“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor
LRGM. [Enviado por B. Hijazi]
Shocking Newsweek Cover: 'Hit the Road, Barack - Why We Need a New President'
By Noel Sheppard | August 19, 2012 | 16:57
18.5K 1653 Reddit290 3898 A A
After some of the recent Obama-loving/Romney-bashing Newsweek covers, the one hitting newsstands Monday is guaranteed to turn some heads.
Under the picture of our dear leader are the words, "Hit the Road, Barack: Why We Need a New President."
The article is written by Niall Ferguson, a British historian and economist that backed John McCain in 2008.
After an introduction, Ferguson made his case:
In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.
He continued:
[T]he total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.
In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.
Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.
Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.
And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.
Story Continues Below Ad ?
Ferguson also took aim at the media's coverage of Obama:
Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”
Indeed. As we've seen in the past three and a half years, Obama can do virtually anything he wants and his media will either applaud or look the other away.
That said, after spending the bulk of his lengthy piece chronicling the current White House resident's missteps, Ferguson spoke glowingly about Paul Ryan:
He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis....But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country. [...]
The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.
Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.
Story Continues Below Ad ?
And this is actually Newsweek's cover story this week making one ask a simple question: Why?
Since Tina Brown's Daily Beast took over the failing magazine, it has been one of the most left-leaning publications in the country.
So why with less than three months to go before Election Day would they publish a 3,200-word cover story severely criticizing Obama whilst basically endorsing his opponent?
Could it be the Daily Beast/Newsweek combination has not been attracting the kind of readership they expected, and they believe a little objectivity was in order?
Or is this just a tiny dose of conservatism before a deluge of the most biased Obama-loving/Romney-bashing imaginable?
As the late Ed Hart used to say, we will know in the fullness of time.
(HT NB reader Dave Smith)
About the Author
Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/19/shocking-newsweek-cover-hit-road-barack-why-we-need-new-president#ixzz2kixN0jfs
"EMO" ESTO SI QUE NO SE LO ESPERABA obama... http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded
LRGM. [Enviado por B. Hijazi]
PANICO EN LA CASA BLANCA 39% DE APROBACION A BARACK.
La aprobación de Obama cayó al 39% EL REPUDIO A barack ES DEL 59%
Según un sondeo difundido hoy, el nivel de aceptación de la gestión del presidente estadunidense se hundió por debajo del 40%. Es el peor porcentaje de Obama desde que asumió el cargo
Crédito: Casa Blanca
La consultora, que evalúa la gestión del presidente de forma diaria y mensual, indicó que sólo el 39 % de los consultados aprobó la gestión del mandatario estadounidense frente al 54 % que le rechazó.
La aprobación a Obama alcanzó su pico más alto, de 53 por ciento, en las semanas que siguieron a la muerte del fundador de Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, quien fue asesinado por fuerzas especiales estadunidenses en mayo pasado en Pakistán.
Pero esa cifra fue disminuyendo regularmente a medida que los reportes van mostrando un anémico crecimiento de la economía y tras la decisión de la calificadora Standard & Poor's de degradar la nota crediticia de Estados Unidos
Los resultados se basan en encuestas telefónicas aleatorias realizadas a una muestra de población de 15.000 adultos y tienen un margen de error de tres puntos porcentuales. Estos datos preceden una gira de tres días que realizará el presidente en las comunidades rurales del Medio Oeste en un intento por recuperar la confianza perdidaAFP
http://www.infobae.com/2011/08/15/599782-la-aprobacion-obama-cayo-al-39
M Dopico: To All, REPEAL obamacare.
Everyone needs to call John Boehner & Eric Cantors office today. They are to vote on a bill by Fred Upton tomorrow (HR 3350 Keep Your Health Plan Act). These articles on RedState & Rush Limbaugh explain why this is a bad bill for us in 2014 & in being able to repeal ObamaCare. On Nov 4 Boehner Tweeted: “ReTweet if you agree --> The problem with #ObamaCare isn't just the website. It's the whole law.” So WHYare they trying to fix it & save the Democrats in the process? They need to NOT bring this bill up for a vote & instead push now for total repeal!!!!
http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/13/its-a-trap/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/13/a_trap_for_republicans
http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/14/riddle-me-this-republicans/
John Boehner: 202-225-0600 on Twitter @SpeakerBoehner
Eric Cantor: 202=225=2815 on Twitter @EricCantor
Please pass this on to everyone you know to flood them with calls, emails & Tweets.
Get them to repeal, not pause ( so that the Dems can keep their seats in 2014 elections ) and then we go thru this AGAIN!
amenper: El pinocho en jefe.
Presidente de Obamacare Arreglo: retrasar las cancelaciones seguros
Jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 13:21
Cediendo a la presión, Presidente Barack Obama el jueves anunció cambios en su salud ley que daría a las compañías de seguros la posibilidad de seguir ofreciendo a los consumidores los planes que de lo contrario se cancelará.
Los cambios administrativos son buenos por un año, aunque funcionarios de la administración dijeron que podrían extenderse si persisten los problemas con la ley. Obama anunció los cambios en la casa blanca.
No sé si existirá la persona que todavía pueda pensar que el Obamacare tiene arreglo y que este presidente no es el mandatarios más descaradamente mentiroso que ha tenido esta nación. Siempre ha sido así, pero muchos no lo querían ver, Obama y Ezequiel Emmanuel ayer mismo nos dijeron que las compañías de seguros eran las culpables por haber cancelados sus seguros, hoy está claro que estaba en las manos del gobierno el dejarlos o cancelarlos.
La lógica me indica que nadie ahora puede defender la conducta de Obama y Emmanuel, pero la lógica falla, siempre hay personas fanáticas emborrachadas con las limosnas del gobierno paternalista, que cerrarán los ojos. Para nosotros no debe de ser nada raro cuando vemos que todavía hay cubanos que defienden a Fidel.
Jorge Aguiar: OBAMACARE - WHAT A MISTAKE
Everyone is taking a hit with “Obamacare” one way or another. I don’t know of anyone that their healthcare monthly premium has not been increased. Insurance deductibles and copays have also been modified and therefore increased . Also other services traditionally provided like vision care and/or dental have taking a hit to accommodate new insurance regulation cost.
This applies to almost everyone working now regardless of employer or self employ. Even people with medicare are taking a hit with new much larger deductibles in the traditional system. Also secondary insurances have also gone up in cost with larger monthly cost, deductibles and/or co-pays.
AND all of this is not ending here this year. Many more consequences will develop and more much more higher cost is surely to happen as the government subsides will be increased to cover more and more people in welfare, illegal immigrants which eventually will be included etc. The future cost of the government subsides are going to be astronomical. This means more taxes/fees in one form or another . Not to mention long waiting for doctors and procedures/operations. Wait until a person has to argue with a government employee about service etc. THIS IS A ROYAL MESS FOR EVERYONE NOW.
amenper: Reflexiones sobre la vida bajo un gobierno liberal.
Con los liberales en el poder es difícil vivir razonablemente, todo lo que es razonable debe de ser regulado y compulsorio, y le ponen un impuesto
Si quieres molestar a un liberal, trabaja duro y sonríe, de todos modos tienes que trabajar duro mientras Obama sea presidente, porque hay millones de personas que dependen de tu trabajo para su cheque mensual del welfare, sus sellos de alimentos y su medicaid.
Pero esto no me hace perder mis simpatías por Obama, simpatizo con Obama como simpatizo con el Che Guevara, pero un poco menos porque está vivo.
.
Pero si razonamos los pensamientos de los liberales, la vida es difícil de vivir bajo ellos aunque si sabes cómo cogerle el juego al gobierno liberal, puedes tener fua ventajas
Conozco a alguien que fue a inscribir su perro para recibir un cheque del Welfare.
Al principio se negaron, pero él le explicó.
Mi perro es negro, desempleado y vago, no sabe leer ni escribir, no habla inglés y no sabe quién es su padre.
Así que la empleada buscó en su libro de calificaciones y el perro recibió su primer cheque la semana pasada. Ya ven, no es tan malo vivir en un gobierno liberal..
La obsesión de los liberales por proteger a los animales es a veces exagerada, puedes ir a la cárcel por matar un manatí con tu bote, o por coger unos huevos de caguama del nido en la playa, pero te critican por tratar de salvar la vida de un bebé por nacer.
Pero a mí también me gustan los animales, algunos son muy sabrosos incluyendo la carne de manatí y los huevos de caguama.
Te dicen que un arma de fuego causa la muerte a miles de personas todos los años y hay que prohibirlas, creo que también van a prohibir los fósforos porque pueden causar incendios y los carros y los aviones porque causan accidentes con muertes.
Otra obsesión de los liberales es el matrimonio homosexual, aunque se sabe que realmente lo que dio el toque final a la ley fue el cabildeo de los abogados de divorcios- ¨
Pero nos podemos dar cuenta de que ellos consideren en matrimonio homosexual como algo natural, cuando vemos otros tipos de matrimonio entre ellos que todavía son más raros como el de Bill y Hillary Clinton.
Pero cada día hay más matrimonios del mismo sexo. Hay personas del mismo sexo que se están casando sin ser homosexuales para recibir los beneficios del gobierno.
Realmente el concepto de una persona liberal es alguien que le gusta la libertad individual, que no les gusta la intervención del gobierno sobre el individuo. Los liberales se robaron el nombre, y ahora cuando lo han desprestigiado se quieren cambiar el nombre a progresistas
Bueno es más adecuado porque la vida bajo su gobierno progresa, según nos dicen, todo será mejor mañana que lo que fue ayer, todo es cuestión de no cambiar la frase mantenerla vigente todo el tiempo, el gobierno progresista de Cuba ha mantenido la misma frase por casi 55 años.
Pero hay cierta sinceridad en el partido demócrata, ellos ha sabido escoger el símbolo del partido, solamente los burros pueden votar por un liberal.
ObamaCare’s Website vs. Austrian Economics. Written by Gary North
A showdown is coming on November 30: ObamaCare’s crippled website vs. Austrian School economic theory.
President Obama’s chief technology advisor is Todd Park. He testified before Congress on Wednesday regarding www.Healthcare.gov.
Mr. Park is the man who, as chief technology advisor, failed to warn the President on the condition of the website. Mr. Park was either out of the loop or else he decided not to bring bad news to the President. When the site opened for business on October 1, the site was dead in the political water.
In private industry, he would have been fired on October 2. But he is in government. He keeps his job. He now gets to testify in Congress.
He assured the committee that the site will be operational on November 30 for most Americans.
How does he know this? He apparently knew nothing on September 30. Why does he know what is happening now?
Why will the site be operational on November 30? Because, as he said, the programming team is working around the clock. Which team is this? The A-Team. The team that was not hired to design it back in 2010. The team that supposedly knows what it is doing. The team that is expected to clean up the mess in two months — the mess that took three years and $174 million (Kathleen Sebelius), or $350 million (Washington Post, pre-Sebelius), or $630 million (initial media estimate), for the B-Team to create.
Why should Congress believe Mr. Park? Because of the labor theory of value. “The team is working very hard.”
In 1871, Austrian economist Carl Menger’s book appeared, Principles of Economics. The Mises Institute makes it available for free here. Menger took issue with the classical economists, including Karl Marx, who had argued that the value of any asset is derived from the value of the labor that was used to create it. Not so, said Menger. Economic value today derives from forecasters’ expectation of future demand by consumers.
Of course, this expectation may be wrong. Future consumers may decide not to buy the item or service. In this case, the asset’s value will be close to zero. The producer will suffer a big loss. The fact remains that the labor invested in the production of the item is a sunk cost. It’s gone forever. Its value is gone forever. Think “dry hole so far”
In short, economic value is not intrinsic and objective. It is imputed and subjective. This insight launched Austrian economics.
What would anyone the private sector pay today for www.Healthcare.gov? The tavern owner in My Fair Lady expressed it best, when asked by Eliza Doolittle’s father to extend credit to him for a drink. “Not a brass farthing.”
Mr. Park wants Congress to be satisfied with his explanation of looming success: “The team is working very hard.”
In two weeks, Congress — and everyone else — will know about the value of the site. If it fails to work, we will have one more example of the labor theory of value’s failure to explain economic cause and effect. If it fails to work, the labor of the A-Team will prove to have been worthless in creating value.
Well, not quite worthless. Mr. Park will be able to stall Congress longer by invoking the hard work of the A-Team. He will say that January 2 will be the day of deliverance. He will assure Congress that the A-Team will work on Christmas day and New Year’s day. Such dedication will deliver a valuable product.
Hard work will do the trick. It will create value.
It did not create any value from 2010 to now. But it soon will, Mr. Park assured Congress.
All those Americans who have had their health insurance policies canceled will be able to buy really good policies on November 30. Mr. Park has assured Congress of this. Trust him.
If there were a way for me to short www.healthcare.gov, delivery date November 30, I would do it. But even if the contract existed in the futures market, I don’t think anyone would go long. Not even the Federal Reserve.
Continue Reading on www.usatoday.com Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/14/obamacares-website-vs-austrian-economics/#Rtp5dwzxXq6c7Bom.99
B Hijazi: Record number of Americans abandoning U.S.
This year will see at least a third more taxpayers renouncing their citizenship than the previous high. What's likely to blame »
More Taxpayers Are Abandoning the U.S.
Year's Tally for Expatriations Sets Record; Increase Comes Amid Tax Crackdown on Offshore AssetsBy Laura Saunders
The exterior of the Internal Revenue Service building in Washington.
This year will set a record for expatriations by U.S. taxpayers, with at least a 33% increase from the previous high in 2011.
The Treasury Department published the names of 560 people who either were U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship or long-term residents who turned in their green cards during the third quarter.
That brings the total so far this year to 2,369, according to Andrew Mitchel, a tax lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who tracks the data. For all of 2011, the number of published expatriates was 1,781, he said.
Treasury doesn't report when people renounced, and there could be a gap between that action and a name's appearance on the list. The department also doesn't distinguish between those giving up passports and those turning in green cards.
Taxpayers who expatriate aren't required to give a reason, but experts said the overall increase was likely because of tougher enforcement of U.S. tax laws.
"Nothing has changed in immigration law that would make people want to renounce," said Freddi Weintraub, an immigration specialist and partner at Fragomen Worldwide, a New York-based law firm. "Current or anticipated changes in tax law and enforcement are driving this increase."
People who renounced last year might have avoided higher taxes on income and estatesincluding those on long-term capital gainsthat took effect in 2013. Those who renounce citizenship or turn in green cards can be subject to an exit tax.
The Internal Revenue Service declined to comment.
"The fact that renunciations have increased sharply is not surprising, given increased U.S. scrutiny in this area," said Fran Obeid, a partner at Obeid & Lowenstein LLP in New York, who specializes in offshore-account issues. "Renunciation can be expensive, but it may be easier than staying in compliance with U.S. tax laws that can be onerous for citizens of other countries."
Taxpayers who renounce aren't required to hold citizenship elsewhere, but as a practical matter they usually do.
Experts said the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act also may have contributed to rising renunciations. Set to take effect next year, it requires foreign financial institutions to report account information about U.S. taxpayers to the IRS. Affected taxpayers include both U.S. citizens and green-card holders living in the U.S. and abroad.
All income earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents, even those who live abroad, can be subject to U.S. tax. The U.S. also confers citizenship on people born on American soil. Penalties for failing to report assets can be severe, including up to 50% of an account balance a year.
Although many of the U.S. laws on offshore accounts have been in effect for decades, experts say there was little enforcement of them until 2009, when Swiss banking giant UBS AG admitted that it had helped U.S. taxpayers hide assets abroad. The bank paid $780 million to avoid criminal charges and turned over the names of more than 4,000 account holders, piercing the veil of Swiss bank secrecy.
Since then, more than 38,000 U.S. taxpayers have confessed to having undisclosed offshore accounts and paid more than $5.5 billion in back taxes, interest and penalties. Lawyers estimate $5 billion more hasn't yet been paid.
Write to Laura Saunders at laura.saunders@wsj.com
amenper: El Futuro de obamacare.
El número iínfimo de inscripciones para comprar los seguros del Obamacare (los números sólo enseñan aplicaciones no compras en firme) ha sido algo decepcionante, llega a un punto catastrófico para, la administración de Obama
Se reveló el miércoles que sólo 26.794 personas inscribieron para el seguro médico durante el mes primero, en el viciado sitio de operaciones para el "Obamacare".
Agregando en la inscripción de más de 79.000 en los 14 Estados inscripciones por otros medios, el número a través de la nación es de 106.000 inscritos octubre que es apenas una quinta parte de lo que los funcionarios habían proyectado — y una pequeña fracción de los millones que han recibido las ampliamente publicitadas cancelaciones de cobertura privada como consecuencia de la ley federal.
La casa blanca se apresuró a tratar de calmar demócratas ansiosos que están preocupados por el programa controversial, que votaron hace tres años a la existencia de la ley.
Pero hay una realidad que tenemos que tener en consideración algo que no se menciona mucho.
Estaba oyendo a Ezequiel Emmanuel, el arquitecto del Obamacare en una entrevista en televisión, y mantiene el mantra de que eventualmente en un año el Obamacare tendrá más de 7 millones de inscripciones.
Si analizamos la situación es posible que Emmanuel tenga razón al final, y que esto sea una buena propaganda para el gobierno.
Si ya hay más de 5 millones de cancelaciones debido a que las aseguradoras privadas no pueden cumplir con las regulaciones, a pesar de que los cancelados no pueden ser fanáticos del Obamacare, no tendrán más remedio que carenar en el Obamacare. Entonces si hacemos la aritmética, con posiblemente 6 millones que se calculan que serán los cancelados, más los seguros subvencionados pueden cumplir con su meta demagógica. Es demagógica porque en realidad la promesa y el aparente propósito era que todo el mundo tuviera tengan seguro, no que los que estaban asegurados tuvieran que cambiar sus seguros por otros del gobierno. Bueno al menos eso fue lo que nos dijo Obama.
Pero eso es el esquema para la socialización, que el gobierno sea el máximo asegurador.
Pero hay algo lo que no se podrá evitar y que será el fracaso del sistema, estamos en una situación en que la proporción de la población geriátrica aumenta según pasa el tiempo, esto es el problema del social security, no hay jóvenes que paguen por tantos viejos.
En el caso del seguro de salud es todavía es peor, y más inminente, porque mucho de los jóvenes pagarán multas antes que inscribirse o buscarán otros medios de aseguramiento para no caer bajo la burocracia del gobierno y los mayores serán los primeros en inscribirse por su necesidad.
Si son jóvenes deben de leer este artículo que les mando en el link, si son viejos también deben leerlo, porque los jóvenes no se la van a dejar pasar y al final los viejos tendrán que pagar más.
Top 10 Ways ObamaCare Sticks It to Young Adults | FreedomWorks
El gobierno no puede hacerle frente a esto como lo pueden hacer la empresa privada de los seguros de salud, con su ingeniosidad, experiencia y conocimiento. El gobierno no es comerciante, y vemos diariamente lo que pasa cuando trata de incursionar en un tipo de empresa privada como en este caso de los seguros de salud. Lo que veremos es la solución de la parodia de empresario que es el gobierno, que tomarán la medida simple de que tendremos que pagar más por nuestros seguros, ya sea por los pagos en la póliza o a través de nuevos impuestos. Es la única manera en la que saben resolver los problemas.
Los mismos expertos que determinaron la posibilidad de los que está pasando, están de acuerdo en que el gobierno pudiera sobrepasar esta debacle que no puede ponerse peor, pero que para Septiembre del año 2014, o sea antes de las elecciones, por mucho que traten de evitarlo, van a tener que enfrentarse a tener que aumentar las primas propuestas o crear un nuevo impuesto para el Obamacare. Y esto no es muy bueno para los candidatos demócratas. Sería algo bueno que los republicanos se preparen para esta oportunidad y traten de controlar sus luchas intestinas.
Why www.Healthcare.gov Is in Intensive Care. Written by Gary North
At the end of October, Jeffrey Zients, the man who has assumed control over the website — a man with no background in computers — announced that all will be well on November 30.
What if it isn’t? What if it is still in intensive care?
Multimillionaire Zients is scheduled to become President Obama’s chief economic adviser on January 1.
But first, he has promised to oversee the fixing of www.Healthcare.gov by November 30.
What if it does not work on November 30? From the day he becomes the #1 economic adviser, the media will refer to him in their reports: “The man in charge of www.Healthcare.gov is now the President’s top economic advisor.” He will not shake loose from the albatross, which will be tied securely around his neck. He decided to wear it. Now he cannot take it off.
What is the site’s problem? This: the programmers were told by the government that no one must be allowed to see the prices of the policies until he has registered. Why not? Because of sticker shock. The premium price hikes are so high, that without the promise of tax credits, they will shock shoppers. So, the programmers were told to design it so that the site would tell shoppers in advance how big their tax credits will be. Therefore, everyone must register.
Comparable private-sector e-commerce sites, like eHealthInsurance.com, allow you to shop for plans and compare prices simply by entering your age and your ZIP code. After you’ve selected a plan you like, you fill out an on-line application. That substantially winnows down the number of people who rely on the site for network-intensive tasks.
The federal government’s decision to force people to apply before shopping, Weaver and Radnofsky write, “proved crucial because, before users can begin shopping for coverage, they must cross a busy digital junction in which data are swapped among separate computer systems built or run by contractors including CGI Group Inc., the healthcare.gov developer, Quality Software Services Inc., a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit; and credit-checker Experian PLC. If any part of the web of systems fails to work properly, it could lead to a traffic jam blocking most users from the marketplace.”
The complexity has shut it down. Hardly anyone can register. The site is jammed up. At most, 50,000 have signed up. They have not all actually bought policies. They have merely put a plan into the shopping cart. They are eligible to buy a policy, if they have the money. They are officially enrolled. But they are not yet policy owners.
The government is counting shopping cart non-buyers as having successfully signed up. This makes the debacle look better. It inflates the figure.
What if federal judge Paul Friedman decides in the case now before him that the fact that the ObamaCare law did not specify that policies bought through the federal government’s exchanges would receive any subsidies therefore invalidates the subsidies? That would mean that the IRS may not grant the tax rebates. That decision is due by February 15.
The loser in this case will then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That will take months to decide.
If the rebates are denied, the entire scheme blows up in Obama’s face. The tens of millions of Americans who have had their policies canceled will face the new premiums without any protection.
The Democrats who voted for ObamaCare will then face the voters without any protection.
Continue Reading on www.forbes.com
Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/12/www-healthcare-gov-intensive-care/#Pv52Ti4O5DehqRDt.99
amenper: Limosna a Martillazos
Lo del Obamacare me trae recuerdos de ciertas situaciones parecidas en el mercado privado.
En la época moderna, a todos los niveles la industria trabaja de una manera diferente al pasado con métodos que se conocen con diferentes nombres pero que son el resultado de las teorías económicas modernas de de-centralización de mercadeo, ya no hay fabricantes que hacen de todo, y fabricantes -distribuidores que producen un número limitado de productos los otros los mandan a fabricar a otras compañías. A esto le llaman de diferentes maneras, "farming out" "private labels", pero el resultado es que ustedes ven los llamados productos genéricos y son casi siempre hecho por el mismo fabricante aunque tenga el nombre en la etiqueta de otro fabricante.
Casi siempre hay fabricantes que se dedican a una especialidad de cierto tipo de producto, y sirve a varias compañías sus etiquetas privadas. Pero ha sucedido, que este fabricante decide un día vender el producto directamente deja de fabricarle a las otras compañías, como es claro es una competencia desleal y deja mucho que decir de una compañía que haga algo de tan poca ética, ha ocurrido en muy pocos casos.
Esto es algo parecido a lo que está pasando con el Obamacare. El gobierno con sus regulaciones ha querido lo que en el comercio se llama "corner the market". Con la autoridad de las regulaciones comenzó una competencia desleal con las compañías de seguros privadas.
Ahora la presión política lo obliga a ceder, y suspende las regulaciones por un tiempo limitado, un año, para que las compañías de seguros sigan vendiendo.
Pero lo increíble por lo absurdo es que lo ha hecho con limitaciones. Cuando renueven las pólizas, las compañías de seguros tendrán que explicar la cobertura y decir que pueden conseguirla más baratas con Obamacare, una propaganda de gratis obligatoria, el sueño de un comerciante monopolista.
O sea que no sólo quiere que las compañías de seguro le resuelvan el problema en que se ha metido, pero además quiere que le hagan propaganda a su producto. Después que se cansó de decir que estas compañías eran la causa de todos los problemas. Es evidente que el gobierno quiere ser el monopolio de los seguros, el pagador único, porque el que paga manda y a Obama le gusta mandar, pero ahora que tiene que pedir ayuda temporal y pide la limosna con escopeta..
Siempre me ha asombrado la manera de que actúa el gobierno cuando incursiona en una empresa que debe de ser privada, pero este caso se han batido todos los records
amenper: Conservative alternative to obama care
This alternative looks pretty good for me. It is not perfect, but like our president said today “nothing is perfect but some of us are more perfect than others”, well......, he didn´t say exactly that but I am sure that is what he had in his mind.
Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin: A Consevative alternative to Obamacare.
Updated Nov. 13, 2013 7:35 p.m. ET
As ObamaCare's failures and victims mount by the day, Republicans have so far mostly been watching in amazement. They expected the law to fail, but even among its most ardent opponents few imagined the scale and speed of the fiasco.
Seeing the pileup, Republicans might be tempted to step aside and let ObamaCare continue to disappoint and infuriate Americans. After all, the GOP doesn't have the power to repeal the law, or even to make meaningful changes to undo its worst effects. So why not just watch the Democrats pay the price for their folly?
But such passivity would actually protect the Democrats from paying that price. What Republicans can and should do is offer the public something better. Now is the time to advance a conservative reform that can solve the serious, discrete problems of the health-care system in place before ObamaCare, but without needlessly upending people's arrangements or threatening what works in American medicine. That the Democrats are now making things worse doesn't mean the public wants to keep that prior system, or that Republicans should.
The biggest Republican misconception about health care is that the system before ObamaCare was a free-market paradise. On the contrary: It has consisted chiefly of massive and inefficient entitlements that threaten to bankrupt the nation; the lopsided tax treatment of employer-provided coverage that creates incentives for waste and overspending; and an underdeveloped individual market struggling to fill the gaps.
Exploding health-care costs and millions left needlessly uninsured are a result of misguided federal policies. Solutions require targeted reforms to those policies.
The outlines of such reforms have been apparent for years. The key is to enable all Americans to purchase coverage and to approach health care as consumers: with an interest in quality and an eye on cost.
The first step of a plan to replace ObamaCare should be a flat and universal tax benefit for coverage. Today's tax exclusion for employer-provided health coverage should be capped so that people would not get a bigger tax break by buying more extensive and expensive insurance. The result would be to make employees more cost-conscious; and competition for their favor would make insurance cheaper.
That tax break would also be available—ideally as a refundable credit sufficient at least for the purchase of catastrophic coverage—to people who do not have access to employer coverage. This would enable people who now choose not to buy insurance to get catastrophic coverage with no premium costs. It also would give those who want more-comprehensive coverage in the individual market the same advantage that people with employer plans get.
Medicaid could be converted into a means-based addition to that credit, allowing the poor to buy into the same insurance market as more affluent people—and so give them access to better health care than they can get now.
All those with continuous coverage, which everyone could afford thanks to the new tax treatment, would be protected from price spikes or plan cancellations if they got sick. This guarantee would provide a strong incentive to buy coverage, without the coercion of the individual mandate. People who have pre-existing conditions when the new rules take effect would be able to buy coverage through subsidized, high-risk pools.
By making at least catastrophic coverage available to all, and by giving people such incentives to obtain it, this approach could cover more people than ObamaCare was ever projected to reach, and at a significantly lower cost.
The new alternative would not require the mandates, taxes and heavy-handed regulations of ObamaCare. It would turn more people into shoppers for health care instead of passive recipients of it—and encourage the kind of insurance design, consumer behavior and intense competition that could help keep health costs down. Redesigned and directed this way, the flow of federal dollars and tax subsidies would do much less to distort health markets than it has for the last several decades, while getting far more people insured.
Conservative policy experts have long proposed such approaches, but congressional Republicans, with a few honorable exceptions, have not taken them up in recent years. In 2009, for instance, House Republicans offered an alternative to ObamaCare that did nothing about today's market-distorting tax policy and thus did not do much to help the people whom that policy—by inflating premiums—has locked out of the insurance market.
Some Republicans think that political success requires nothing more than watching ObamaCare fail. But if the new system quickly implodes, that would be all the more reason to have an alternative on hand—other than another leftward move toward single payer. And it might not implode so quickly.
Other Republicans fear that any alternative would amount to ObamaCare Lite, just another big government health-care program. But a real market-oriented conservative reform would take us toward an actual functioning consumer market in coverage—and so to the right not only of ObamaCare but of the system that preceded it.
There has also been a fear among some Republicans that proposing an alternative would give Democrats a target and distract the public from the expected and now real failures of ObamaCare. But the absence of a credible alternative has been the GOP's greatest weakness in the fight against ObamaCare, and it is probably why polls show that even many people who are skeptical and concerned about ObamaCare do not support full repeal.
Defenders of ObamaCare are using the absence of a Republican alternative to suggest that their law is the only answer to the grave problems of American health care and that without it millions of Americans would continue to lack access to coverage. That argument is their final trump card. It is time for Republicans to take it away.
Mr. Ponnuru is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor at National Review. Mr. Levin is the editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Urgent Message from Michael Reagan: Oppose Gimmick 'Fixes' to Obamacare
Dear Newsmax Reader:
Major supporters of President Obama's Obamacare law are proposing new legislation to modify and "fix" problems associated with the new program.
Congress should reject any such legislation that offers minor adjustments to this radical law — unless significant changes are agreed to by President Obama and his supporters.
With the looming nightmare of 5 million Americans soon losing their current healthcare coverage, many major supporters of the law, including Obama himself, former President Clinton, and leading senators who backed the law such as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, are pushing for legislation that will modify Obamacare and allow citizens to keep their current insurance.
It's understandable why these senators and congressmen want a political "bailout."
These were the same people who claimed, along with Obama, that under the new law every American gets to "keep their doctor, and their healthcare plan."
Nevertheless, conservatives in both the House and the Senate should OPPOSE any surgical fixes to a law that needs to be either significantly overhauled or scuttled completely.
Already, without any legal authority, the president has delayed key parts of the law, including the employer mandate, which was to take effect on Jan. 1, 2014.
The president by DECREE ordered a delay in implementation of the employer mandate until Jan. 1, 2015.
Frankly, I am shocked that no member of Congress has sought to hold the president accountable for this gross abuse of power and clear violation of the Constitution.
It is a dangerous precedent.
And he announced today he is making additional changes to the law, without congressional approval, for individuals to keep their insurance.
It is now clear why he wants the delay for the employer mandate. Studies have shown that as many as 50 million Americans who are covered by their employer insurance will lose it once the mandate goes into effect.
Obama and many of his supporters do not want Americans to witness the full impact of the employer mandate until after congressional elections next year.
They are fearful that when millions of Americans are forced onto state- and federal-run exchanges, and have to pay higher insurance premiums, they will wake up en masse, and support for this law will shrivel.
It is becoming more and more apparent to the American people that the Obamacare law is a failure and does not solve the key problems facing the country, especially dramatically rising health costs.
In fact there are little or no healthcare cost containment provisions in the law.
That's another lie the president told, claiming that, on average, premiums would decline by $2,000 or more.
Now we know they are skyrocketing!
Meanwhile, the major cuts in Obamacare consist of over $700 billion being robbed from seniors in the Medicare program — seniors who paid into the system all their lives. This is a disgrace.
We at the League of American Voters strongly support a vibrant, free market-based healthcare system.
We back an honest, sensible Medicare program.
Obamacare is based on socialistic principles, more focused on the idea that government and not the private sector is best in deciding your healthcare.
Now is not the time for Congress to make minor fixes to the law that politically helps Obamacare supporters in Congress — without addressing major issues and problems with the law.
The League strongly believes that if House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, along with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to change the law, they should agree to a number of significant provisions, among them:
Permanently abolish the employer mandate. This is a job killer and will lead to millions of people losing their insurance and businesses moving to hire part-time, not full-time employees.
Restore more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicare. This is an outrage that seniors are footing the bill to pay for millions of young people and others who did not have the time to sign up for private insurance.
Abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Boards that will further cut Medicare benefits. These boards have no accountability and undoubtedly will lead to rationing of key services for Medicare patients. It's a dangerous plan that must be stopped.
Abolish the so-called Cadillac tax. This tax of 40 percent on some insurance plans will eventually apply to more than half of those with insurance plans. Even Obama's union supporters realize this will further undermine the quality of healthcare.
Abolish taxes on income, capital gains, dividends, and other excise fees created by Obamacare. These taxes add an estimated $175 billion in economic burden on taxpayers across the country. They should be stopped immediately.
Since Obamacare was first proposed, the League of American Voters, the nationwide grass-roots group that I chair, has been at the forefront in fighting this radical law. We need your help today to continue that fight.
The first thing you can do is contact your member of Congress or senator and demand that they not agree to any modest fixes to this law.
If Obama and his supporters in Congress truly believe in compromise, they should accept major changes to the law now. We understand that fully defunding or stopping Obamacare is not likely at this time.
But we have a chance to radically emasculate the most socialistic parts of the law.
We need your help in our national campaign to stop it.
I urgently need to send out millions of emails over the next few days to stop this rush to help Obama and his Obamacare supporters by cosmetically modifying the law.
We can't stop them without your support.
Please call your member of Congress today — tell them Michael Reagan asked you to call and that you OPPOSE any minor fixes to the law.
Call Congress and the Senate at 202-224-3121 today!
I also strongly encourage you to donate to the League of American Voters.
Your support allows us to better inform the American people about the dangers of Obama's agenda.
Remember, the media are in Obama's pocket. They won't tell the truth.
We will!
Any donation you can make — $200, $100, even $50 or $25 — can make a big difference in getting the word out and stopping Obama's wish for a minor, superficial fix to Obamacare.
Please support our efforts to stop a political bailout for Obama on Obamacare — Go Here Now.
Thank you for your support.
Yours for America,
Michael Reagan
Chairman
Obamacare Failure. By Associated Press WASHINGTON
- Planting a paltry number on a national disappointment, the Obama administration revealed Wednesday that just 26,794 people enrolled for health insurance during the first, flawed month of operations for the federal "Obamacare" website.
Adding in enrollment of more than 79,000 in the 14 states with their own websites, the nationwide number of 106,000 October sign-ups was barely one-fifth of what officials had projected - and a small fraction of the millions who have received widely publicized private coverage cancellations as a result of the federal law.
The White House raced to reassure anxious Democrats who are worried about the controversial program, which they voted into existence three years ago and which seems sure to be a major issue in next year's election campaigns. The administration, trying to regain the initiative, for the first time indicated a willingness to consider legislation to stave off the wave of cancellations that's compounding the website technology problems.
Some Democrats are seeking changes in Obama's signature program, and key Republicans, many pressing for repeal, said that even Wednesday's feeble sign-up figures appeared to be pumped up. The final number - 106,185 people - would be even smaller if it counted only those who finalized their enrollment by actually paying their first month's premium, Republicans said.
Administration officials and senior congressional Democrats expressed confidence in the program's future. "We expect enrollment will grow substantially throughout the next five months," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is in overall charge.
"Even with the issues we've had, the marketplace is working and people are enrolling," Sebelius said. Responding to GOP critics, she said the first premiums are not due until Dec. 15.
The online, state-level insurance markets were envisioned as the new portal to coverage for people who don't have health plans on the job. But the federal market was overwhelmed by technical problems when it opened Oct. 1, and the experience of state-run markets has been mixed.
The administration said an additional 1 million individuals have been found eligible to buy coverage on the markets, with about one-third qualifying for tax credits to reduce their premiums. Another 396,000 have been found eligible for Medicaid, the safety-net program that is shaping up as the health care law's early success story.
For many Democrats, concerns over the cascade of website problems has been compounded by the focus on Obama's misleading promise that Americans who liked their health insurance plans could keep them under the overhaul. But millions of people are receiving cancellation notices. They have plans that for various reasons don't qualify for the law's "grandfather clause" protection against cancellations.
Obama has said he's sorry that people are losing their coverage and has vowed to find ways to address "holes and gaps" in the law. Advisers originally said the White House was considering administrative fixes, not legislative options.
On Wednesday, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said, "If we can achieve this administratively, we will certainly look at that possibility," but he added that the White House was also considering legislative ideas.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scheduled an all-Democrats meeting Thursday with White House health care officials.
Republicans, meanwhile, are holding hearings to keep the overhaul's problems in the spotlight ahead of an election year.
"It's kind of interesting to see as Obamacare implodes how everybody's running for cover," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. And Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "Obviously, panic has set in on the other side."
The administration has staked its credibility on turning the website around by the end of this month. From the president on down, officials have said that HealthCare.gov will be running smoothly for the vast majority of users by Nov. 30. They have not specified what "running smoothly" means.
The day was another blow for the administration and its supporters in Congress, who had been counting on Obamacare as a neutral if not winning issue in next year's midterm elections.
Three more swing state Senate Democrats seeking re-election in 2014 signed onto legislation drafted by Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to ensure that anyone liking their current coverage would be able to keep it, an attempt to resolve the issue of cancellations.
In the House, meanwhile, majority Republicans set a vote for Friday on legislation to permit insurance companies to continue selling existing policies that have been ordered scrapped because they fall short of coverage standards in the law.
On daily media calls, Health and Human Services department officials have described a situation where problems get fixed and then new issues crop up as consumers are able to venture further into the website. It's a bit like traffic heading back to a city late on a summer Sunday: You get past one jam, and odds are you run into another.
There was a hopeful sign this Tuesday when Julie Bataille, HHS communications director for the rollout, said that 275,000 people who got hung up in the early days are being invited back to try to complete their applications. The administration is sending the email invitations in batches, so as not to risk any disruptions. White House chief technology officer Todd Park told Congress on Wednesday that system response times are much faster, and error rates have plunged.
But other signals have raised questions. In a blog post on Saturday, Bataille quoted chief White House troubleshooter Jeff Zients as saying improvements would continue in "December, January, February - just like you do with any website."
Asked whether the Nov. 30 target was still achievable, Bataille said on Tuesday, "I want to be clear that our plan remains the same. We are on a path to make improvements week by week so that by the end of November, the site will be working for the vast majority of users."
It's unlikely that Congress will let the website repairs flounder much beyond Nov. 30. Millions of lawmakers' constituents who are losing current individual policies would have to select new plans by Dec. 15 to avoid a break in coverage.
The main federal website is central because other enrollment routes, from call centers to counselors to paper applications received by mail, all depend on having that access.
In Congress earlier Wednesday, the House's chief investigator plunged into the technical issues behind the dysfunctional rollout.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is investigating a long list of issues: insufficient testing, possible security flaws, design shortcomings - even allegations of political meddling.
"Established best practices of our government were not used in this case," said Issa. As a result, the law's promise of affordable health insurance "does not exist today in a meaningful way." Like other Republicans, Issa wants the law repealed, not fixed.
Ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland questioned Issa's fairness.
Addressing Issa directly, Cummings said: "Over the past month, instead of working in a bipartisan manner to improve the website, you've politicized this issue by repeatedly making unfounded allegations."
Associated Press writer Anne Flaherty, Julie Pace and David Espo contributed to this report.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
The coming betrayal of Israel. By Sun Journal (Lewiston, ME)
In Geneva, Switzerland, The United States and other major powers appeared close to a deal with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions against the terrorist- sponsoring state. Negotiations, however, fell apart at the last minute when France and Iran balked at the final wording on the interim draft. Talks are expected to resume within a few weeks, but it is worth pausing to consider what was nearly agreed to and what the outcome could likely be.
President Obama has pledged to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that America has Israel's "back." Who knew he had a knife? An agreement that trusts Iran's promises and allows it to surreptitiously complete development of nuclear missiles would stab Israel in the back.
North Korea promised former President Jimmy Carter during his 1994 visit to Pyongyang it would close a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in exchange for food and humanitarian aid. The reactor was subsequently re-opened. Memo to the Obama administrations: tyrants lie.
Unlike North Korea, an officially atheist state, Iranian mullahs have repeatedly said they have a religious duty to annihilate Israel, not to mention America. How do secular diplomats negotiate with people who, in their minds, would be violating "Allah's will" by making deals with the "great Satan"?
While the negotiations between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran were taking place in Geneva, writes Ynetnews.com, "...the Iranian government sent a different message with a broadcast on state television of a simulated missile attack on Israel." How much more evidence of Iran's intentions and ultimate objective are needed?
Last month, Kerry and Netanyahu met for seven hours in Rome. Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, citing the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, writes, "The secretary of state told the prime minister that he heard from his European friends ... that if the negotiations (with the Palestinians) fail, Israel can forget about participating in the European research and development program 'Horizon 2020'." Kerry is then quoted as saying, "And that will only be the beginning."
Doesn't Kerry have this backward? Sanctions might be lifted against Iran for a promise that won't be kept, but possibly imposed on Israel if it won't agree to what amounts to assisted suicide?
It would also appear that this "deal" had been in the works for at least several months before the Geneva meetings. The Daily Beast reports: "The Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran's new president in June, well before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the historic phone call between the two leaders in September."
The administration pledges to watch Iran closely and if it violates any provisions in a final agreement, sanctions would be re- imposed. If sanctions and other means, such as the introduction of the Stuxnet virus into Iran's computers, failed to deter Iran's nuclear program, why would anyone think additional threats and more sanctions would produce the desired results? Iran is playing for time and it appears the United States is willing to give it to them.
History is a great teacher, but not everyone pays attention. In "The Guns at Last Light," Rick Atkinson's chronicle of World War II, the author recalls President Franklin Roosevelt's view of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin following their meeting at Yalta in February 1945: "'Stalin doesn't want anything other than security for his country,' the president said. 'He won't try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.'"
Winston Churchill similarly misjudged Stalin, writes Atkinson, telling his war cabinet, "'Stalin I'm sure means well to the world and Poland. ... He will not embark on bad adventures.' He added, 'I don't think I'm wrong about Stalin,' whom he had called 'that great and good man.'"
Times and dictators change, but human nature remains the same. Roosevelt and Churchill were wrong about Stalin and the Obama administration is wrong about Iran.
Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist and author.
Tengan todos muy buenos dias y buena suerte.
QUE DIOS LOS BENDIGA ABUNDANTEMENTE.
"EN MI OPINION" Lázaro R González Miño Editor.
lazarorgonzalez@hotmail.com, lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
No comments:
Post a Comment