On the day that Paul Ryan was to give his acceptance speech for the nomination of Vice-President, Ryan knew he had to bring it. Not just because needed to excite the base. Nor was it because he needed to set the narrative in a way that combated the attacks he has already received since Mitt Romney selected him as his running mate. No, he needed to hit it out the park, because a day and half of the same message from different people had grown, if not tedious, certainly stale.

We Built It and We Can Do better may be the rallying cry, but it needed to be told in a fresh way something fierce. If there were any worries about Ryan’s ability to get the job done, they were unfounded.

Simply put, Ryan knocked the ball out of the park.

In a speech that interwove his personal story and beliefs with the plans of a Romney-Ryan ticket, Ryan effectively made the case for the plans and policies they are fighting to implement. Many have commented on Ryan’s likeability and personable manner. Both traits came through in both tone and demeanor. Stories about his family and calling his mother, “his role model” are flatly stock in trade items in politics, but there was an earnestness that permeated through Ryan. He is not just saying these things, they are true for him. This will go a long way for him in the campaign, and made the strong medicine he threw at Obama non offensive.

In a speech that had plenty of zingers in it, Ryan nonetheless never made the attacks personal. They were, in fact, not attacks, so much as critiques. What was different in his speech, in contrast to the attacks thus far from President Obama, is that Ryan focused on the results of the last three years. He zeroed in on facts, and figures, but personalized their consequences.

He made it personal as he talked about the GM factory in his hometown of Jamesville, Wisconsin, the people that he knew who used to work there, and the Obama administrations broken promise to keep it open. This was in contrast to the half a billion the President used in Solyndra. 

Ryan is known as a policy guy. For him its about the numbers, the policy and the results that follow. Ryan, however, was able to explain, keep the speech flowing, serve red meat, and do it with in a humorous way. His best zinger perhaps being the vivid image he conjured with this line: “Americans in their 20′s should not have to move home with their parents house, living in their old rooms, looking up at fading Obama posters and waiting for life to begin.”

A comment meant to target younger voters, but still managed to convey an important message to adults as well. Its a tactic that he used more than once. Throw a funny zinger like, “The President has said he has not communicated enough. That is his job to tell a story. In the last four years we have not suffered from a lack of words from the White House. What we are missing is leadership in the white house.”

Never in the speech did it become about Obama personally or about ideology. Just the results and what needs to be done to get better results. This is why the speech was a home run. Not because he could get applause lines, or get a standing ovation from the people in attendance. They are all going vote for Romney and him anyway. No the brilliance was delivering a speech that moderates, independents, and apathetic voters can understand. The message came through because it was a truthful one delivered at partisan event that did not sound at all partisan. Not in tone. And that is what Romney will need from Ryan during the campaign.

Image Courtesy of  PBS News Hour

The article Paul Ryan Needed to Bring It…and Delivered appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The big night is here. Mitt Romney takes to the stage at 11pm to accept the Republican Presidential Nomination and deliver the biggest speech of his life. It has been a long road for Romney. He has never been fully embraced by the party base, and there is still speculation by many on whether he will be tonight or on election day.

One of the things he will have to deal with in this election, which may appear small but is part of the larger narrative is the liberals that try to paint conservatives as a racist party. There have been more than a few stories from the liberal networks about the number of blacks at the national convention. Even though the Republican National Convention had several African-American speakers the story is that no blacks are here. The truth is that there are plenty, and they all have to deal with the question of how they can support Romney.

If you were to put aside the difference in success for blacks under Democrats versus Republicans and just focus on Mitt Romney, here is what we find: Romney’s life has been one of competency. It is a life filled with success at running things. He has turned around companies. He ran the Winter Olympics, a job offered to him because of his turnaround experience, and saved them. He has been Governor of Massachusetts and done a good job. He did not get everything he wanted, but he did leave the state of Massachusetts with a rainy day fund, something the federal government could use right now.

What do we have on the other side?

President Obama’s life is a life of personal success. He went to a good school. He went to an excellent graduate school. He managed to get elected to public office, and managed to get elected President of the United States. All of that is nice personally. But where is the record of success running things?

He has never run a business or worked in one, nor has he run a city or state. Since he never has run anything, we are left with what he has done thus far. I do not find that record a strong one. Unemployment is 8.3% – 15% in black communities – and has been as high as 10%. He promised to lower the deficit, but increased it. He did not lower the debt, he spent more than any President before. Has that spending lead to a robust economy? No. He bailed out GM, which went bankrupt anyway, and still owes the country billions.

The only thing he can really point to is a healthcare plan that is still unconstitutional—the Supreme Court notwithstanding– and will break the financial back of the country. He can point to foreign policy when it comes to Bin Laden and drone attacks, but many will argue that all of that is on the back of President Bush.

Yet, African-Americans are supposed to support him. Worst, if you support Romney, then somehow you are a racist if you are white, and self-hating if you are black.

Both are wrong. What matters in life is success. What matters is doing something and it working. Not how you feel about it, not how it sounds, and not something that is said by a black man. If a black man is in charge, and he screws up, how does that help anyone, black or white? If a white man is in charge and screws up, how does that help anyone, black or white? It does not. You need to be competent at what you are doing. You need someone in charge that can do the job.

Here is a thought. Ask any black democrat this question: “If you are a manager for a company, would you hire someone that was incompetent? Would you keep someone in a job they were failing at just because they were black?”

The answer would be no. So the real question is, why is that acceptable for the most important job in the country?

Image Courtesy of   NewsHour

The article Competency or Color appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Denver, U.S.A. — “Mitt Romney is the architect of Obamacare,” said Jefferson George, president of the conservative tax-exempt group American Right To Life Action. “Romney has already implemented what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton only dream of: homosexual marriage, tax-funded abortion on demand by health care reform with the individual mandate, robbing religious freedom from pro-life hospitals. The list is long. If anyone believed the ‘lesser of two evils’ con, they’d have to vote for Obama.”

“Strategists say that independents decide elections,” said Darrell Birkey, the ARTL research director overseeing the new RepublicansAgainstRomney.com website. “So the only way for pro-lifers to get candidates who won’t kill unborn children is to become independent enough to oppose liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politicians like Mitt Romney.”

Agreeing with ARTL is the longtime vice president of the nation’s first “right to life” group, Colorado Right To Life. “The Republicans Against Romney site documents that the excuses the campaign makes for Mitt’s anti-child, anti-free-market, anti-family actions are nothing but lies,” said Leslie Hanks. “Sadly, conservative talk show hosts lap it up and repeat the lies. This website even offers a$100 reward for corrections to errors of fact.”

According to the site, Romneycare is fundamentally a liberal, socialist program with its individual mandate that saps the federal treasury. Romney’s top consultants aided the development of Obamacare and put Planned Parenthood on the “health” committee that, from day one, offered $50 tax-subsidized abortion on demand. And still today Romney plans to nominate justices “like John Roberts,” who upheld Obamacare.

RepublicansAgainstRomney.com documents that Mitt Romney claimed to be pro-choice in 1994, pro-life in 2001, pro-choice in 2002, pro-life in 2004, pro-choice in 2005, pro-life in 2006 and then funded abortion in 2006. In 2012, he’s back to supporting abortion for “health reasons,” the loophole opened by the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton opinion that allows all abortions, as in Colorado for example, throughout all nine months.

“And ironically,” adds Birkey, “the ’legitimate’ rape issue is Romney policy, not a Todd Akin policy. The congressman advocates protecting every child, but it’s Romney’s rape exception that requires determining whether or not there was a rape.”

Image Courtesy of   Gage Skidmore

The article American RTL Launches RepublicansAgainstRomney.com appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

During this electoral campaign, Medicare has been in the center of the political debate. The Democrat ticket (Obama-Biden) is accusing the Republican ticket (Romney-Ryan) of planning to end Medicare as we know it, and Republicans are accusing Democrats of taking money out of Medicare to fund Obamacare.

According to a new ad released by Romney’s campaign, the Obama administration has cut $716 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The ad tries to convince voters that the money they have paid to guarantee their healthcare goes to a massive new government program that is not for them. Romney and Ryan are trying to convince the public that they are the ones that would save Medicare benefits from Obama’s cuts; if they win, Medicare benefits will be assured for future generations.

On the other hand, President Obama, during a speech in Iowa, said the Republicans are being dishonest about his Medicare plan. Obama assured the public that he has strengthened Medicare, and that his reforms have saved millions of elderly people millions of dollars on their prescription drugs. The president added that he has made reforms that will not touch Medicare benefits and stated that Romney and Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher system.

With this method, seniors would not have health care guaranteed; instead, they would receive a voucher to buy private insurance. According to Obama, this would make seniors pay extra money every year.

Romney’s campaign has accused President Obama of failing to fix Medicare, which they claim is broken. The Republicans claim Obama promised he would fix Medicare in his first term in office, and he has failed.

A NY Times Editorial on August 15 defends President Obama and claims that the Republican’s attacks on Obama’s plans for Medicare are getting more “heated and inaccurate.” It explains that the Republicans are criticizing Obama for taking $716 billion out of Medicare to a new government program that does not benefit the seniors, but the Republicans are not saying that the “the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.”

The Editorial also explains that “the Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare.”

After all the controversy, a legitimate question would be: what is Medicare? Basically, it is a Federal insurance program that covers the medical services and hospitalizations of some elderly and disabled people. This is not to be confused with Medicaid, which was created to provide medical care to those in poverty.

The health plan is divided into two main parts and two additional ones. The first part, Hospital Insurance, helps to pay hospital stays and other additional health services such as physical therapy. This first part is available for the people  almost every time without having to pay a monthly premium, because they have already paid it through their payroll deductions.

The second part of Medicare, Supplementary Medical Insurance, covers other additional services like blood transfusions or renal dialysis. This part requires a monthly premium, which currently is $99.90 (higher-income consumers have to pay more).

The third part of Medicare has the advantage that it allows the users to design their own medical plan according to their needs. These plans may enlist some private insurance companies to provide some of the services.

In 2006, Medicare expanded to a fourth part of the plan, which covers prescription drugs. This last part, administered by a private insurance company, offers different plans and prices depending on the plan you choose and of the drugs you use. It  requires a payment of a deductible and a premium.

To be eligible for Medicare you have to be at least 65 years old, less than 65 but disabled, or have permanent kidney failure that requires a dialysis or a transplant. The other requirements are that you must be a citizen or a permanent legal US resident for more than five continuous years, and have ten years of contributing into the system.

Medicare basically funds from the payroll taxes and the Self-Employment Contributions Act. Any additional Medicare funding comes from premiums, deductibles, etc.

A key aspect to consider is that according to a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll, Medicare is the third-most crucial issue to likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, just behind the economy and healthcare.

The future of this program could be decided with this election. Now it is time for the Republicans to convince the voters that, under Obama, Medicare would go bankrupt. Or, the Democrats must convince the voters that if Romney wins, Medicare would turn into a voucher system.

The article Medicare and the Political Campaign appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Las Vegas, U.S.A. — Nevada nursing homes and the patients under their care face $20 million cumulative reduction in Medicare funding in 2013-14 as a result of several different federal budgetary actions and regulatory payment changes made by Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) since 2009, a new 50 state data analysis projects.

Nationally, nursing homes and the patients under their care face nearly $4 billion in reductions in 2013-14, and a staggering $65 billion reduction over 10 years, according to the independent health policy advisory firm, Avalere Health. Nursing homes, technically referred to as skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), are Nevada’s second largest health facility employer.

In differentiating the impacts of different budget cuts and regulatory payment changes that result in less cumulative government funding, the Avalere analysis, funded by the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, will be utilized to help inform Nevada policymakers how the successive battery of federal funding reductions undermine facility operations, disrupt staffing, and threaten seniors’ care amid the growing influx of older, higher acuity patients – increasing numbers of whom are able to return home after successful rehabilitation.

The Avalere analysis, the first retrospective national and state-by-state look at recent reductions in Medicare payments to facilities, projects the 2013-14 budgetary impact on Nevada based on the following major government actions since 2009: Affordable Care Act (ACA) productivity adjustment ($7 million cut in 2013); Case-Mix Adjustment in FY 2010 CMS Rule ($7.3 million regulatory reduction in 2013); Forecast Error Adjustment in FY 2011 CMS Rule ($1.3 million regulatory reduction in 2013); Sequestration provision of Budget Control Act ($4.3 million cut on January 1, 2013 ); Bad Debt provision in March 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act ($2.1 million cut 2012-14 beginning October 1, 2012 ).

Alan G. Rosenbloom, President of the Alliance, said that with approximately 70 percent of facility expenses related to staffing, the impact of federal Medicare cuts combined with a fragile state Medicaid system causes significant difficulties in regard to hiring and retaining the direct care staff that help make a significant difference in care quality and patient outcomes.

“More Medicare cuts from Washington – which are imminent — undermine Nevada facilities’ ability to continue sending more and more patients home as quickly as possible. The unintended consequences of these cuts and regulatory payment changes will affect patient access, quality and require that care increasingly be rendered in settings that actually increase the cost to government.

This makes no sense, and is wrong for seniors, providers, taxpayers and the future of our entire U.S. health care system. We respectfully urge Nevada candidates for federal office to address how they would help stop more Medicare cuts for the state’s skilled nursing facilities and the seniors under their care.

The article Nevada Nursing Homes Face $20 Million Reduction on Medicare appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Vice president Joe Biden has two main things in common with Paul Ryan, the person who is trying to substitute him. Both are Catholics and both suffered terrible loses when they were young. Ryan lost his father and Biden lost his wife and daughter in a crash in 1972. Also, both men have clear differences in the way they plan to run the country and Biden recently called Ryan’s policies “irresponsible.”

In a political rally in Durham, N.C. Biden said that Romney and Ryan are decent men, but they have very different values from him and Obama. He said their main differences are in education policies, tax issues and government spending. Both Republican and Democrat tickets have very different points of view on how these issues should be handled.

Also, Biden referred to Ryan’s plan to privatize social security as irresponsible. The vice president criticized that Ryan wants to end Medicare and give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

Obama, who has been campaigning in the swing state of Iowa, criticized Ryan for blocking a farm bill that could help the farmers get the resources they need. President Obama during a rally in Iowa stated: “If you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities,” Obama added “we’ve got to put politics aside when it comes to doing the right thing for rural America and for Iowa.” The Democrats are trying to deflect all the positive attention Ryan could get by making hard accusations on him and trying to prove his budget plan would only favor the wealthy.

On the Medicare issue Romney has defended his running mate, saying that what he intends to do is to preserve Medicare. Romney added that Ryan has different ideas than Obama, and added that “the president’s idea, for example, for Medicare, was to cut it by $700 billion. That’s not the right answer.”

Ryan has also defended the accusations that he would turn Medicare into a voucher system. He said that his mother is a Medicare senior in Florida, and criticized the government by saying that the government made promises to the elderly community, promises with which they have organized their retirement. He added that if the government wants to fulfill those promises it needs to reform Medicare for the younger generation, and that is what he intends to do in order to guarantee a secure future for the elderly.

Romney said that the only president in the nation’s history that has robbed Medicare is Obama. He stated:  ”There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare,” and added that it was going to cost $716 billion to implement his own risky program commonly called Obamacare.

Image Courtesy of  Jason and Bonnie Grower / Shutterstock.com

The article Joe Biden, Paul Ryan and Medicare appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. — August 1 marks an important milestone for the Affordable Care Act and, more importantly, for women across the U.S. New insurance plans will be required to cover eight critical women’s preventive health services with no co-pay. Specifically, the no-co-pay benefits include:

• Screening for gestational diabetes
• Breastfeeding supplies and counseling
• Intimate partner violence screening and counseling
• Sexually transmitted infection counseling
• Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older
• HIV screening and counseling
• Well-woman visits
• FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling

“For many women, costly co-pays stand in the way of essential health care services and contraception,” said Ms. Foundation for Women President and CEO Anika Rahman. “Removing that barrier not only ensures better health outcomes, but also reduces the economic hardship on women and families.”

About the Ms. Foundation for Women
The Ms. Foundation for Women is the leading national social justice foundation committed to building women’s power to ignite change. Every day, it helps over 150 grassroots organizations across the US fight for changes like good paying jobs, reproductive health, ending violence against women and girls, and the inclusion of women at decision-making tables.

By investing in social justice trailblazers—especially women from low-income communities and communities of color most affected by injustice—it works for a nation in which power and possibility are not limited by gender, race, class, or any other factor. The Ms. Foundation delivers funding, builds skills, develops leaders, connects activists with allies, and amplifies the voices of our grantees to create change that benefits women, families and communities. ms.foundation.org

Image Courtesy of   LaDawna’s pics

The article Affordable Care Act: A Milestone for U.S. Women appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In parts one through four of our series on the Affordable Care Act, we have examined a few of the benefits that are seen as the most desirable provisions of the law, things like no pre-existing condition, no-cost birth control, and the ability for children to remain on their parents’ plans. There are other benefits, like cash subsidies to assist in the purchase of the ACA health care plans that will be examined later in the series. For part five, we will skip ahead and discuss the law as it relates to small business and corporate America.

Who Must Comply with Obamacare?

Under the ACA law, any business with more than 50 full-time employees must offer health insurance to its employees. This health insurance plan must be compliant, meaning the benefits of the plan must meet or exceed the minimum benefit thresholds in the ACA law. If a company does not offer a plan or has a plan that does not meet the minimum standards, then the employer will be assessed a tax fine of $2,000 per employee. This provision is not quite as straightforward, however, because technically the company is only supposed to pay the fine for employees who are eligible to receive subsidized health care costs.

Since everyone is mandated to have coverage, that means the fine would apply to all employees, not just the ones receiving government subsidies. In addition, the first 30 employees are exempted from the fine. For example, a company of 51 workers would pay a $2,000 fine on 21 workers (51-30=21) or $42,000. A good guide for explaining different scenarios can be found at the National Federation of Independent Business website.

If you have fewer than 50 employees, you are not required to provide health insurance. However, if you have up to 25 employees, the government will provide a tax credit if you have employees earning at least $50,000 per year and offer health insurance. In 2013, the tax credit amount is 35% of your annual cost for health insurance premiums and goes up to 50% after 2014.

However, that is only if your average employee salary is $20,000 or less. If the average salary is higher than $20,000, then the tax credit will be reduced by a factor determined by how much the average salary is above $20,000. In addition, if the company has more than 10 employees, regardless of salary average, the tax credit will be reduced. Lastly, there are no tax credits allowed for employees considered “highly compensated.”

For the ACA law, highly compensated is considered anyone making over $80,000 a year. If you noticed how the first sentence in this paragraph contradicts with the numbers in the third sentence, that is not a typo. It is contradictory, but that is what is written in the ACA law. You can find this information at the healthcare.gov and on page 319 of the ACA law.

Implications

The number one implication of the small business and employer provision is the flooding of potential ACA recipients into the system, resulting from employers dropping coverage. Most proponents of the ACA law have dismissed this idea as conservative scaremongering at best and corporate greed at worst. That, however, is because they are not the ones writing the checks. This is a simple math equation. The increase in required ACA benefits increases the costs of the health insurance premiums, because more items are covered.

At current levels, the Kaiser Family Foundation puts the average cost of employee health insurance at $15,073. Only $4,129 of that is paid by the employee, meaning close to 11,000 of the costs is paid by the employer. The ACA coverage mandates will increase those premiums, but even at current levels, paying a $2,000 per person fine is better than $11,000. This is simple math, and as you move into companies that have 5,000 or more employees, you are now talking about saving hundreds of millions of annual costs. Make no mistake, many companies will take this option.

For the companies that bite the bullet and provide health insurance, their costs will increase. This will be because of higher premiums charged by the insurance companies for having to cover more health care benefits and for costs related to keeping up with the regulations that come with the law. There is no definitive way to determine the costs accurately ahead of time, but the Congressional Budget Office projects the costs of ACA to be double what they originally projected.

To be fair, the CBO estimates were for the first 10 years. New projections that go out 11 years have the cost down 0.64%. Why the CBO would go out just one year on their projections is a little strange, especially given the paltry reduction in costs it would show. More telling is that the projection is based on additional revenue provisions that would pay for the law. This is always the problem with the CBO; it only answers questions based on the paper and assumptions put in front of them.

If any of those figures are wrong, if something is left out (like payments to doctors left out by Democrats when the bill was originally submitted), or the revenue gathered is less then projected, then the whole analysis is thrown off. Garbage in, garbage out is the old saying. The primary common sense question to this is simple: When has any government program ever cost less than promised? The answer is never.

The other implication is that the country may see an increase in temporary agency usage. Companies on the cusp of going past 50 employees and either wish to expand or have no choice to can avoid that employee threshold by going through temp agencies. This will alleviate some added costs to them, but only marginally as the temp agencies will also be charging a higher fee per employee supplied.

Lastly, small businesses will not get near the benefit from the tax credit. As discussed above, employers cannot have more than a $20,000 in average salary to receive the full tax credit. If you have higher salaries, the tax credit percentage goes down. Any company that can only afford to pay an average salary of $20,000 or less, in all likelihood, cannot afford to pay for health insurance regardless. Look at the numbers: With an average employer cost of $11,000, an employer could get a $5,500 tax credit, and they pay the other half.

However, $5,500 dollars is a quarter of a $20,000 salaried employee’s pay. A business that small cannot afford to pay that. They cannot afford to risk going under just to satisfy some politician’s belief that paying for health insurance is the right thing to do–no matter the cost. Also, this tax credit does nothing for large employers because they are not eligible. If you have 51 or more employees, you cannot get a tax credit at all. Because of this, there is no incentive.

The primary problem is political and social philosophy intruding on policy and business. Things like health care, time off, vacations, etc., used to be called fringe benefits. They were there to create greater employee loyalty and a way to compete for better employees. They were, in short, extra benefits. Today, they are seen as items that are owed to employees.

The President and the Democrats have determined that health insurance is a right, and if the government cannot get a bill through for single payer, then employers are responsible for paying for that right. Whether this is true (health insurance as a right) is an argument for a different day. The point here is when you approach policy that way, then you end up with bills that have consequences far beyond what is written or intended. Businesses exist to provide a product or service, and make a profit. That is all. They are not smaller surrogates for government to be enlisted in the care and feeding of the population.

The article Part Five: Affordable Care Act appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. – Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, released this statement on July 17:

“Last Friday, Judge Richard Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered President Barack Obama to reveal under oath the specifics of his secret meetings with health care lobbyists such as PHARMA, Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that lead up to the passage of “Obamacare,” or else submit to discovery depositions and document production in that my group filed a few years ago.

The judge’s order is courageous, particularly since he was appointed to the federal bench by Democrat President Bill Clinton, showing that some integrity still remains on the federal bench despite the politics of Obamacare and our comprised and partisan judicial system in general.

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare and Congress is considering repealing or amending it, Judge Roberts’ decision is crucial for the American people to know what went on behind closed doors, including any lobbyist commitments to pay campaign contributions to the Obama reelection campaign, in order to fully understand and remedy Obamacare, which many feel will seriously harm the economy if put into effect as is during these times of deep economic crisis.”

Obamacare, which is actually called the Affordable Care Act, was passed by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. It was ruled constitutional not under the Commerce Clause but the taxing powers of Congress. Justice John Roberts, who tends to lean more conservative, seemed to jump to the opposing side in this decision, giving the liberals the majority that they needed to allow the law to pass.

For a copy of Judge Roberts’ decision, go to www.freedomwatchusa.org or Pacer with regard to the case styled Freedom Watch v. Obama et. al, Civil Action No. 09-2398 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia).

Image Courtesy of   michael rubin / Shutterstock.com

The article Obamacare Still in Court in Washington, DC appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

When it comes to solving the problems and challenges of a country or organization, few things are more frustrating than policies or programs designed by ideology. This is an ever present problem in politics, and is often the reason bills and laws are several hundred pages long. You need that much room to put in rules that address whatever political or social world view of the politicians crafting the bill. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is no different, and in installment four of Toonaripost’s Series on the law, we will touch on two provisions written into the law that illustrate this phenomenon.

Equal Premiums for Women

In web advertisements and mailers, the Democratic Party refers to this provision as, “being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition.” The reason for this is that under ACA a woman can no longer be charged a higher premium for health insurance than a man of equivalent age. Two people, male and female, in the same city and town, of the same age, will now have the same or equal monthly premiums.

Implications

There are two implications to this provision. The first, as discussed in Parts One, Two, and Three of our series, is that it is just one in a long list of items that create higher premiums. Why would this be? The reason is simple. Insurance companies do not charge higher premiums to women because they dislike women, they charge higher premiums because women have higher overall health care costs.

Insurance of any type is a service meant to provide money or expenses paid for various types of risk. Companies determine through statistics and probability computations what the company’s risk is for paying out a claim are in a given market; auto insurance, life, or in this case, health care expenses. Premiums are not determined in isolation; there is a reason for them.

According to a study by the Health Services Research center, the per capita lifetime expenditure for a female is $361,200, a third higher than males, at $268,700. Two-fifths of this difference owes to women’s longer life expectancy. Another reason is that women give birth.

If you contrast this with auto insurance, then the roles are reversed. Men pay higher premiums, because men have more accidents, get more speeding tickets, and are more aggressive drivers than women. As a result, women pay lower premiums. That is not unfair or discrimination. That is a function of risk and real costs.

Whether a person agrees with the ACA law is not the issue. This series is about the provisions of the law, and its implications apart from political sides. Nonetheless, this is a provision that has a political viewpoint driving the policy. On the political left is a view that everyone should be treated equal in all things and in all areas.

Those on the right would not disagree, but it can be construed that sometimes the policies from the left, substitute the word equal, with the phrase “the same.” Everyone is equal, but not everyone is the same. And sometimes those differences are significant in financial terms. If politicians continue to make laws based on ideology and not reality, there will be more bills and laws that are long, complicated, expensive, and do not fix the problem they were designed for in the first place.

The 80/20 Law

Even though the most publicized area of contention about ACA was the individual mandate, it is not the only mandate in the ACA law. As we discussed in Part Three, there are mandatory coverage items that must be in each insurance plan. There is also a provision called the Medical Loss Ratio. The health care law generally requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of consumers’ premium dollars on medical care and quality improvement. Insurers can spend the remaining 20 percent on administrative costs, such as salaries, sales, and advertising. Noticeably absent from that list is any mention of a profit ratio.

Implications

The 80/20 law is perhaps the most partisan provision within the ACA law. It has nothing to do with costs, and nothing directly related to health care. What it does is reflect a worldview as it relates to health care.

The view for most Left leaning politicians and individuals is that health care and health care insurance is not something you should be making a profit from. It is seen as profiteering off the misery of sick people. Whether that is right or wrong is immaterial to this series, but that is the view. That opinion is now law, because there is effectively a backdoor price fixing mechanism within ACA.

Insurance companies now have a ceiling to which they can achieve a positive return on their operations. Over the long haul this will turn health insurance into another form of public utility. If you do not agree with profit motive being a part of health care, then this may not bother you. If you want lower prices, then you should be alarmed.

Many may think that this is not a big deal, because it will mean the insurance company may make 250 million instead of 500 million, but that is not how it works. What happens is that smaller companies cannot get to the 250 million. It means that the profit margin, about 2.5% per person now, could be cut in half, making it less attractive for new players to enter the market, or smaller ones to remain in it. Take, for instance, Humana healthcare. They started out as nothing but a single nursing home.

A company in similar circumstances today may look at the margins, the regulations, etc., and just not enter the market. Smaller and regional insurers will find it more difficult to complete and will go out of business or be gobbled up by bigger players. In the end, there will only be a few insurers in the market, making for even less competition than is already available on a state by state basis now. That means higher premiums, and often lower quality. That is the effect of price fixing, regardless of the marketplace you are talking about.

In 10 or 20 years the ultimate implication and consequence of this one, single provision could turn the Conservative boogieman of single payer into a reality.

The article Part Four: Affordable Care Act appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. — In a recent interview for Fox News, Martin Smithmyer, CEO of Americord Registry, one of the industry’s leading cord blood banking companies, said, “Although [Americord] does not pay doctors for making referrals, this is a common practice among some of our competitors, including at least 3 of the top 6 cord blood banks.”

The Obama administration, in January 2012, made it clear that under the new health care law it will require certain healthcare companies to disclose payments they make to doctors – sometimes amounting to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars – for research, consulting, speaking, travel and entertainment. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), recommends doctors disclose such payments and arrangements to patients.

Furthermore, according to Smithmyer, cord blood has certain limitations that parents should know about before they decide to bank their child’s cord blood, since the cost of cord blood banking is not an insignificant consideration when making this decision.

“Although in this field the technology is always changing, the number of stem cells in one unit of cord blood today is only sufficient to treat a child up to about 10 years old,” said Smithmyer. Americord Registry is developing a new technology that will collect up to 10 times more stem cells. This would be enough to use therapeutically for an adult. To learn more, read the full article from Fox contributor: 7 things you should know about cord blood banking.

About Americord Registry

Americord Registry is a company involved in umbilical cord blood, cord tissue and placenta stem cell preservation. Americord collects, processes, and stores newborn stem cells for future medical and therapeutic use, including the treatment of more than 80 diseases such as leukemia.

Founded in 2008, Americord is registered with the Food and Drug Administration. The company’s laboratory is accredited by the AABB and complies with all federal and state regulations, including federal CLIA laboratory standards. Americord is based in New York, NY.

The article Cord Blood Bank Gives Kickback to Doctors appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

So far in our series about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), we have provided an overview in Part 1 and reviewed the benefits of Pre-existing conditions and continuing coverage for kids under their parent’s plans. This law is a complicated one, with over 2,700 pages. It is the goal of this series to explain the more common provisions in a simple and logical way, so you do not have to read the entire law. In Part three, we will look at the following provisions: no cap on lifetime benefits, and preventative care benefits.

No Lifetime Limit on Coverage

Most health insurance plans, either private or through employment, have a limit on the amount of coverage for each person. Often, that limit is between one million to two million dollars. This is an average, and can be more or less depending on the health insurance plan. When you reach that limit, you no longer have coverage. If you or your kids have a rare illness like hemophilia, or rare form of cancer, you can reach the limit fast. Once you do, you have to pay for your care out of your own pocket.

Congress set out to end this within the ACA law. Now there will be no limits on coverage. If you have a rare disease or other health care problem that costs five million dollars, then the insurance company must pay it. While there are no official statistics on people that reach and exceed lifetime limits, it takes only a few people with news stories of their plight to make this a popular provision of the law. It is hard to argue against.

Implications

The primary result of this policy is higher premiums. On one hand are the very real costs of paying the additional medical bills of people who would have reached and passed a limit. Not many people do, but that is not the issue. The insurance company must factor in the costs of additional expenses for everyone. That is how they figure out risk and determine appropriate rates: by using actuaries and high level math to determine risks, average costs, etc. When their expenses for payouts go up, their rates must go up as well. It is simple to say, “They should just eat the expense for the good of people over profits,” but without profits there is no company to pay any premiums.

On the patient side, you will no longer have to worry about being wiped out by an illness. If you can afford the premiums for coverage, then you will not have to stress over possible high health care costs.

A more subtle implication is the continuing argument over how much are and should people be responsible for their decisions. As we will discuss in detail in the section on preventative care, no limits are another barrier to people understanding health care costs, and being responsible. Often, insurance plans have riders that allow individuals to purchase a higher limit amount, and people decline to do so.

They see two million dollars, and think “Hey I’ll never have that many doctor visits.” Then, the illness hits and it is too late. Sometimes people are innocent victims of fate, other times they are the victim of their own choices. As laws take more and more responsibility away from individuals in different areas, there is the real effect of people being more irresponsible.

Preventative Care

If you have caught even a slight amount of news about the ACA law, then you have probably heard supporters of the bill tout this benefit. Beginning in section 4,000 of the law, a host of preventative services are now covered under the law at no co-payment.

The number of services covered are too numerous to fully list here, but include things like disease screenings, mental illness screenings, immunizations, and most controversial presently, birth control and sterilization procedures. Many of these services were covered under current plans offered for sale or through employers, but now they must be covered at no co-payment to the insured.

Implications

The primary idea behind covering preventive care in a comprehensive manner is the fact that the best way to keep costs down for serious illnesses is to not get sick. If individuals take better care of themselves, get regular checks-ups, and prevents illness, then over time health care costs will go down, and then premiums will go down. The problem, however, is that you cannot make people go to the doctor. Many insurance plans already cover items of preventative care at no cost, or very low co-pays.

Many offer lower premiums for things like joining a gym, or joining wellness programs. Yet, people still do not take better care of themselves. You cannot make people go to the doctor, get checks-ups, or engage in wellness programs. By making them free, you have just taken any incentive or responsibility out of their hands.

When you divorce people from real costs, they do not worry about costs. When you make something free that they were not planning to do anyway, then all you have done is raise the costs of premiums, because these services must be covered. By making all sorts of preventative services covered, both the practical like immunizations and the esoteric like fully funded wellness centers, you increase costs.

The other implication is that the Obama administration has set up a coming legal war over the issue of birth control. By mandating that religious organizations must cover birth control, they have impended, many feel, on the rights of the religious. Birth control is a personal choice, but the ACA has made it everyone’s business because it requires everyone to pay for it.

The crux of the situation is simple, should you have to pay for your neighbor’s choices? If you are an employer, religious or otherwise, should you have to pay for the choices of your employees? The ACA says yes, and many organizations will be fighting this provision.

The next part of our series will explain provisions requiring equal premiums for women, and mandates dictating how much insurance companies must pay in health care expenses. These are two of the more controversial provisions with wild and inaccurate statements flying in the media. Tune back in to get the real facts on these two provisions of ACA.

The article Part Three: Affordable Care Act Series appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The US Supreme Court announced the much awaited and crucial decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, upholding it with a 5 to 4 decision.

On the other hand, this action by the Supreme Court junked all anti-Obama care outcries raised by Republicans and protestors, because in some sense the Supreme Court favored the proposal on health care reform. Health care reform has been at the core of the Obama administration since he won the elections in 2008. The Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress in 2010.

The Affordable Care Act, generally known as Obamacare, is a new health policy designed under the Obama Administration with the attempt to provide health insurance to 30 million of the poorest of the poor. There has been great controversy and strong opposition from the Republican party over the Affordable Care Act over the years.

More understandably, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a pivotal health reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. The law requires every individual, if not covered by any employer or state, to maintain minimum essential health coverage.

Check here for a complete look at Obamacare features.

One of the most controversial components of this act is the shared responsibility requirement, generally known as the Individual Mandate, which requires everybody to purchase minimal health insurance coverage if it is not provided by any organization, government, or other institution. Minimum norms for health insurance policies will be established; annual and life time coverage will be abolished.

The Supreme Court provided a cushion to the highly controversial, bitterly opposed Individual Mandate by saying that it does not violate the US Constitution and therefore cannot be refused by states.

James Morone, specializing in Politics and Health Care at Brown University in Rhode Island, said ‘the decision really helps Obama, and the Democrats will ride that hard.’

The decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the Obamacare health reform might act as a principle theme for the presidential election this November, and in one sense it has boosted the morale among the Democrats in their fight for it.

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has been a vehement opponent to the so-called Obamacare health reform and said ‘As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court Decision and I agree with the dissent,’ and he further said, ‘ What the Court did not do on its last day in session I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. I will act to repeal Obamacare’.

Earlier, it was a battle between what is constitutional and what is not, but now the Court has favored Obamacare, reshaping the entire political clash between Republicans and Democrats.

Obamacare will be a central element of the struggle for authority between the two parties this November; in fact, it might potentially act as a cornerstone in determining the electoral success.

Image Courtesy of Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

The article Obamacare Survived in Supreme Court appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In Part One of Toonari’s Affordable Care Act series, we gave an overview of the law’s structure. In Part Two, we will begin to review the benefits as stated in the law, and their possible implications. The provisions we will review first are two that will be at the forefront of the President’s campaign stump speeches. These are benefits related to children and preexisting conditions.
Children Can Stay On

Before the 2008 recession, this is a benefit that would not have been a big deal for most parents. In the wake of the recession and Millennials moving back home in droves, it has become a more frequent problem. Before the ACA, children could remain on their parent’s health insurance plans until some time between age 21 and 24; it varied from state to state.

Now under the ACA, children can remain on their parents plan until age 26. This is something that many parents like, and sounds good on the campaign trail. For parents with kids with serious, ongoing chronic illnesses this also relieves, in theory, some of the stress of approaching health care costs. This is a catch gap designed to be a bridge between now, and when the preexisting condition benefits kick-in, in 2014.

Implications

The consequences of this change are minute. It is true that some people have a philosophical problem with what could be seen as further coddling of young adults, the reality is the difference between 24 and 26 is small. Keeping kids on the parent’s plans for a couple of extra years does increase the risk of higher and more medical payouts for the insurance companies, but most people at age 26 do not go to the doctor that often. In addition, the parents still have to pay the extra premium they were paying for their kids remaining on their plan for a few more years.

That is added income to the insurance company. Basically this is a wash. The one caveat to this is that one of the benefits mandated by the ACA (more in this later in the series) is the coverage of birth control costs with no co-pay. Young adults are typically more sexually active so there will be an increase in costs to the insurance company for that benefit, which will force an increase in premiums from the insurance company.

Premium increases are a subject we will return to again and again in this series about the ACA law. It is important to remember; health insurance companies do not have the power to tax the public. They pay their claims out of the earnings they make. When their expenses go up, they must charge more. This is not a matter of evil intentions. It is basic business 101. You must charge enough to cover your expenses. If expenses go up, then so must your prices.

Pre-existing Conditions

This is the big one. The issue that pulls the most heart strings, and the one that most people agree upon. Starting in 2014 there will be no preexisting conditions limitations for anyone. Before the law, if you had a preexisting condition and were not on an employee health care plan, you would be denied coverage. The reason for this is simple. If you have diabetes, then you are a guaranteed expense for the insurance company.

Insurance is all about minimizing risk to cover as many people as possible, for as little as possible. That basic tenant of insurance planning is now off the table. Cancer, AIDS, asthma, congenital conditions, previous surgeries; it is unimportant what the condition is, you can now get coverage.

Implications

The possible and real implications for this are huge. On the consumer side, you do not have to worry about being denied coverage. The days of worrying about choosing bankruptcy over health care are now ostensibly over. On the insurance side, the costs will skyrocket. It is easy for many to say, “Life before profits, or money” but that is because they are not the ones writing the check to cover the costs. One of the main selling points politically was that the ACA would reduce costs of health insurance and health care expenses.

This is one component of the law that makes that claim hard to reach. Millions of people who are very sick will now have coverage. This is a good thing. However, this will prove to be a bad thing fiscally. As the law settles in (assuming an Obama victory in November), costs for premiums and actual care will move up under the law. At some point cost containment measures will have to be looked at, which could mean rationing of care.

The other implication is that many Americans will opt not to buy insurance and just pay the penalty, because it is less money then annual premiums for the insurance. If they do get sick, or need an expensive surgery, they can just sign up for the coverage after they find out what they need. The scenario painted by conservatives is the picture of a person signing up for the plan in an ambulance on the patient’s way to a hospital.

The image is extreme, but it is also true. A person can do that. The law has no provisions in it to keep people from waiting till they know they need to sign up, and then dropping coverage once the medical situation is treated.

This will also have an effect of increasing costs, but also limiting the funds necessary to run the plan, as those missing premiums will affect the balance sheets of the insurance companies and cause higher premiums.

In our next installment, we will review the health care cost limitations, and preventative care provisions.

The article Part Two: Affordable Care Act Series appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Atlanta, U.S.A. — From June 28th Supreme Court ruling that upholds the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to the FDA’s approval of the first new obesity drug in 13 years, June has been a hot month for major news impacting the U.S. biotechnology sector.

Biopharmaceutical drugmakers have held their collective breath wondering what would happen with health care reform and many hesitated to commit resources to implement certain provisions, such as those related to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires them to report payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals. With this ruling, it’s now clear they need to act. The ACA also protects a 12-year marketing exclusivity provision for biologics and upholds a regulatory pathway for biosimilars, which is positive news for biopharmas.

“Bottom line, despite the myriad complexities which biotechs must now weed through, the ACA translates into important business opportunities for biopharmas, not the least of which is a burgeoning biosimilars sub-industry,” said Lynn Yoffee, executive editor of BioWorld Today. “Despite over-hanging world economic conditions, biotech is one U.S. business sector that is working. The sector grew by 6.4 percent between 2001-2010 compared to a 2.9 percent decline in overall U.S. private-sector jobs. Twenty two new biotech drugs have been approved already in 2012, the latest including promising new drugs for breast cancer and obesity. President Obama is poised to sign critical legislation which creates new user fees for generics and biosimilars. And capping off June, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA, yielding both positive and negative ripples.”

BioWorld has kept industry insiders abreast of these key stories as they happen, sometimes within minutes. “And we go beyond the breaking news; we provide key perspective on the impact for the drug development sector,” Yoffee said.

Image Courtesy of  Paolo Vairo / Shutterstock.com

The article Obamacare Ruling, Other News Rocks Biotech Sector in June appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. – As the Supreme Court readies for its ruling on the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes referred to as “Obamacare,” Americans have different opinions on components of the law, depending on the type of health insurance they currently have. Specifically, over half of U.S. adults who have purchased health insurance individually (54%) think employers should not be required to provide employee health insurance compared to only 28% of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance who think this. Additionally, over half of those with individual health insurance (55%) think the government should play a role in assuring access to health insurance, compared to almost two-thirds of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage (64%).

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,208 U.S. adults (ages 18 and over) surveyed online between June 12 and 14, 2012 by Harris Interactive.

Two thirds of Americans (66%) agree that having health insurance should be a personal choice, so there may be some general disapproval of the ACA’s individual mandate. However, Americans do agree with some of the ACA’s other provisions. For example, over four in five U.S. adults agree that neither children nor adults should be denied health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (83%) and nearly three-quarters of Americans agree that tax credits should be offered to individuals if they purchase their own health insurance (74%).

However, when looking at the data by the type of insurance respondents currently have, some distinct differences can be seen. Interestingly, among those that have individual coverage, almost half (46%) agree that all people do not need to be covered by health insurance, compared to 30% among those with employer-sponsored coverage and 36% among those that have no insurance at all. Those with individual insurance are also slightly less likely to agree (79%) that adults and children with pre-existing coverage should not be denied coverage, compared to those with employer-sponsored plans (86% adults; 85% children) and Medicare (82% adults; 83% children).

When asked to rate how important 11 different aspects of health insurance are, over nine in ten Americans say access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need is important (91%) while nine in ten say coverage for prescriptions (90%) and availability of insurance if they have a pre-existing condition (90%) are important. Those who have employer sponsored health insurance are more likely than those with insurance they have purchased themselves to say each of the 11 aspects is important when it comes to health insurance. Some of the larger differences are seen when looking at coverage for prescriptions (95% vs. 76%), coverage for preventative care (93% vs. 74%), and coverage for wellness programs (84% vs. 65%).

Additionally, when asked which two things are most important when it comes to health insurance, one aspect rises to the top – two in five Americans say one of the two most important aspects is access to the doctors, hospitals and services they need (39%). The next three are financial as about one-quarter of U.S. adults say financial protection from major health crises (27%), lower out of pocket costs (26%), and low premiums (24%) are most important.

“The importance of health insurance to the American consumer cannot be understated regardless of the opinion issued by the Supreme Court,” said Debra Richman, Senior Vice President of Healthcare Business Development & Strategy at Harris Interactive. “This is especially true for consumers who individually purchase health insurance plans, a market of growing significance to health insurers. It will be imperative for health insurers to increase their focus on how those in the individual market ‘consume’ health insurance, including what plan features they prefer, and what they will and conversely will not choose to buy. Financial protection from major health crises, access to providers, convenience, and quality will be key factors as individual health consumers make purchasing decisions, despite how the Supreme Court rules on the individual coverage mandate.”

The article Employers Should Not Provide Healthcare, Americans Say appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Around 10:15 AM today the Supreme Court announced that the Obama Affordable Care Act has been completely upheld, including the individual mandate. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of keeping the new law known as “Obamacare.”

Justice Roberts did announce that the individual mandate could not be justified through the Commerce Clause but instead through the Taxing Clause. Roberts stated, “When a court confronts an unconstitutional statue its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy the legislation.”

Roberts claimed that allowing the Commerce Clause to be used to justify the individual mandate would “open a new and vast domain” for Congressional Power. Never before has Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to tell individuals to buy something. What the Supreme Court was worried about under this justification is that there would be no limit to what Congress could tell the American people to buy or not buy.

Justice Roberts also claimed that the required expansion of Medicaid may violate states’ rights. He wrote, “the states are given no choice in this case. They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding.” This part of the law is the one part that Roberts states the federal government cannot require of states but is still a limited ruling. Roberts says that the justices have not completely removed this part of the law but have stated that they have included a possible solution to this problem in their ruling.

So far the Physicians for National Health Program have already responded to the ruling claiming they disagree with the Supreme Court ruling because 26 million people will still not be insured. They also advocate for a single-payer option.

The GOP has already started the fight to repeal the ruling, writing on Twitter, “The fight for #FullRepeal begins NOW. The way to get rid of #Obamacare is to defeat Obama in November.” The GOP claims that the Supreme Court has set “the stakes for the November election.”

For continuous updates see the CNN News Blog.

Image Courtesy of  spirit of america / Shutterstock.com

The article Obama’s Health Care Law Upheld by Supreme Court appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A - The Conservative electoral wave of 2010 is alive and well and headed toward the Senate. Groups representing all aspects of the movement declare that the 2012 Conservative takeover that began in Indiana when Richard Mourdock ousted 36 year-incumbent Richard Lugar, must continue in Nebraska this Tuesday.

Diverse conservative groups, Eagle Forum, Gun Owners of America, FRCAction and FreedomWorks are uniting behind State Treasurer Don Stenberg because of his proven record, having delivered on his promises to conservatives each of the four times he has been elected to statewide office.  The groups issued the following statements:

FRCAction PAC

“Don Stenberg is a known quantity, and he is known as a warrior for marriage and the unborn, having defended Nebraska’s partial birth abortion bill all the way to the Supreme Court. He is also a warrior on the fiscal front, as he fought to keep costs under control as Nebraska’s Attorney General and Treasurer.”

FreedomWorks

Stenberg has a record of standing strong against interventionist economic policies, such as cap-and-trade and ObamaCare. A critic of excessive government spending before it was fashionable; Stenberg decried Republican big-spending initiatives such as Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and corporate bailouts.  We know we can count on him to take a stand for our economic freedom, even if it means standing against his own party.

Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America stands with Don Stenberg who is strong on all the issues, especially appointees and nominees that shape policy for generations.  He is the polar opposite of Jon Bruning, who wrote a letter supporting the nomination of Attorney General Eric Holder, and continues, unapologetically to stand by his support for Eric Holder despite many calls to renounce it.

Even in the face of Congressman Darrell Issa’s impending Contempt of Congress charges Bruning still wants to go along to get along.  This is exactly what is wrong with our party and Establishment candidates like Dick Lugar, who recently was defeated by another staunch conservative.

Eagle Forum

“With the possibility of two to three vacancies on the Supreme Court and hundreds of other federal benches over the next four years, we must elect conservatives with the backbone to stand up against nominees who don’t share our values. Don Stenberg is the only candidate in this race that we know will take such a stand.”

Stenberg is also endorsed by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Utah Senator Mike Lee, both of whom were elected in the 2010 conservative wave, as well as Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund and the pro-business Club for Growth.

Image Courtesy of   Andrew Aliferis

The article Conservative Senate Revolution to Continue in Nebraska appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Health care was a major issue at the November 9 Republican presidential debate hosted by CNBC titled, “Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate.” With each Republican presidential candidate stating that they would repeal ObamaCare, the debate gave them the opportunity to address the steps to reform health care once elected to office.

Ron Paul, who has had previous experience in the medical field as a doctor, addressed the issue by stating that the solution to heath care was to get the government out of the business altogether. He stated that there should be the right to “opt out of ObamaCare,” as well as any health care program to bring health care back to patient-doctor relationships.

Paul also discussed the need for patients to have medical savings accounts, which would drive down the prices on major medicines. Rick Perry believes that Medicare should allow more options for people to choose from. He also said that the best solution was to send money to the states and have them decide on what program fits best for their state.

Mitt Romney, who is currently taking the lead in recent polls, has received criticism in the past on his stance on health care. His plan is often referred to as “RomneyCare” because of its similarities with ObamaCare. During the debates, he responded that he would appeal ObamaCare and the solution would also be to send money to the states and allow them decide which health care plans are best for their state.

Romney also stated that Americans should be allowed to purchase their own insurance, instead of being forced to receive it through their company. He also agreed with Paul, saying that health care should work like a market so that Americans have a stake in the quality of their insurance. Michele Bachmann also held the same stance. She also maintained her true “malpractice liability reform” stance.

Newt Gingrich stated that there was a need to restore patient-doctor relationships, as well as turn over the funds to the state level so that they can craft a plan, similar to what John Huntsman indicated. Gingrich then stated that there has to be more concentration and funding for research on brain science.

By finding cures for many leading diseases and illnesses, people wouldn’t have to pay for such federal programs. Senator Rick Santorum thought that many other candidates lacked his experience in the health care field, and that other candidates such as Romney were not consistent in their plans.

He stated, “I was always for having the government out of the health care business and for a bottom-up, consumer-driven health care, which is different than Governor Romney and some of the other people on this panel.” Though each candidate has different plans for repealing ObamaCare, health care will continue be a hotly debated topic in future debates.

The article GOP’s Alternative Solutions to Healthcare appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The 3^rd primary Republican presidential debate of the month took place in Orlando and may have been the first debate to really change up the race. For one thing, there were no longer just eight contenders on stage, but there was a ninth addition, Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico who joined the race.

Of course there was the same battle between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney that the audience has seen in past debates, but Romney came out stronger then Perry did in this particular debate. It seems as if some of Rick Perry’s policies have backfired on him.

What he believed originally was a vaccine to save young girls lives, turned out to be a controversial issue and one brought up repeatedly by Michele Bachmann. Perry admitted he was wrong about the mandatory HPV vaccines as in prior debates, but this time around he made a well-designed approach at justifying his actions with a story about a woman who was dying of HPV, who lobbied him for support.

Another instance was when Perry was called “soft” on border patrol and immigration. Perry thought it was a good idea to promote and educate illegal immigrants at Texas colleges by giving them in-state tuition, a total of $100,000 dollars in savings in some cases. This came off to the other candidates as a free pass for people who don’t necessarily deserve it and is rejected by many.

Santorum has been a main critic of this action and questioned Perry during the first half of the debate on it. John Huntsman got some speaking time in the debate and has shown to be picking up in polls in New Hampshire. People are now wondering if he can he pick up support nationally.

Other highlights throughout the night included Gary Johnson’s dog comment, which is making headlines throughout the nation. “My next door neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this administration.” This quote was made popular the next day especially for supposedly copying it from Rush Limbaugh.

A moving moment in the debate was presented by Herman Cain when he told his story of when he had cancer and explaining how he “would be dead on ObamaCare.” The story clearly connected him with the audience. Bachmann still didn’t get as much time as she probably would have hoped, but has been consistent in answering questions well.

The interactive aspects added by Google also contributed to shaking up the debate and put each candidate on the spot and added some pressure to the night. Some questions that were added to the debate were “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the education system. The number of viwers alsmot doubled from previous debates and had 6.1 million viewers tuning in.

This debate not only introduced a new candidate as well as a new way of interacting with candidates, but also presented a new outlook for the election.
Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The article Republican Debate Orlando: Mixing Things Up appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A panel of medical experts recommended that all insurance plans be legally required to provide birth control for free, marking a huge advancement for women’s rights. The Obama Administration commissioned the non-partisan Institute of Medicine (IOM) to recommend what preventative health services should be fully covered by health insurance.

Along with birth control, the IOM reports suggested that HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment be paid for by insurers.

Women’s rights groups were excited by the report. “As someone who has worked on women’s rights for nearly 30 years, I can say that today’s news marks one of the biggest advances for women’s health in a generation,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Currently, nearly one in three women finds it difficult to pay for birth control, and that’s why the United States has a far higher unintended-pregnancy rate than other industrialized countries. Making family-planning services available at no cost will help millions of women prevent unintended pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortion.”

Keenan added she was “confident that the Obama administration will adopt the IOM’s science-based recommendation and thus make affordability of contraception a reality for all women.”

The report by the IOM stated that nearly half of pregnancies in 2001 were unintended. The report noted that women who have unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care, smoke, drink alcohol, experience depression and live with domestic violence during a pregnancy. A recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and advocacy group, estimates that unintended pregnancies cost $11.1 billion dollars each year.

Anti-abortion rights and anti-contraception groups are calling for the Obama Administration to reject the IOM’s recommendations because they believe that some emergency contraceptives function as “abortion pills.”

“This is a question of whether the government should mandate every health plan to cover these drugs free of cost,” said Jeanne Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity. “Whatever one’s position is on the issues of contraceptives, abortifacients and such, it does not matter whether proponents of such drugs do not care about the effect on human embryos.

The point is that many Americans do care, and many religious health plans would care, and that they should not be forced to violate their conscience.

This morality crap has gone too far. Really, birth control is bad now too??? I think every insurance plan already pays for a portion of birth control so I don’t really get the debate.

The article Birth Control May Soon Be Free Under Your Insurance Plan appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.