15/2014 9:50:23 AM
From: TideGlider3 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
lorne
Sedohr Nod

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
LOL.....riiiigghhhtttt Kenneth!



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (168189)5/15/2014 10:41:21 AM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
Sedohr Nod

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
Insurer: Obamacare Customers Must Break ‘Choice Habit’

5:06 PM 05/13/2014

Sarah Hurtubise

Health insurers are now openly admitting that with Obamacare’s reforms, patient choice can no longer be a priority for Americans.

“We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has,” Marcus Merz, CEO of Minnesota insurer PreferredOne, told The New York Times Tuesday. “We’re all trying to break away from this fixation on open access and broad networks.”

With boatloads of mandatory services provided each and every customer whether they’re wanted or not, health insurers’ costs are going up. If insurance companies are going to keep prices at a manageable level, narrow networks are one of their only options. So far under the health care law, networks are narrowing while premiums are going up.

While insurance companies are trying to acclimate their customers to narrow networks, the limited choices were clearly not part of the promise President Barack Obama made when selling his health care law.

“It you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period,” Obama promised in 2009 in front of the American Medical Association. “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away.”

Both of those promises have turned out to be false. Keeping your health care plan went out the window long ago — and now health insurance companies are defending their narrowed networks, which exclude many doctors and providers that customers prefer.

Narrow networks have essentially made one selling point of the law obsolete. Obamacare supporters constantly warned that health insurance is necessary for everyone because people may get cancer unexpectedly and not be able to get coverage afterward.

But cancer centers, with their top-of-the-line physicians and expensive procedures, have been a primary casualty of narrow networks. According to an Associated Press analysis, just four of the 19 top comprehensive cancer centers are covered by all Obamacare exchange plans in their states.

(RELATED: Report: Obamacare exchanges not covering best hospitals for cancer care)


Instead, as health insurers would say, patients will have to accept that they likely won’t be able to choose the best doctor and hospital to treat their cancer any longer.

Even if narrow networks are accepted as the new normal, choosing your narrowed health plan around a certain physician or hospital may still prove impossible.

California attempted to put a provider directory on its exchange website, but was forced to pull it several months in, admitting that it was filled with errors. But even if customers can figure out what their plan covers when they purchase it, networks can change.

The Georgetown University Center for Health Insurance Reform highlighted the problem of changing networks Monday, warning that networks are still in flux outside of Obamacare’s open enrollment period.

Even if a customer buys a certain health plan just because it covers his preferred doctor and hospital, they may be left without access to their choice. In one man’s case, according to health policy expert JoAnn Volk, it wasn’t until after open enrollment had closed that the Georgia resident found out that not only had his doctor withdrawn from the network, but “the community hospital that acquired all the medical practices in the county withdrew from the network.”

Volk offered several claims customers may attempt to negotiate with their company, but health insurers’ answer is clear: cost-focused patients shouldn’t expect a wide array of choices for their health care, according to Dr. Sam Ho, United Healthcare’s chief medical officer.

“It’s a new era,” Ho told The New York Times.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/13/insurer-obamacare-customers-must-break-choice-habit/#ixzz31mhivk8z



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (168189)5/15/2014 12:47:10 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224749
 
Obama won’t be able to vote “present” on Beverly Hills Hotel and kidnapped Nigerian school girls
..............................................................................
May 15, 2014 By Kevin Collins

Barack Obama’s spinelessness seems to have him caught in a pincher.

From his earliest days in public life Barack Obama has done as little as possible. Whenever he has been presented with a choice he will either worm out of the situation, as his disgraceful record of voting “present” shows, or completely ignore the matter at hand.

Obama’s spinelessness is most prominent in his refusal to confront the dangers posed by the savages masquerading as “The Religion of Peace.”

Faced with a demand to respond to Islamic terror attacks Obama has hidden behind ridiculous insulting language such as calling the Fort Hood murders “work place violence” and ordering that the term “Muslim terror” not be used.

Now a bunch of savages called the Boko Haram, who are following the commands of Sharia Law to murder non-Islamists, have kidnapped some 300 Nigerian school girls and is threatening to sell them into sex slavery or kill them.


During her tenure as Secretary of State, and doubtlessly on orders from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton steadfastly refused to designate Boko Haram, a group that sees Sundays as “Murder Christians Day,” as a terrorist group.

<span style="font-size:1.3em;">
The world sees Boko Haram as Islamic terrorists but Barack Obama doesn’t recognize the existence of “Islamist terror” – he won’t even use the words. This presents a problem for a little man trying to portray himself as a “tough guy” who knows how to deal with terrorists.
</span>
Dealing with the Boko Haram will require more than saying how “awful” their kidnapping of the girls is and posting an embarrassing picture of Michelle Obama begging seventh century savages for civility on the internet.

This is one side of the pincher for Obama. The other is the awakening of Gay Hollywood to the savagery of Sharia Law’s commandments on homosexuality.

Last Monday a group of Hollywood’s “fabulous” people turned out to picket in front of a hotel owned by the Sultan of Brunei because he has implemented Sharia Law in his country. Somehow the truth of what Sharia Law really means has penetrated the liberal haze that hangs over Hollywood. Suddenly all of the pretending that opposition to Sharia Law is something only “mean bigoted conservatives” do is gone. The reality that even under a Republican government, being stoned to death for being Gay doesn’t actually happen in America, but it most certainly does happen where Sharia is the law. At last this has gotten through to Hollywood’s Gay community and they are taking action.

They’re not picketing a conservative radio station; they’re picketing a Muslim hotel. Suddenly enlightened they have finally come to understand that supporting the “voting present” president could be dangerous.

“Voting present” won’t easily get Obama out of this bind now that his Gay supporters are finally listening to the warnings about Sharia. They may very well succeed where we have failed. Gay Hollywood might be able to force Obama to do something about the threat from Sharia.

Sources:

thedailybeast.com

latimes.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (168189)5/15/2014 12:48:06 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224749
 
Comrade Kenny...This should make you so very proud...bet you love mao and stalin types? come on Kenny you can tell us here...we will understand.

Top Democrat pressed IRS to quash Obama critics

Judicial Watch: Documents also show HQ control of tea-party targeting
Bob Unruh
Thursday, May 15, 2014
wnd.com

New documents obtained by Washington watchdog Judicial Watch show that while the feds were directing the Internal Revenue Service’s campaign to target tea-party and conservative groups, a key Democrat senator was pressing the federal agency to shut down political opposition to President Obama.

The details are being uncovered in a new batch of documents from the IRS obtained by Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The organization said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., exposed his intent to attack tea-party and conservative organizations in a series of letters exchanged with the IRS.

The feared federal tax agency has been under fire for its attacks on conservative, Christian and tea-party groups ever since it voluntarily revealed the campaign just ahead of a report from an inspector general.

The allegations are that the IRS tax-exempt department deliberately delayed and obstructed the applications of hundreds of groups that oppose Barack Obama’s policies just ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

Among other things, the groups were ordered to reveal the content of their prayers and promise not to protest against Planned Parenthood abortion businesses.

Levin, the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, and top IRS officials discussed how to target groups the senator claimed were “engaged in political activities.” In response to a Levin March 30 letter citing the “urgency of the issue,” then-Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller assured the senator that IRS regulations would allow agents to “prepare individualized questions and requests” for applicant organizations.

The documents, Judicial Watch said, show “an intense effort by Levin and IRS officials to determine what, if any, existing IRS policies could be used to revoke the nonprofit exemptions of active conservative groups and deny exemptions to new applicants.”

Judicial Watch said that in a July 30, 2012, letter, Levin singles out 12 groups he wants investigated for “political activity.” Of the groups – which included the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, the 60 Plus Association and the Susan B. Anthony List – only one, Priorities USA, is “notably left-leaning.”

When the 2012 election neared, Judicial Watch said Levin sent a series of letters to the IRS, “intensifying his campaign against predominantly conservative nonprofit groups.”

On Sept. 27, 2012, he wanted copies of answers to IRS exemption application question 15 – a question about planned political expenditures – from four specific groups: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity and Patriot Majority USA.

Then on Oct. 17, Miller told Levin, “As discussed in our previous responses dated June 4, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the IRS cannot legally disclose whether the organizations on your list have applied for tax exemptions unless and until such application is approved.”

Miller, however, then informed Levin that Americans for Prosperity and Patriot Majority had been approved, but the IRS has no records for Crossroads and Priorities USA, Judicial Watch said.

On Oct. 23, Levin wrote again to express his dissatisfaction with the IRS handling of “social welfare” 501(c)(4) organizations, insisting that IRS guidance “misinterprets the law” by allowing any political activity. He again demanded an answer as to whether the four organizations he listed in his previous letter were primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare. He also sought copies of tax exempt revocation letters sent due to c4 political activities, as well as statistics on how many c4s have been notified that they may be in violation due to political activities, Judicial Watch reported.

As for the repeated IRS claims that the targeting of socially conservative organizations was done by a few rogue agents in a Cincinnati office, Judicial Watch said the new documentation indicates otherwise.

The documents, which came in response to an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May 2013, included a “key email string” from July 2012.

The emails confirm that IRS tea-party scrutiny was directed from Washington, D.C., Judicial Watch said.

“On July 6, 2010, Holly Paz (the former director of the IRS Rulings and Agreements Division and current manager of Exempt Organizations Guidance) asks IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky ‘to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling tea-party applications in the last few months,’” Judicial Watch said.

Cindy Thomas is the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations office in Cincinnati, and Sharon Camarillo was a senior manager in the Los Angeles office.

Grodnitzky, a top lawyer in the Exempt Organization Technical unit (EOT) in Washington, D.C., responded:

EOT is working the tea-party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in D.C. and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases. Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the tea-party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob.

Judicial Watch said “Rob” apparently refers to Rob Choi, then-director of rulings and agreements in the IRS Washington, D.C., headquarters.

The organization cited another email string from February and March 2010.

The string included a message from a California EO determinations manager discussing a tea-party application “currently being held in the screening group.”

“Please let ‘Washington’ know about this potentially embarrassing political case involving a ‘tea-party’ organization,” the manager wrote. “Recent media attention to this type of organization indicates to me that this is a ‘high profile’ case.”

Also among the documents was correspondence to internal IRS investigators from Lois Lerner, the former director of the Tax Exempt Organizations office who was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify.

It cited “Be on the Lookout” criteria for picking groups to target.

“Because the BOLO only contained a brief reference to ‘Organizations involved with the tea party movement applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)’ in June 2011, the EO Determinations manager asked the manager of the screening group, John Shafer [IRS Cincinnati field office manager], what criteria were being used to label cases as ‘tea party’ cases. (‘Do the applications specify/state ‘ tea party’? If not, how do we know applicant is involved with the tea party movement?’) The screening group manager asked his employees how they were applying the BOLO’s short–hand reference to ‘tea party.’ His employees responded that they were including organizations meeting any of the following criteria as falling within the BOLO’s reference to ‘tea party’ organizations: ’1. ‘Tea Party’, ‘Patriots’ or ’9/12 Project’ is referenced in the case file. 2. Issues include government spending, government debt and taxes. 3. Educate the public through advocacy/legislative activities to make America a better place to live. 4. Statements in the case file that are critical of the how the country is being run,” the document said.

“So, we believe we have provided information that shows that no one in EO ‘developed’ the criteria. Rather, staff used their own interpretations of the brief reference to ‘organizations involved with the tea party movement,’ which was what was on the BOLO list.”

“Lerner omits that her office was ‘developing’ the applications for all tea-party groups,” Judicial Watch said.

“These new documents show that officials in the IRS headquarters were responsible for the illegal delays of tea-party applications,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disturbing to see Lois Lerner mislead the IRS’ internal investigators about her office’s tea-party targeting. These documents also confirm the unprecedented pressure from congressional Democrats to go after President Obama’s political opponents. The IRS scandal has now ensnared Congress.”

A report on May 14, 2013, from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration , or TIGTA, found the IRS had singled out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as “patriot” and “tea party” in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status. The TIGTA probe determined: “Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status (e.g., lists of past and future donors).”

Judicial Watch said the “illegal IRS reviews continued for more than 18 months and ‘delayed processing of targeted groups applications’ preparing for the 2012 presidential election.”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (168189)5/15/2014 3:19:14 PM
From: chartseer1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
Do you think this person should be believed on climate change despite his being a con artist? Or wasn't that just another of his cons?

theguardian.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (168189)5/15/2014 5:07:10 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224749
 
Where is our little, dimwit Bammy? They are hanging a pregnant BLACK WOMAN for her beliefs...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (168189)5/15/2014 5:38:34 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224749
 
Crippled Kenny, Do you think the Kenyan Cockroach will speak out against the Muslim Sudanese HANGING A PREGNANT BLACK WOMAN for becoming a Christian?