Yet Another Report on Obamacare Increasing Price of Health Care

Kevin Glass / Townhall Tipsheet

If you follow the news, you're familiar with the fact that many projections are showing that Americans will face much higher health premiums next year due to Obamacare. A new report from Avalere Health confirms this:

Avalere Health, a market research and consulting firm, estimates some consumers will pay half the cost of their specialty drugs under health overhaul-related plans, while customers in the private market typically pay no more than a third. Patient advocates worry that insurers may be trying to discourage chronically ill patients from enrolling by putting high cost drugs onto specialty tiers. 

Under the law, insurers can't charge an individual more than $6,350 in out-of pocket costs a year and no more than $12,700 for a family policy. But patients advocates warn those with serious illnesses could pay their entire out-of-pocket cap before their insurance kicks in any money.

Insurers say prescription drugs are one of the main reasons health care costs are rising.

One of the goals of health care reform should be to "bend the cost curve." One of the ways that Obamacare is trying to achieve that is to force consumers to pay more for prescription drugs.

This comes on the heels of a separate Avalere report this month that, aside from prescription drugs, premiums overall will skyrocket.

Political Fight Is Brewing on Race-Based Preferences

Debra J. Saunders / Townhall Columnist

 

Until this month, supporters of racial preferences in California have enjoyed a cozy narrative. They were able to dismiss the 55 percent of voters who passed Proposition 209, which barred race and gender preferences in university admissions, hiring and public contracts in 1996, as over-entitled fear-obsessed white folks with little understanding of and sympathy for the obstacles that daunt minority students.

That ended Monday when California state Sen. Ed Hernandez was forced to put a hold on a measure to allow voters in November to restore racial preferences in public education. It was a huge about-face. His Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 had won a supermajority of the Senate vote, all from Democrats. Hence, SCA5 should have sailed through the Assembly, but perhaps that was the problem.

Hernandez blamed "scare tactics and misinformation" for his retreat. Same stuff critics said in 1996. But I doubt Hernandez was enjoying himself, because this time he was responding to pressure from fellow Democrats who also are people of color.

There's an emerging Latino-Asian split in the Democratic caucus. In an ugly case of voter remorse, three state senators -- Southern Californians Ted Lieu and Carol Liu and Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who had voted for SCA5 -- asked Hernandez to halt it.

"As lifelong advocates for the Chinese American and other API communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children," they wrote. They said they had heard no opposition prior to the vote, but having heard from thousands of unhappy Californians, they were getting wobbly. (OK, maybe they didn't use the word wobbly, but you get the idea.)

They didn't hear any opposition? "That's no defense at all," countered S.B. Woo, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Delaware waging a campaign to rally Asian-Americans against SCA5. "In the future, don't ever use that argument. You are supposed to find out," said Woo, now in retirement in Florida.

Although, to be fair, there wasn't much of a fuss before the vote.

I mentioned to Woo that in 1996, most Asian voter groups opposed Proposition 209. What happened?

Over the years, Woo told me, many Asian parents complained that their children had to surpass white, Latino and black students to get into good schools. Still, his Asian-American political action committee did not take a position on college admissions until about two years ago. His community thought, "Maybe we should be more noble." But when post-209 research suggested that racial preferences ill-served African-American, Latino and Asian students, Woo said, "We thought there is no sense in being noble."

Gail Heriot, a UC San Diego law professor and Proposition 209 co-chair, argues that racial preferences pushed some underprepared and under-represented minority students into top universities in which they languished toward the bottom half of their class. The results were higher dropout rates for African-American and Latino students and more of those students abandoning science and engineering in favor of other majors.

"Some of the liberals believe in theories but don't look at empirical data," Woo concluded.

Roger Clegg of the pro-Proposition 209 Center for Equal Opportunity believes that universities funded by taxpayers cannot sort out people "according to their skin color" or their parents' country of origin. It's as wrong to tell deserving Asian students that their best work might not count as it is to shortchange white students. It turns out, black and white representation in the University of California system relative to population has dipped since Proposition.209 passed, while Asian participation is up.

With SCA5 on hold, affirmative-action supporters might begin to suggest that Asian opponents are racist and selfish. Sens. Lieu, Liu and Yee, welcome to my world.

Even without an Assembly vote, an Asian-American voter revolt has begun. On his website, Woo urged voters to "register as Republican voters today, they'll really get your message. They'll never touch SCA5 again!"

As a Republican, I would love to see Democrats put SCA5 before California voters. Let the Democratic machine feel what it's like to be branded as racists for standing up for their principles.

Will the media consensus spin then be that with their old-school grievances, Democrats are chasing away hard-working Asian and immigrant voters, and the party better change to stay competitive?

What do you think?

John Kerry is an idiot!

Kerry welcomes Khamenei’s anti-nuke fatwa, says Iran can have peaceful nuclear program

Robert Spencer  / Jihad Watch

 

 

John Kerry and Barack Obama are betting the entire world on the proposition that Khamenei’s statements against nuclear weapons are sincere, and not intended to deceive the Infidels into complacency. Lets hope they’re right, and that this whole thing doesn’t blow up in their faces, and ours. But given their repeated genocidal statements against Israel, it would be better to be prepared for all contingencies.

“John Kerry: US Welcomes Ayatollah Khamenei’s Fatwa against N. Weapons,” from Iran’s state-run Fars News Agency, March 22:

TEHRAN (FNA)- US Secretary of State John Kerry appreciated the fatwa (religious decree) issued by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei against the production and use of nuclear weapons, and said Iran is entitled to use peaceful nuclear program.

Kerry made the remarks in an interview with Voice of America (VOA).

When asked to comment about a Fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khamenei banning the production and use of nuclear weapons, Kerry said he shows a lot of respect to this Fatwa as it is a religious message and is highly respected by people.

Kerry said that he and US President Barack Obama welcome the Fatwa.

He said that Iran is entitled to pursue its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, but, meantime, added that such a program needs to be transparent and under international regulations as it is normal for nuclear programs of other countries.

Kerry also expressed the hope that Iran and the United States could solve their differences and find a settlement to the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear activities.

On February 22, 2012, Ayatollah Khamenei said the Islamic Republic considers the pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons “a grave sin” from every logical, religious and theoretical standpoint.

Former Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said last year that Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa is binding for Iran, adding, “There is nothing more important in defining the framework for our nuclear activities than the Leader’s fatwa.”

Netanyahu Allocates Almost $3 Billion for Iran Attack

Newsmax

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon have reportedly ordered the military to continue preparing for a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Three Knesset members who were present at Knesset joint committee hearings on Israel Defense Forces plans said that at least 10 billion shekels ($2.89 billion) of the defense budget would be allocated this year for preparations for the strike on Iran, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.

After an interim accord between Iran and six world powers was reached, Netanyahu stressed that Israel will not consider itself bound by it. Netanyahu in fact is again making implied threats about a possible unilateral Israeli strike.

"My friends, I believe that letting Iran enrich uranium would open up the floodgates," Netanyahu said at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington earlier this month. "That must not happen. And we will make sure it does not happen."

Ya'alon said in a recent speech at Tel Aviv University that he is now likely to back a unilateral strike on Iran in light of his assessment that the Obama administration will not do so, according to Haaretz.

"We think the United States should be the one leading the campaign against Iran," he said. "But the U.S. has entered talks with them and unfortunately, in the haggling in the Persian bazaar, the Iranians were better.

"Therefore on this matter we have to behave as though we have nobody to look out for us but ourselves."

The second round of nuclear talks opened in Vienna on Tuesday with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in attendance along with senior diplomats from the six powers — the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany.

Zarif wrote in an opinion piece for Britain's Financial Times that the six powers have agreed to seek a "mutually acceptable agreement" after realizing that "coercion, pressure and sanctions only result in more centrifuges, more resentment and deeper mistrust."

Islamic law (sharia) is adopted by British legal system

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs


Nail meet coffin. When I said the British government was, in fact, enforcing sharia law when they banned me from Great Britian I was not overstating it. In a stunning move towards complete capitulation, the Brits have just adopted sharia law.

“Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills. Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

They are officially and legally enforcing the misogyny and supremacism over non-Muslims. The land of the Magna Carta is dead. I wasn’t overstating that either.

“Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs,”

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor, 22 Mar 2014 The Telegraph, March 22, 2014

Solicitors told how to draw up Sharia-style wills penalising widows and non-believers.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills Photo: ALAMY

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.

“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”

The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law.

It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.

It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.

The guidance goes on to suggest that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts.

Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws.
However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.

A few are officially recognised tribunals, operating under the Arbitration Act.

They have powers to set contracts between parties, mainly in commercial disputes, but also to deal with issues such as domestic violence, family disputes and inheritance battles.

But many more unofficial Sharia courts are also in operation.

Parliament has been told of a significant network of more informal Sharia tribunals and “councils”, often based in mosques, dealing with religious divorces and even child custody matters in line with religious teaching.

They offer “mediation” rather than adjudication, although some hearings are laid out like courts with religious scholars or legal experts sitting in a manner more akin to judges than counsellors.

One study estimated that there were now around 85 Sharia bodies operating in Britain. But the new Law Society guidance represents the first time that an official legal body has recognised the legitimacy of some Sharia principles.

It opens the way for non-Muslim lawyers in High Street firms to offer Sharia will drafting services. The document sets out crucial differences between Sharia inheritance laws and Western traditions.

It explains how, in Islamic custom, inheritances are divided among a set list of heirs determined by ties of kinship rather than named individuals. It acknowledges the possibility of people having multiple marriages.

“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class,” the guidance says. “Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognized.

Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death. This means you should amend or delete some standard will clauses.”

It advises lawyers to draft special exclusions from the Wills Act 1837, which allows gifts to pass to the children of an heir who has died, because this is not recognised in Islamic law.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”

Lady Cox said: “Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern.”

Symbols of Halal...barbaric and perverted.  Make sure you do

NOT purchase anything with these symbols on it.

Op-ed:

The ugly truth about ObamaCare as my dear friend's journey 'Home' continues...

By: Diane Sori

Seething...NO other word for it, and so I had to decompress with today's TEA Party event and gather my wits about me so I could put these words in print without fear that the thoughts running through my mind and onto this computer might just get me a knock on the door.

As most of you know, my dear friend is dying of cancer. Off and on I have been writing about her journey 'home' because my friend...her name by the way is Dori and YES she IS indeed a real person NOT a made-up figment of my imagination that Harry Reid and his ilk...along with some liberal idiots here on fb...claim those in these cancer horror stories are. And YES Dori wants her story told as she and her husband both feel it can help others in a similar situation.

After Wednesday's devastating news that she has but 2 to 6 weeks of life left, one of the major 'end of life' companies here in South Florida (NOT Hospice) was called in to make her journey 'home' as peaceful and pain free as possible. That very same afternoon a hospital bed, a special padded wheelchair, a walker (which is quite ridiculous as she can NO longer stand on her own let alone walk), a bedside commode (again ridiculous), adult diapers (which for my friend's dignity I have asked the nurses to call panties), and the soon to be needed pain meds and anti-seizure meds arrived, and were set-up in the family room...a room full of light where friends and family could visit instead of Dori being locked away in the bedroom.

Now imagine my horror when I walked in on Friday to see her husband fighting back tears as an administrative nurse from the agency told him he could NOT at this point in time have the round the clock nurses her doctors requested or keep the equipment...the very equipment delivered just a few days before.

A doctor from the company had determined on Thursday night that since she could move her leg up a few inches off her hospital bed and that at the moment he examined her that she...contrary to her oncologist and surgeon's time-frame...did NOT have a high enough degree of pain and was somewhat lucid at that moment...that now ALL the equipment would be withdrawn...that the round-the-clock nurses would be withdrawn...to be called in when he determined it was warranted as per the NEW 'end of life' guidelines...translation: ObamaCare.

Within minutes of his leaving when a panty change was needed, Dori started screaming in pain as she was rolled over and started acting like a young child who was being hurt by bullies...this is the abrupt changes in lucidity and personality that are the hallmark of glioblastoma as it eats away at one's brain and destroys who the person is. This is the person...the wife, the mother, and one of my best friend's...that this so-called 'nice and caring' agency doctor determined...contrary to her doctor's orders...that my friend at this point in time did NOT need round-the-clock nursing care or special equipment.

A freakin' SOB who is NOT with her on a daily...on an hourly basis... waltzes in and after a two minute anything but a true medical exam determines that top-notch cancer specialists have the end-of-life time frame wrong since he has seen others in this condition linger for up to a year, and that right now this level of care is NOT needed and thusly would NOT be covered by insurance...insurance she has paid monthly premiums to for well over a decade if NOT longer. And mind you I was in the room holding one of her hands when her doctor...a leading cancer specialist told her and us (her husband and her other dear friend) point blank that she had 2 to 6 weeks of life left...told us as tears ran down his face.

This, my fb friends, is what awaits those whose life is coming to an end thanks to the changes in insurance policies and coverage brought on by the law of land known as ObamaCare. Thankfully, after much discussion with her husband...and her husband also 'discussing' the situation with her case worker...the equipment and nursing care will remain in place until Monday when she will be re-evaluated. 

 

Hopefully, that will be the end of it and all will stay...especially the much needed round the clock nursing care and hospital bed...but something tells me NOT to hold my breath. NOT to hold my breath for the truth is that Obama and his namesake anything but health care coverage is really just a way for him and his minions to play God and decide when one's time is up...after all he has to save the money that would be spent on the critically ill and dying and give it to the 'sponges' to 'buy' their votes, and that is a crime like NO other... sad...it's all so sad.