OBAMACARE GLITCH CAUSES CANCER-STRICKEN KIDS TO LOSE INSURANCE

KXII: GAINESVILLE, TEXAS -- A Gainesville family is fighting for their childrens' lives. Ronald and Krista Alford's two children, Hunter and Mikayla, were born with extremely rare types of cancer. Now, seven years into fighting that battle, they've been hit with a new one: their children's insurance has been cancelled, affecting Hunter's chemotherapy. News 12's Allison Harris brings us their story of struggle and strength. Hunter Alford is due for his next round of chemo. As of right now, his mom Krista says, he's unlikely to get it. 

"Since his insurance was dropped, we're thinking about cancelling his chemotherapy," Krista Alford said. 

The 7-year-old, who loves playing games on his iPad, is reportedly the youngest person to have his type of cancer. Hunter has Plexiform Hishocyne Neoplasm. The Alford's are in a battle with children's medicaid -- or CHIP -- Hunter's insurance. Krista says, despite receiving a new, renewed insurance card, the agency told her they dropped his insurance. "I called them and they said we were dropped October 31st," Krista said. Krista says an insurance agent told her that Hunter's information got lost when they made changes under the new Affordable Care Act. Now, Krista is on a mission to re-gain that insurance, but they're running out of time before his next chemo treatment, and the agent says they can't expedite. 

"The lady's like, the only way we can expedite is if your son was pregnant and in labor, or if he was an illegal," Krista said. 

Hunter's chemo would cost $50,000 without insurance.For now, the Gainesville community is pulling together, raising money to pay for Hunter's chemo. Krista says she's touched, but still worried for her children. "This is my son's life on the line and I don't want him to have to fight with cancer his whole life. That's all he knows is cancer," Krista said. To donate to the Heroes for Hunter online fundraising campaign click here. To find out more about Angels for Hunter visit the facebook page Angels for Hunter

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

A Curious Form of ‘Populism’ - Bill de Blasio and Wall Street.

First, a matter of numbers and nomenclature: Bill de Blasio, who is being hailed like Eliot Spitzer before him as the new face of American liberalism, won his race to be New York City’s next mayor with a near-record victory margin but also record low turnouts in both the primary and the general elections. There was no “populist” surge as reported in the press. De Blasio won 40 percent of the 22 percent who showed up for the Democratic party primary. And he won not only because he has a beautiful interracial family; more important, he was backed strongly by 1199, the hospital workers’ union, which has the best get-out-the-vote operation in Gotham. 

DE BLASIO HUGS HIS CHILDREN NOVEMBER 5.

NEWSCOM

In a city of well over half a million government employees—city, state, and federal—in which the largest source of “private sector” employment is government-subsidized health care providers, as well as numerous, often government-funded, “nonprofit” organizations, de Blasio’s “populist” vote came heavily from those with a direct personal stake in the outcome.

Populism in America has been traditionally associated with self-employed farmers and miners fighting the great railroads and agricultural combines, looking to get a fair shake from government. Gotham’s “populists,” better described as “statists,” are people looking for a greater transfer of wealth from the private to the public sector. And therein lie the limits of de Blasio’s agenda.

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading.....

Senate Dems move the goalposts to distract from Obamacare

In a largely partisan vote, the United States Senate approved changes to its rules concerning future approvals of judicial and executive nominations from the White House. Until today, the Senate rules required approval of such candidates for high office of at least two thirds of the legislative body. The change would now allow nominations to proceed with just a simple majority vote, even while the rules change would still allow the minority in the Senate to use filibusters to block Supreme Court nominees.

Suprisingly, three Democrats:  Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas cast their ballots against the change.

Following the vote, the Democrats quickly confirmed Patricia Millett to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.   The vote  was 55-43, with two senators voting present.

Several hearings were either cancelled or went into recess before the vote on the rules change. Over the last month, three nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals have been blocked by Republicans, despite President Barack Obama’s appeal. On November 19, the Republicans blocked a vote on the nomination of Robert L. Wilkins to the bench. In his case, Wilkins, who served as a Washington D.C. District Court judge, was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote in 2010.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said of the vote that it was “not a proud day in the history of the Senate.”  The Republican stalwart, flanked by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN),  said that “In order to distract attention from Obamacare, the Senate has just broken the rules to change the rules. We’ve had this threat for some time now...” He added that Senate Democrats had not kept to their promises to refrain from such rule changes during this legislative term.

Via: Speroforum

Continue Reading....

Government's Health Care Deadlines Shift Again

The Obama administration announced Friday it has adjusted the Affordable Care Act calendar once again, making it possible for consumers to enroll for health insurance through Dec. 23 in order to be covered on Jan. 1. The administration decided to stretch purchasers' decision-making allowance by eight days to accommodate continued challenges prompted by work underway to build and repair the federal website, HealthCare.gov.

Also announced Friday was a delay of the 2014 enrollment period, which will push the start date beyond the Nov. 4 midterm elections.

The 2013 change squeezes the December turn-around time for insurers, who must process all final enrollments and payments. Instead of having two weeks after the cut-off of new enrollments, they will have one week before new policies go into effect in 2014.

The decision also gave the government another week to improve the electronic process of transmitting all accurate data to insurers from both consumers and Uncle Sam before new policies take effect.

The administration consulted with insurers before embracing an extra week of health-care shopping time for Americans before Christmas.

“They are aware of this date change, and this was done in consultation with them to make sure that consumers would be able to access coverage beginning Jan. 1,” said Julie Bataille, director of communications for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is the arm of the Health and Human Services Department responsible for implementing the enrollment process in 36 states.

Consumers who sign up for new coverage through the federal marketplace are not considered covered until their payments are received by the insurance companies they selected. To be insured on Jan. 1, payments must be received no later than Dec. 31, Bataille said.

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading......

WATCH: Secret Service Human Shields Mysteriously Ordered Off Back Of JFK Car

WATCH: SECRET SERVICE HUMAN SHIELDS MYSTERIOUSLY ORDERED OFF BACK OF JFK CAR

Jun 15, 2013 16 Comments Spit Stixx

Via: Pat Dollard

Continue Reading.....

OHIO MAN ENDURES EVERY LEGAL GUN OWNER’S NIGHTMARE AFTER CALLING POLICE TO REPORT A SHOOTING

An Ohio man will finally get his legally-owned pistol back nine months after police confiscated it following his controversial arrest in February. He was never convicted of any crimes and his arrest occurred after he called police to report a potential crime in progress.

The city of Cleveland reportedly agreed this week to settle the federal lawsuit filed by Derrick Washington over what he says was the illegal seizure of his .38-caliber handgun. Police had refused to return his gun even after a city prosecutor refused to press charges due to a lack of evidence.

shutterstock.com

The ordeal began on Feb. 10 when Washington called 911 to report a possible shooting. At one point during the police investigation, he told the officers that he had a firearm in his car and a valid concealed carry license. According to the police report, officers also claim he told them he had two vodka drinks, a claim Washington’s lawyer denies.

Washington was arrested and accused of using weapons while intoxicated and illegally carrying a concealed weapon. While Washington does have a valid concealed carry license, police say the charge was valid because they claim he failed to inform officers immediately that he had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Washington’s attorney, J. Gary Seewald told the Plain Dealer that his client told officers about his license as soon as he could.

Police searched his vehicle and hauled Washington to jail, where he remained for three days. When one of the arresting officers contacted the assistant city prosecutor about pursuing the case, the prosecutor said there was not enough evidence and dropped the charges. But even though Washington walked free, police kept his firearm under a city ordinance that allows the department to keep seized weapons until a “court of competent jurisdiction” determines the weapon must be returned.

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading....

The History of Liberty

In 1559, a political dissident in Europe saw a fundamental problem with the reign of kings:

“It is very rare for kings so to control themselves that their will never disagrees with what is just and right; or for them to have been endowed with such great keenness and prudence, that each knows how much is enough. Therefore, men’s fault or failing causes it to be safer and more bearable for a number to exercise government, so that they may help one another, teach and admonish one another; and, if one asserts himself unfairly, there may be a number of censors and masters to restrain his willfulness.”

These words are so republican-sounding that an Englishman must have written them, if we are to take to heart Daniel Hannan’s argument in Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World.

The problem: An Englishman didn’t write them.

Hannan’s thesis is that the political principles that made England and America so great—principles of individual liberty, limited and representative government, and the rule of law—evolved from the dank peat of medieval England after the Angles and Saxons invaded the island. These principles were developed and refined through England’s struggles against autocratic kings, Hannan says, culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and the American Revolution of 1776, and resulting in the spread of an English-speaking empire across the globe.

“Elected parliaments, habeas corpus, free contract, equality before the law, open markets, an unrestricted press, the right to proselytize for any religion, jury trials: these … are specific products of a political ideology developed in the language in which you are reading these words,” Hannan writes.

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Dem staffers on Capitol Hill shocked, shocked at ObamaCare costs

Sometimes, an introduction simply isn’t necessary:

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.

“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”

And as if that wasn’t enough schadenfreude for readers, here’s what comes next:

In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance.

The change comes from the requirement built into the ObamaCare law itself that Congress not be exempt from its regulations.  That required “official” aides to move out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which provided large taxpayer-financed subsidies to cover their gold-plated health insurance.  For older staffers, this is a problem — since under the group plan and heavy subsidies, they never had to pay the market price for individual coverage.

Until now, that is — and the result is actually the reverse of what everyone else is experiencing in the individual markets.  Everywhere else, younger people are seeing dramatic cost increases because (a) they are being forced into needless comprehensive policies, and (b) the age calculation is actually less dramatic, since ObamaCare requires community-based pricing as a means of redistributing those premium contributions to soften the blow for older participants.  The Capitol Hill staffers are discovering, however, what will happen whenemployer-based coverage starts disappearing, as it will next year when the employer mandates begin to take effect.  Tens of millions of Americans will be experiencing the same shock — right before the midterms in which the bosses of these staffers have to stand for re-election.

Good luck with that. This may be the most pertinent Captain Louis Renault Award ever given.

VIA: HOT AIR

CONTINUE READING.....

Poll: If voters had known they’d lose insurance, Romney would have won

If voters had been aware last year that they might lose their health-care plans when Obamacare went into effect, Republican President Mitt Romney would be sitting in the White House today, according to a poll released Friday.

A Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research survey conducted from Nov. 18-20 asked voters who supported President Barack Obama in 2012: “As you may know, millions of Americans have lost their insurance plans despite President Obama’s promise that, quote, ‘if you like your plan, you can keep it.’ If you knew in 2012 that this promise was not true, would you still have voted for Barack Obama?”

In response, 23 percent said they would not have voted to re-elect Obama, while 72 percent said they would still have voted for him. The largest number of defections were among female voters ages 18-54, 31 percent of whom said they would not have supported the president.

An ABC/Washington Post poll released earlier this week found that if they had a do-over, Romney would win 49 percent to 45 percent. The difference is within the margin of error of 3.5 percentage points, but Obama polls a lower percentage of the vote today than he did in November 2012.

A generic ballot question on the poll found likely voters favoring Republicans for 2014: 39 percent of independents said they would vote for the unspecified Republican candidate over the unspecified Democratic candidate, compared to 30 percent who said they would vote for the Democrat.

Eight percent of Democrats said they would vote Republican, compared to just four percent of Republicans who said they would vote Democrat.

The poll surveyed 801 likely voters with live phone interviews and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The sample of 2012 Obama voters was 384 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....