Calif. working to put illegals under Obamacare coverage

As the countdown continues to Obamacare taking full effect in 2014, and while senators wrestle with details of an immigration overhaul that seem to change daily, California officials are having their own meetings.

They’re figuring out how to break the key promise that Obamacare would not be used to pay for the health care of millions of people living in the country illegally.

That’s according to an article in Friday’s New York Times, though it doesn’t quite put it that way.

First, “California pushes for immigrant health” allows for the obvious: that funding health-care for illegals was never supposed to be part of Obamacare.

“When Congress passed [Alleged] President Obama’s health care overhaul, a critical compromise provision was that immigrants living in the United States illegally would not be allowed access to publicly subsidized health insurance,” the article begins.

“Even now, as lawmakers in Washington are debating an overhaul of immigration laws, leaders from both parties are arguing that no federal money should be spent on health care for immigrants on their way to obtaining citizenship.”

But then there’s a nut:

In California, “public health officials, elected representatives and advocacy groups are going in the opposite direction, trying to cobble together ways to provide preventive care for such immigrants, who are expected to make up the largest share of the remaining uninsured once the state’s expanded Medicaid program takes full effect.”

The article never gets around to defining “preventive care,” or explaining how it would work when the intended recipients are, by definition, not going to be eager to cooperate with authorities.

But it doesn’t really matter. Seven paragraphs later, it gets to the real point: putting taxpayers officially on the hook to care for those not even officially in the country.

Read this story at ...
What his ‘Bulworth’ fantasy reveals

New York Post


You may be forgiven if you missed it during last week’s tsunami of scandals, but...Obama finally let slip that he is a socialist.

Buried in the 17th paragraph of one of those mewling New York Times pieces on the woes of Obama — can we start calling him Woe-bama yet? — appeared these two words: “going Bulworth.”

Obama himself, the Times explained, has been “longingly” telling his inner circle that what he’d really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie “Bulworth,” did: to go public as an unabashed, angry and admitted socialist.

It’s as if Ronald Reagan had been caught saying he wanted to “Go Strangelove.”

In confessing his dreams of “going Bulworth,” Obama confirmed that what he thinks and what he says out loud are two different things. He let slip the mask of a center-left moderate — a “pragmatist” who only cares about “what works.” The press and even right-of-center columnists like Ross Douthat and David Brooks have always insisted that this completely unconvincing masquerade is genuine.

“Bulworth” is set during the campaign season of 1996, when progressives’ frustration with Bill Clinton was reaching a boil (just before the Lewinsky scandal turned them into his defenders again). The title character is a cautious, Clintonian Democratic senator who breaks down in despair at his own moderate campaign, in which he questions race preferences, welfare and bloated government.

Recognizing that he is a sellout makes him despondent to the point of suicide (I trust this is not the part of Bulworth with which Obama identifies). So, he first takes out a life insurance policy, then hires a hit man to assassinate him.

With nothing left to lose, Bulworth speaks his mind and becomes a sensation and unexpected contender for the presidency by giving far-left campaign speeches in rap form. In the movie’s centerpiece moment, Bulworth does a rap about health care and cries, “Socialism!” to a stunned crowd. (The lyrics run, “Yeah, yeah / You can call it single-payer or Canadian way / Only socialized medicine will ever save the day! Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word: Socialism!”)

This is...Obama’s id, the little man he wishes he could let out to party.

Read this story at ... 


Guy Benson 

Within months of Democrats ramming through Obamacare without a single Republican vote, the American people responded, pummeling the president's party at the polls.  Republicans gained 63 seats in the House, six United States Senators, six governorships, and nearly 700 seats in state legislatures nationwide.  Conservatives had their temporary political revenge, we were told, but Democrats would get the last laugh because Obamacare was sure to become more popular once Republicans' scurrilous smears against the law were shown to be false.  How's that working out?
Democratic senators, at a caucus meeting with White House officials, expressed concerns on Thursday about how the Obama administration was carrying out the health care law they adopted three years ago. Democrats in both houses of Congress said some members of their party were getting nervous that they could pay a political price if the rollout of the law was messy or if premiums went up significantly. President Obama’s new chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, fielded questions on the issue for more than an hour at a lunch with Democratic senators. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who is up for re-election next year, said, “We are hearing from a lot of small businesses in New Hampshire that do not know how to comply with the law.” In addition, Mrs. Shaheen said, “restaurants that employ people for about 30 hours a week are trying to figure out whether it would be in their interest to reduce the hours” of those workers, so the restaurants could avoid the law’s requirement to offer health coverage to full-time employees. The White House officials “acknowledged that these are real concerns, and that we’ve got to do more to address them,” Mrs. Shaheen said. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on health care, said he was extremely upset with Mr. Obama’s decision to take money from public health prevention programs and use it to publicize the new law, which creates insurance marketplaces in every state.

Obamacare is impossibly complicated to comply with, is impeding hiring, and is causing businesses to lay off workers and cut back on other employees' hours?  Why, who could have possibly seen that coming?  Oh, that's right -- every single critic of Obamacare could.  And did. Back to the grumbling Democrats:
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, said he told White House officials on Thursday that he was concerned about big rate increases being sought by the largest health insurer in his state. The company, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, has sought increases averaging 25 percent for individual insurance policies that will be sold in the state insurance exchange, and it is seeking increases of about 15 percent for small businesses. The company said the higher premiums reflected costs of complying with the new law.  

Obamacare is hiking up people's premiumsWhy, who could have possibly... Katie noted last week that other Hill Democrats are nervously conceding that the, ahem, "Affordable Care Act" doesn't actually contain costs either.  Shocking, I know.  The Left is spooked because the law they force-fed the American people is shaping up to be a "train wreck" and a "third world experience," to quote the law's chief author and administrator, respectively.  And now the more problematic elements of the president's top legislative "accomplishment" are slated to roll out next year; the supposedly popular bits were front-loaded for political reasons.  (And how is that going thus far?  Let's ask a bunch of people with pre-existing conditions for their verdict).  Obamacare remains unpopular, and Democrats are grappling with growing fears that a 2010-style backlash may befall them in 2014, when the law they advertised as a legislative panacea is exposed as an unaffordable, unwieldy, logistical headache -- all in real time. 

Bob Moffit

No argument for Obamacare’s repeal can top the simple fact that Members of Congress do not want it to apply to them.

Today’s Politico reports that the House and Senate congressional leadership—both Democrats and Republicans working in cahoots with Obama Administration officials—have been secretly negotiating for months trying to find a way to exempt Members of Congress and their staffs from being forced into Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges.

Beginning on January 1, 2014, these exchanges, to be run by the federal government or the states (under federal rules) will offer federally “qualified” insurance coverage for millions of Americans. Ordinary Americans must either sign up or face a tax penalty. Senator Max Baucus (D–MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has now famously described the Obama’s Administration’s implementation of this process as an oncoming “train wreck,” and Henry Chao, an Administration official involved with the implementation of the law, just hopes that Americans can avoid a “third-world experience.”

According to the Politico story, there are two major reasons why Members of Congress want to exempt themselves and their staffs from the terms and conditions of the law:

They fear higher health care costs. Congressional leaders fear that being forced into the Obamacare exchanges will result in higher health care costs for themselves and their families and their aides. “The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer—in this case the federal government.” This is also true for millions of ordinary Americans. They could also lose their employer-based coverage, and they could also face higher costs. Also contrary to the President’s promises, independent analysts expect health insurance premiums to rise sharply, particularly for younger workers and their families. They fear the impact on Capitol Hill employment. “There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a ‘brain drain’ on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.” Given the insane spending and record deficits, it’s hard to imagine how a Capitol Hill “brain drain” could produce even worse government. But ordinary Americans who run businesses are also faced with anxieties, particularly whether they will be able to hire or retain valued employees or reduce full-time workers to part-time employees in order to avoid Obamacare’s mandatory costs.

For veteran Capitol Hill watchers, shenanigans behind closed doors to enable Congress and its staffers to escape Obamacare come as no surprise. After all, the national health care law was fashioned through repulsive backroom dealing (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that set a record for arrogance and contempt of popular opinion. Favored businesses and unions got special exemptions (more than 1,200 waivers) from Obamacare’s insurance rules. So consider today’s Politico revelation just marquee for a rerun of a tiresome old movie: one set of rules for Congress and another set of rules for the rest of us.

If Congress quietly wants to exempt itself from Obamacare, that’s great—so long as it includes the rest of us in that midnight amendment.

By: Erick Erickson 

You want to know why the left is more successful at politics? They are willing to move heaven and earth to create new dependency programs, despite the electoral risks. They understand that once the program is implemented, Republicans will never have the guts to undo it. And they are correct. Even some of our best conservatives lack the gumption to do what it takes to eliminate the worst program of all time – Obamacare.

In fact, House conservatives, not just the general rank and file Republicans, appear set to endorse Obamacare and approve its funding. Yes, even former Republican Study Committee (“RSC”) Chairmen Jeb Hensarling, Tom Price, and Jim Jordan along with present RSC Chairman Steve Scalise will do so, but I’m sure ACU will give them sufficiently high “conservative” scores to hide behind like they did with Mitch McConnell.

It’s ironic to watch some of the real conservatives and a lot of the so-called conservatives get excited about the prospect of producing a balanced budget with healthcare entitlement reform. Do these people really think we will be able to reform Medicare, which is a wildly popular program, when they lack the testicular fortitude to pull the trigger on Obamacare – a program that is still unpopular?

Republicans promised to defund Obamacare. They lied. Now we are at the end of the rope. If we don’t engage in a fight to the death over funding for Obamacare, it will forever be enshrined in the welfare state; it will forever relegate us to lethargic growth; it will forever make private healthcare unaffordable.

Read this story at ... 

I cannot overestimate the fearless excellence of M. Stanton Evans' work as a historian, and, I am fortunate to say, mentor. His 2007 book Blacklisted by History is not only a shattering revision of half a century of lies about Joseph McCarthy and "McCarthyism" -- and, by extension, obfuscation about the successful penetration and subversion of the US government -- it is also an exercise in courage, in confronting a false and crippling consensus with an unshakeable dedication to fact and logic. On a personal note, the book served me as a rosetta stone by which I was able to begin deciphering the mendacious history we "know" as our shining cultural legacy. The results of this unnerving research-odyssey will be published in my forthcoming book, American Betrayal.

That said, I am delighted to post an article written for this week's edition of Dispatch International. My task was to introduce a European audience, in brief, to Evans' work. The piece below is the main article, which is available for free at the DI website. I also wrote accompanying piece assembling a series of thumbnail sketches of some of the sensational revelations Evans and co-writer and Cold War expert Herbert Romerstein discovered in their brand new book, Stalin's Secret Agents. It is behind the online-subscription wall -- so subscribe!

"Joe McCarthy Was Right All Along"

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Most Europeans are unlikely to be familiar with the facts behind the American term “McCarthyism.” They probably know it describes something very bad in American politics – the “Communist witch hunts” of more than half a century ago. They may also know that simply uttering the term, like casting a spell, stops all debate cold by associating someone with the eponymous Joseph McCarthy. As the story goes, he was himself very bad. After all, he conducted those long ago “Communist witch hunts,“ ruining his name in perpetuity. This probably exhausts general knowledge.

But here’s a secret: Most Americans know little more than this same familiar but completely false narrative. In recent years, stunning revelations from archives in Washington and Moscow have confirmed that McCarthy’s investigations – and those conducted by other officials before and after – netted not innocent and imaginary “witches,” but secret cadres of hardened Communist agents determined to bring down the American republic. Surely, this makes Joe McCarthy a great patriot and deserving “the plaudits of a grateful nation.”

So wrote M. Stanton Evans, the consensus-smashing, revisionist biographer of McCarthy in Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies (2007). Evans was attempting to convey the significance of just one particular Soviet intelligence operation, circa 1945, that McCarthy was instrumental in bringing to light, circa 1950.
Even a few details about this operation, named initially as the Amerasia affair after a pro-Communist journal of the day, will add a little needed context to modern-day perspective on the so-called McCarthy era.

Amerasia’s editor, Phillip Jaffe, came under FBI surveillance in 1944 after the contents of a confidential OSS memo appeared in his magazine. (The OSS was the precursor to the CIA.) The FBI soon learned Jaffe was in possession of hundreds of stolen, secret US government documents, plus a photographic set-up. The magazine ran no photographs, so the FBI plausibly believed it had come across an active espionage operation. Further surveillance, including wire-taps, determined that Jaffe was in frequent contact with US Communist Party leader Earl Browder, Soviet “diplomats” in New York, a top Chinese Communist envoy of Mao and US diplomat John Stewart Service (home from Chiang Kai-Shek’s China, where, it later emerged, Service roomed with two leading Communist agents, Solomon Adler and Chi Chao-ting).

On June 6, 1945, FBI agents arrested six people, including Jaffe and Service, and seized hundreds of top secret documents, many concerning military matters. An open-and-shut espionage case, it would seem.

An open and quickly shut-down case is more like it. What followed was cover-up, perjury and grand-jury rigging by, among others, high-ranking Washington officials. Some were eager to prevent a national security scandal from engulfing the Truman White House. Others were acting to shield a far wider Communist-led conspiracy mounted by confederates inside the State Department, Treasury, White House and elsewhere in the US government, working not merely to filch secret documents but to ensure, through influence and subversion, the Communist takeover of China. These powerful forces of suppression proved overwhelming. The Amerasia case was scuttled, the scandal was buried, and, within a few years, China was Red.

Five years later, McCarthy’s laser-beam focus on the still-festering case would be instrumental in follow-up investigations launched by both the Senate and the FBI. These massive probes yielded, as Evans notes, some 5,000 pages of Senate hearings, plus 1,000 pages of exhibits and, from the FBI, 24,000 pages of now-declassified records.

They reveal the workings of a vast, complex influence operation, Evans writes, that “assiduously worked to guide official and public thinking, and hence the course of U.S. policy,” in this case regarding the Far East. Other such intricate influence operations, of course, targeted the West. And who was doing this dirty work of Communist-directed subversion from within? Many officials and public figures highlighted by Joseph McCarthy (among others), who, we have since learned from US and Soviet archives, were secret agents and fellow-traveling supporters of Stalin.
McCarthy, as Evans has pointed out, threatened to blow the lid off the official cover-ups and other acts of treason. Thus, he had to be isolated, demonized and destroyed, and so he was. History would be written by the isolators, the demonizers and the destroyers, and repeated by rote for the next half century.

Then along came the declassification of FBI records and releases of intelligence documents, and scholars such as M. Stanton Evans to sift through them. But the far-reaching implications of such research – that anti-Communist “witch-hunters” were right all along – have done shockingly little to change the way Americans regard their history. Such hidebound attitudes extend also to American conservatives, who, it would seem, are the modern-day heirs of the anti-Communist legacy. What Evans calls “court history” is that deeply entrenched as national lore.
Will this ever change? “There’s no concise answer to that,” Evans replied in a recent interview with Dispatch International. “There is a mindset, a narrative, a template that has been out there for a long time.” The reflex reaction, to date, is to preserve that template rather than assess the new evidence.

Thus, it is minimized or denied. Evans mimics the usual reaction to the specter of historical Communist penetration: “ `Well, this thing was overblown, there wasn’t a big problem, these people were persecuted.’ The new evidence, he continues, “challenges this so they dismiss it. We’re dealing with an establishment mindset that is impervious to refutation – to fact. It’s like throwing popcorn at a battleship.”

This hasn’t stopped Evans, 78 – once the youngest metropolitan newspaper editor in the USA (Indianapolis News), and formerly a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and commentator for CBS News and Voice of America – from reloading and firing again. In fact, following his McCarthy book, which corroborates many McCarthy cases and documents the Washington Establishment’s craven efforts to destroy the maverick senator rather than address subversion and cover-up, Evans embarked on a new project. With so much evidence now available attesting to the presence of Soviet agents watching over wartime Washington, Evans set out to write a concise history of what it was these agents of the Kremlin actually accomplished.
The new book, published in November 2012, is Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, co-written with Herbert Romerstein, a leading Cold War expert and longtime congressional investigator. Assessing the achievements of agents of influence, is very different, Evans emphasizes, from standard histories of spying as defined by stealing secrets.

The series of history-changing events Evans and Romerstein identify as having been subverted by Soviet agents is itself history-changing, demanding a rewrite of much of the history of World War II. Despite the familiarity with which we regard the era, in many ways, Evans and Romerstein are pioneering a new field of study. The best way to approach it with what Evans himself calls his Law of Inadequate Paranoia: “No matter how bad you think something is,” he says, “when you look into it, it's always worse."


Follow me @diana_west_


Brandon Darby

Florida Governor Rick Scott announced Wednesday evening he had made a deal with the federal government and would now accept Obamacare's Medicaid Expansion, the initial implementation of [Alleged] President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Governor Scott had previously been a champion of Tea party and conservative grassroots efforts to prevent the expansion of Medicaid in the state of Florida. He announced this policy reversal in a hasty press conference.

Read this story at ... 
Boston Herald

Betsy McCaughey

Last week, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform disclosed how state officials in New York scammed federal taxpayers out of billions of dollar by exploiting the Medicaid system.

The federal government matches dollar for dollar what a state spends on Medicaid. New York spends $5,118 per day per patient in state facilities for the mentally disabled, equivalent to $1.9 million a year per patient. “Personal care” for the home bound is a New York Medicaid benefit that includes grocery shopping and housekeeping, and it costs as much as $150,000 a year per recipient. Overall, New York spends more on Medicaid than the two most populous states in the U.S. — California and Texas — combined and hauls in more matching federal funds.

The congressional committee is calling for a federal investigation of New York’s Medicaid spending. But this isn’t just a New York problem.

The bigger culprit is the Medicaid matching rule, which invites abuse. It lays out a red carpet even for politicians who are otherwise inclined to be honest stewards of taxpayers’ money. And the problem is about to get much worse because the Obama health law lures states to loosen their Medicaid eligibility rules and expand enrollment by promising the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of the expansion until 2018, and then 90 percent of the cost thereafter. That’s a 9 to 1 match.

The invitation has enticed even conservative governors like John Kasich of Ohio and Jan Brewer of Arizona, an outspoken critic of [Alleged] President Obama and his health plan. Last week, both governors announced they will participate in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Brewer said it would “inject $2 billion” into the state’s economy.

Not all governors are hurrying to the party. Ten have refused and another 20 are reserving decision.

States that accede to the Obamacare offer will no longer set eligibility rules based on what state budgets can handle. The federal government will call the shots. Packing the Medicaid rolls is the new health law’s primary way of dealing with the uninsured, and it would expand Medicaid by an astounding 42 percent in Florida if Gov. Rick Scott (still undecided) goes along.

Last summer, a bipartisan State Budget Crisis Task Force, chaired by former New York Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, warned states not to go along with Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Every deficit-reduction plan being discussed in Washington includes abandoning that 9-to-1 match soon, the task force warned. States that expanded Medicaid to comply with the Obama health law would be plunged into fiscal disaster. Medicaid is already consuming a third or more of many state budgets.

Read this important story at ... 


DR. BENJAMIN CARSON: There are a group of people who would like to silence everybody and have everybody go along to get along, but that's not going to be very helpful for us in the long run, in terms of solving our problems. And somebody has to be courageous enough to actually stand up to, you know, the bullies.


DR. CARSON: There’s no question that [[Alleged] President Obama] has advocated, you know, basically a policy of tax the rich. And I have advocated a policy that comes from the Bible, which is a very fair policy of proportional taxation. If it was good enough for God, why wouldn’t it be good enough for us? The minute you deviate away from that, you begin to get into all kinds of biases. And one could legitimately make the argument that the rich pays too many taxes. The top 1% pays 37% of the taxes, the top 5% [pays] 59% of the taxes, but they don't make that much of the income. One could make that argument.


DR. CARSON: I've always said if God grabs me by the collar and sticks me in that arena, that's the only way that I'll do it. But, no, I'm actually going to retire in June from surgery. I will still teach, I will still be involved, but I'm going to retire from surgery, so it does open up a lot of possibilities for me. I'm very focused on education and getting the populace back to where it used to be -- like back in 1831 when Alexis de Tocqueville was so impressed -- because an uneducated populace will fall for anything.

And if you and you talk to most people, they mean well but they don't have much of a breadth of education, of knowledge, of understanding of what the real issues are and, therefore, they listen to pundits on television who tell them what they're supposed to think and they keep repeating that and pretty soon they say, 'Oh, well that must be true.' (Your World, February 11, 2013)

Watch the video here ... 

zero hedge

Tyler Durden

While hardly presented by the mainstream media with the same panache dedicated to the monthly ARIMA-X-12 seasonally-adjusted, climate-affected, goal-seek devised non-farm payroll data, the three month delayed Foodstamp number is according to many a far greater attestation to the "effectiveness" of the Obama administration to turn the economy around. And far greater it is: since his inauguration, the US has generated just 841,000 jobs through November 2012, a number is more than dwarfed by the 17.3 million new foodstamps and disability recipients added to the rolls in the past 4 years. And since the start of the depression in December 2007, America has seen those on foodstamps and disability increase by 21.8 million, while losing 3.6 million jobs. End result: total number of foodstamp recipients as of November: 47.7 million, an increase of 141,000 from the prior month, and reversing the brief downturn in October, while total US households on foodstamps just hit an all time record of 23,017,768, an increase of 73,952 from the prior month. The cost to the government to keep these 23 million households content and not rising up? $281.21 per month per household.

Read this story and see the charts at ...