Colorado’s $82 Million Exchange: 3,164 Paid Enrollees So Far

The scorecard for Colorado’s exchange, “Connect for Health Colorado”: $61 million in setup costs, an additional $21 million in marketing.

Number of enrollees: 3,164 through October 26.

“Colorado hopes to enroll 136,000 people in health insurance programs through Connect for Health Colorado by the end of 2014.”

To reach 136,000, the state needs to average 9,066 enrollees per month.

Via: NRO

Continue Reading.....

CBS News’ Obamacare ‘Victim’ Now Calls Losing Health Plan a ‘Blessing in Disguise’

When Dianne Barrette appeared on CBS This Morning last week, she instantly became the poster child for all of those Americans whose insurance companies are terminating their plans due to the higher standards dictated by the Affordable Care Act. Now, in an interview with The New Republic, the 56-year-old Florida resident admits that losing her existing health insurance plan my not be so terrible after all.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher debunked much of CBS News’ reporting in a column that called the segment “misleading” and revealed the details of Barrette’s bare bones insurance plan. “The plan that Barrette paid $54 a month for is barely health insurance at all,” Christopher wrote. ‘It’s part of a subset of insurance that Consumer Reports calls “junk health insurance” (and which even the company that sells it recommends that customers not rely solely upon) and it pays only $50 towards most of the services it covers.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn, who cites Christopher’s article as an initial source in his piece, takes this approach one step further by extensively outlining the variety of plans likely available for Barrette under Obamacare. He concludes that given her income, the cheapest plan available for Barrette after federal subsidies are subtracted would cost around $100 per month, or just $50 more than she was paying before and would protect her from bankruptcy, something her old plan did not do. For $150 per month, her coverage would be significantly more comprehensive.

When Cohn explained these options to Barrette, she responded: “I would jump at it. With my age, things can happen. I don’t want to have bills that could make me bankrupt. I don’t want to lose my house.” Whereas on CBS Barrette explained how “happy” she was with her current insurance and asked “Why do I have to be forced into something else?” after learning more about her new options she’s striking a different tone. “Maybe, it’s a blessing in disguise,” she told Cohn.

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading.....

TV Ratings: CNN Suffers Worst Week Under Jeff Zucker

Dragged down by its lowest-rated weeknight since going against the Olympics in 2012, the primetime block pulls in lows in total viewers and the key demo.

CNN's bad night ended up being part of a very bad week.

The cable news network suffered its lowest Monday-Friday primetime average in over year for the week of Oct. 28 to Nov. 1. Averaging just 385,000 viewers and 95,000 adults 25-54, both key measurements marked CNN's worst showings since the 20-year record lows last August when the network suffered particularly against coverage of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.

Also the lowest-rated week since Jeff Zucker took the reins at the beginning of the year, it happened to coincide with a surplus of breaking news. In addition to ongoing coverage of the Affordable Healthcare Act hearings, Friday's shooting at the Los Angeles International Airport drove viewers to competitors Fox News Channel and MSNBC.

Easily topping all other networks for the week, FNC averaged 2.367 million viewers during the 8-11 p.m. primetime block. And in the targeted adults demographic, FNC's 377,000 viewers nearly outrated CNN's entire audience.

MSNBC, coming in second place for the week, averaged 683,000 viewers and 150,000 adults 25-54.

Via: THR

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] OUT: Obama lied. IN: Obama just didn’t understand Obamacare…

Tina Brown was on Morning Joe today and suggested that neither Obama nor his administration really understand Obamacare in the first place:

It’s covered in barnacles…this thing is like a big, encrusted ball of mess.

I think that so much of what’s gone down is because nobody really understands it even so. You know there’s all this attacking Obama, obviously, for what he said about…you won’t have to give up your policy. But you almost wonder whether did anybody in there really understand it. Because so many compromises and changes and so on had to be made, that in the end everything was just done in this completely-sort of-screwed-up way…this soup of kinda of, you know, chain-of-command that was just so screwed up.

Via: The Right Scoop
Continue Reading.... 

For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger

Americans who face higher ­insurance costs under President Obama’s health-care law are angrily complaining about “sticker shock,” threatening to become a new political force opposing the law even as the White House struggles to convince other consumers that they will benefit from it.

The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don’t meet the law’s more-stringent standards. They’re finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.

After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city’s new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.

That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. “That’s just not fair,” said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. “This is ridiculous.”

If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

White House Terrified ‘Next Media Story Is Consumers Getting On ObamaCare Website And Finding Fewer Options, Higher Prices’

Washington (CNN) - Officials expressed concern that the next shoe to drop in the evolving story about the Affordable Care Act would be disappointment from consumers once they are able to get on the troubled HealthCare.gov website – disappointment because of sticker shock and limited choice, according to a new document obtained by CNN.

“Mike described a general concern of PM (Project Management): getting to the point where the website is functioning properly and individuals begin to select plans; the media attention will follow individuals to plan selection and their ultimate choices; and, in some cases, there will be fewer options than would be desired to promote consumer choice and an ideal shopping experience. Additionally, in some cases there will be relatively high cost plans,” say the notes from the Obama administration’s Obamacare ‘War Room’ from one week ago.

Project Management is a reference to those individuals in the Obama administration tasked with standing up the president’s health care law at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

The discussion appeared to be in reference to an October 24 story by The New York Times titled “Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas.”

Via: Pat Dollard

Continue Reading....

Mark Levin: The RINOs Want A Terry McAuliffe Victory In Virginia

On the Monday broadcast of his radio program Mark Levin expounded on a Facebook entry he made earlier in the day:

The RINOs want a Terry McAuliffe victory in Virginia.

Many in the GOP establishment, from major fundraisers and consultants, to GOP officeholders such as the GOP Lt. Gov and mayor of Virginia Beach, have either trashed Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli or endorsed McAuliffe outright. The GOP national machine has done next to nothing for Cuccinnelli. And GOP bag man, Karl Rove, is all over Fox without a word of support for Cuccinnelli, while he schemes and whispers behind the scenes against conservatives nationwide.

Having tried to sabotage Cuccinnelli's candidacy from the start, these GOP actors are hoping for a Cuccinnelli loss and a big Chris Christie win (built on a Huey Long style of politics) to make the case that only big government Republicans can win and limited government, constitutional conservatives, such as Tea Party activists, are too extreme to prevail. They've already written the script.

In fact, the GOP establishment's attacks on the Tea Party, which is an obvious assault on conservatives and conservatism generally, are increasingly difficult to distinguish from Obama and the Left's attacks on the same folks. The ruling class in Washington is clearly united in one respect: to wipe out conservative resistance to their corruption, cronyism, and nation-killing policies.

Keep an eye on RINO columnists like Washington Compost mouthpiece Jennifer Rubin, as well as Rove and other commentators on cable TV, who have and will continue to reveal it all through their myopic ruling class lenses in the days ahead. As I said, their propaganda is written and ready to spread. And they'll be given soap box after soap box to spin away.

Meanwhile, despite it all, including tens of millions of dollars in relentless leftwing smear ads funded by truly extreme groups hoping to beat Cuccinnelli and turn Virginia into Hillary Clinton territory in 2016, much of the big GOP money stays on the sidelines. Better to try to clear the field of conservatives who threaten the ruling class and its preferred nominees. Better to protect the RINO investment in big government than beat Hillary. The conservative grassroots is to be crushed and dispirited.

So, that's the game. Still, recent polls show Cuccinnelli closing fast. This makes the Left and RINOs very nervous. The rest of us are cheering, and hopefully helping, the underdog. We identify with him, not the sleazy McAuliffe, his radical donors, and the ruling class. We won't retreat. We won't give up. We will fight for the last vote. What a sweet victory it would be! But make no mistake, this is one of many, many battles to come, win, lose, or recount. 

Via: Real Clear Politics
Continue Reading..... 

Hollywood Targeted to Give Health Care Law a Boost. $500,000 to sell a failed program.

The health care overhaul might get a Hollywood rewrite.

The California Endowment, a private foundation that is spending millions to promote President Barack Obama's signature law, recently provided a $500,000 grant to ensure TV writers and producers have information about the Affordable Care Act that can be stitched into plot lines watched by millions.

The aim is to produce compelling prime-time narratives that encourage Americans to enroll, especially the young and healthy, Hispanics and other key demographic groups needed to make the overhaul a success.

"We know from research that when people watch entertainment television, even if they know it's fiction, they tend to believe that the factual stuff is actually factual," said Martin Kaplan of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, which received the grant.

The public typically gets as much, if not more, information about current events from favorite TV programs as mainstream news outlets, Kaplan said, so "people learn from these shows."

California Republican strategist Jonathan Wilcox, who has taught a course on politics and celebrity at USC, said the attempt to engage Hollywood was coming too late to influence views, and he doubted fictionalized TV would play into families' decisions about health care.

"This is an attempt to use entertainment pop culture to fix a political challenge," he said. "It will be received as a partisan political message, no matter how cleverly it's delivered."

Hollywood is known for supporting Democratic candidates and causes — Will Ferrell and Amy Poehler are among a long list of celebrities who have made a pitch for the law — but there is no guarantee the entertainment industry will be in lockstep with the White House on health care.

Via: ABC News

Continue Reading.....

The Obamacare Prediction of the Week

There’s been quite a buzz over Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker article in which MIT economist Jonathan Gruber claims that, although a modest number of Americans may see their health insurance policies change under Obamacare, only 3% of the population will be hurt financially by that change.

Of course, 3% is more than “none.” It’s also very different from another of Obama’s statements, that a typical family will save $2,500, which Obama “promised” repeatedly (with his fingers crossed, as it turns out).

Still, it’s nowhere near as bad as Obamacare’s critics — and many recent horror stories told by recipients of policy cancellations — would suggest. But is Gruber’s prediction correct?

Not being a number-crunching economist, I can’t tell you. What I can say is that these predictions of Gruber’s have been critiqued and described in a Business Insider article by Josh Barro as “garbage,” and that Barro is otherwise known as “Obama’s favorite conservative columnist,” whatever that might mean.

In most of the articles I’ve seen so far about these projections, Gruber is touted as having been the main architect of Romneycare. This is true. But it also makes it sound as though he might be a Republican, which is most definitely not the case. Gruber is an extremely partisan Democrat and not the least bit shy about it, as can be seen from this month-old Esquire interview with him.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that Gruber’s not correct about what he’s predicting. It just means, let’s say, that his loyalties lie on the side of Obamacare.

There’s another personal reason that Gruber might be eager to see Obamacare succeed: he not only was Romneycare’s architect, he was Obamacare’s architect as well. What’s more, he was instrumental in making sanguine predictions about how much money Obamacare would end up saving people, projections Congress relied on heavily in soothing its own anxieties and passing the bill. And so he is invested in validating his own past predictions as well.

Via: PJ Media

Continue Reading.....

Judge Who Ruled NYPD Racially Profiles Punished

The Clinton-appointed federal judge that ruled New York’s stop-and-frisk program amounts to “indirect racial profiling” got yanked off the case by an appellate court that found the jurist “ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.”

It was a painful spanking that one of the city’s newspapers said“generated legal and political shockwaves.”  Indeed this sort of public admonition of a federal judge is rare, which may lead some to conclude that this one, Shira Scheindlin, really screwed up. In removing Scheindlin the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that her appearance of impartiality had been “compromised.”

The case involves the New York Police Department’s successful anti-crime initiative directing officers to stop and search people suspected of criminal activity. Leftist organizations claim it violates civil rights because it disproportionately affects blacks and Hispanics and a group of minorities sued the city to get rid of the measure. In mid-August, after a 10-week trial, Judge Scheindlin determined that stop-and-frisk amounted to racial profiling and resulted in the “disproportionate and discriminatory” stopping of millions of black and Hispanic men.

Judge Scheindlin also imposed a federal monitor on the city’s police department, a highly unusual move following a civil trial. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a liberal Democrat, credits stop-and-frisk for a record-low dip in crimes. The judge’s decision could reverse those crime reductions and make the city a “more dangerous place,” he told a mainstream newspaper following the ruling.

Besides extracting her from the case last week, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Scheindlin’s order requiring changes to the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices. The judge received the embarrassing reprimand for creating an “appearance of impropriety” by, among other things, granting a “series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.” In public interviews Scheindlin appeared to openly encourage lawyers to challenge the city in court, according to the appellate ruling.

Though they are lifetime appointees, this is behavior unbecoming of a federal judge. Here’s the zinger in the appellate court ruling: “Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 (“A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”); see also Canon 3(C)(1) (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .”), and that the appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,” see Transfer of Related Cases, S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. Local Rule 13(a), and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”

Via: Judicial Watch

Continue Reading.....

POLLS, HISTORY SUGGEST LOW TURNOUT IN VIRGINIA

On the eve of the Virginia elections, months of campaigning now hinge on voter turnout. Odd-year elections have much lower turnout than presidential years, making it difficult to predict the outcome with precision. UVA's Center for Virginia Politics expects turnout to be higher this year than in 2009, when the Republican candidate won a 17-point landslide. Such a turnout, however, would reverse a nearly 30 year historical trend in the Commonwealth. Nothing in recent poll, moreover, suggests that such an outcome is likely. 

In 6 gubernatorial elections over the past 24 years, voter turnout has always been lower than the previous election. In 1989, over 66% of voters in Virginia turned out that year. Every election since has witnessed a steady drop in voter participation. In the last election, in 2009, just over 40% of Virginia voters went to the polls. Some political observers expect turnout this year in the mid-30s. 

If that is the case, then the race for Governor is a lot more competitive that many observers assume. A senior strategist told Breitbart News that Democrat Terry McAuliffe's campaign is basing its strategy on a turnout of around 45%, the same as 2005 when Democrat Tim Kaine narrowly won office. If turnout is under 40%, however, Cuccinelli's chances of victory increase, as the electorate becomes marginally more conservative. 

A challenge for McAuliffe and Cuccinelli is that both candidates have very high negative ratings. Much of this is a reflection of the overwhelmingly negative attack ads aired by both campaigns. Negative ratings for both candidates are higher than the positive ratings. That makes energizing voters and getting them to the polls a challenge for any campaign. 

While Cuccinelli has made course corrections in his campaign to increase turnout of his voters, there is no obvious reason why soft-Democrats would turn out for McAuliffe.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....