ObamaCare - An Election Referendum!

A new guest post by Betsy McCaughey

Here's How the Impending ObamaCare Disaster Affects You 

/>

You've been focused on the outrageous criminal conduct 

of Hillary and Bill now being revealed by 
WikiLeaks [aka: FBI/NSA/DIA]. 

Betsy lays out the issues we face if Trump 
is defeated and unable to repeal ObamaCare.

  Read this expose' and see how you will be affected.

This election is also a referendum on the Affordable Care Act. Almost everyone in America is affected. Contrary to what ObamaCare’s defenders claim, the law is hurting millions more people than it’s helping. Hillary Clinton defends it and wants to “build on it.” Donald Trump is promising to “repeal and replace the disaster known as ObamaCare.”  It’s probably our last chance. “Disaster” sums up the skyrocketing premiums and lack of choice facing many of the 11 million people enrolled in the exchange plans. The plans are unaffordable, unless you’re a low earner getting a free ride. ObamaCare enrollees aren’t the only people being clobbered.  If you get insured at work — as 155 million people do — your deductibles are up a staggering 49 percent since 2011 thanks to ObamaCare. Part-timers are working fewer hours, so business owners can avoid the law’s employer mandate. Taxpayers are on the hook for some 50 new taxes. Seniors get hit the hardest.  More than half of ObamaCare’s costs are paid for by cutting Medicare, resulting in stingy care for seniors. Here’s how ObamaCare affects you: Insured through work?  The law forces employers to provide a one-size-fits-all benefits package costing much more than pre-ObamaCare coverage. The law also imposes a slew of new taxes.  No surprise, employers are offsetting these costs by raising deductibles and reducing family coverage.  In 2017, many companies will eliminate insurance for spouses. Working part-time? Hundreds of thousands of workers have had their hours cut because ObamaCare requires employers to cover full-time employees, meaning those working 30 hours a week or more.  Ironically, colleges, where Democrats outnumber Republicans, are major culprits, slashing hours for adjuncts and student workers to avoid providing insurance. Job-hunting?  ObamaCare dampens the job market.  In New York, 17 percent of service companies and 21 percent of manufacturers are reducing their workforces to stay below 50 full-time workers and dodge the employer mandate, according to the New York Federal Reserve.  Sixty-five or older? ObamaCare awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least per senior.    [Now a policy at VA]  Researchers found that at 231 hospitals getting bonuses for low spending, seniors died needlessly because of inadequate care. For example, seniors having heart attacks were forced to wait too long for angioplasties and died before they could get the procedure. ObamaCare emergency-room rules slap seniors with bills for “observation care.” You’re in the hospital, but you’re not officially “admitted.” It’s a cost-cutting gimmick.  When it’s time to go home, Medicare doesn’t pay and you’re stuck with a huge tab.

A Physician?

Thank ObamaCare for the thousands of pages of new regulations dictating how you treat your Medicare patients. Precious minutes that could be spent talking to a patient are wasted filling out tedious, repetitive government forms. 

Physicians are glued to computer screens, following prompts instead of making eye contact with their patients and listening to them.

Refusenik? 

If you’re uninsured and refuse to buy ObamaCare, the average penalty is $995 per adult, $500 per child. Ouch.

Clinton promises voters that she’ll make ObamaCare better with billions of dollars of extra spending. 

1. But she’s not going to remove the mandates causing people to lose work hours or their jobs. 
2. As for the regulations suffocating doctors, count on Hillary to pile on more.
3. Worst of all, Clinton wants to expand Medicare to people in their 50s.          
4. Seniors are already having a hard time finding a doctor to treat them for Medicare’s low rates. 
5. Adding millions of “50-somethings” trying to see the same doctors will make it impossible to get an appointment.

Trump knows ObamaCare has to be junked

His plan eliminates the unaffordable mandates and penalties. Consumers will choose from a wide variety of plans, sold across state lines, with special help for people with pre-existing conditions.

Trump gives states flexibility to improve Medicaid for the poor. His plan resembles what House Republicans are pushing, which means it might actually get passed. 

On Nov. 8, voters have the chance to 

rid this nation of ObamaCare. 

They should seize it!

Trump will fix VA

The only candidate with a legitimate and workable VA reform        [Reuters photo]

In our continuing series of guest posts from reputable reporters and analysts, 

we highlight  Betsy McCaughey's Opinion Piece in the New York Post [3 Nov 2015] 

to provide a wider dissemination [i.e., global] to her comments.

Click here for original article [Trump shows real policy chops with great fix for ailing VA]

20% of voters are Military Vets

A whopping 20 percent of Republican primary voters are military Veterans. No wonder GOP presidential candidates are making the scandal-plagued Veterans Affairs Department a campaign issue.

And the man frequently tagged as lacking substance — Donald Trump — just came out with the best reform plan so far.

Under Trump’s plan, vets of all ages who are eligible for VA care could get treated at any civilian doctor’s office or hospital that takes Medicare. No bureaucratic hoops, pre-approvals or wait lists.

Trump’s proposal leverages the close connection between Medicare and Veterans Affairs — 45% of VA users are already on Medicare. Opponents are carping that Trump’s plan lacks details, but we don’t need a 1,000-page bill. Trump’s proposal works. It also does an end-run around the VA bureaucracy that has sabotaged every effort so far to allow Vets to go outside for care.

VA excludes Disabled Vets           [MrConservative]

For 20 years, Veterans Affairs has failed to provide timely care to sick vets. Congress has been alerted again and again that VA schedulers falsified wait lists and even lied to vets, telling them they were in line to be seen when they weren’t. After several vets died needlessly at the Phoenix VA facility, Congress finally enacted reform last year. It promised vets the option of civilian care.

Every vet gets a “choice card,” but it’s a cruel joke. The law erects so many hurdles that few vets can actually use it.

Vets have to live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or have waited more than 30 days to be eligible. Then they have to get a letter confirming eligibility from Veterans Affairs — good luck with that. Then their civilian doctor has to call for pre-approval before treatment — fat chance getting that call answered. After all that, treatment is limited to 60 days. Like you can cure cancer in 60 days!

More than half of vets haven’t even heard about the choice program, which is just what the VA bureaucracy wants. But count on Trump — the master marketer — to get the word out about his plan if he’s elected president. And to fire VA Secretary Robert McDonald, who is a mere apologist for the system.

Competitors criticize Trump for not estimating the cost. But the facts suggest his plan will be low-cost, because nearly half of VA users are already on Medicare. Astoundingly, over 1 million of them have Medicare Advantage, which means taxpayers are paying insurance companies to care for them and then paying Veterans Affairs to care for them. This nonsensical double payment sends 10 percent of the VA health budget down the drain every year.

Overall, encouraging older vets to use Medicare instead by picking up their out-of-pocket costs when they go to a civilian doctor is a no-brainer, and it would cut VA wait lists in half. That would allow younger vets to see a VA doctor faster. But Trump also gives them access to civilian doctors, if they prefer.

Vets needing procedures such as bypass surgery and angioplasty do better at civilian hospitals that perform them in high volume. Medical studies support Trump’s idea. (No kidding!)

Concerned Veterans for America lashed out at Trump’s plan for lacking details. It proposes moving vets into private health plans with subsidies to help pay the premiums. But the plans resemble ObamaCare, meaning most vets could face large out-of-pocket costs.

That’s a nonstarter. 

Vets already earned their care. At the VA, they can see a doctor for $15. Maybe Concerned Veterans was fast to criticize Trump because one of their plan’s authors is an adviser to another presidential campaign.

So we lost a few at Benghazi!

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’ll unveil a VA reform plan next month. 

She’s already brushed aside evidence of VA corruption, denying it’s widespread. Trump is the candidate best equipped so far with a real alternative when she launches into a defense of the VA’s rotten status quo.

DOD Forcing Out Combat Troops?

This Experienced Soldier will be forced out [TimeMilitary.Files]

Click here for related article {Army.mil}

This Administration seems intent on forcing out of the Army our elite, combat-experienced troops as it reduces the size of the Military.  When the Pentagon is finished, our Army will essentially be led by political generals with no combat experience, and populated by troops and officers equally deficient in combat experience or any semblance of esprit de corps.

With the new Military, however, we expect that leadership will not only be politicized, but will be well-represented by every level of unique sexual category -- to ensure there is no discrimination.

The most recent targeting process is the ban on tattoos -- which soldiers have embraced throughout history.  Notably, Rangers, Special Forces, and Airborne troops, not to speak of the majority of sailors, have traditionally added tattoos to arms, legs, chests, and backs to advertise their combat tours and particular expertise.  Just as the Green and Tan Berets added a level of pride to the Special Forces and Rangers, tattoos have set apart those who marked their experience and expertise [e.g., Combat Engineers and EOD specialists] with lettering and imagery which let their friends, peers, subordinates, and superiors know their history.

Now, we can understand some of the restrictions, e.g., ink on the eyelids and inside the mouth and on the face; and extremist, sexist, and racist tattoos which are also banned.

However, the new restrictions include tattoos on the neck, wrists, hands, and fingers.  Also, according to Army Pamphlet 670-1, forbidden tattoos include those
"... below the elbows and knees".
That pretty much rules out 50% of the existing tattoos, and most of our combat-experienced troops.

Now, here's the interesting part of this process.

1)  These restrictions apply to all soldiers, regardless of rank, to include officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers in the Active Duty, Reserves, and the National Guard.
2)  Commanders must
     a)  perform annual checks for new tattoos and
     b) "... are required to document and photograph all Soldiers' tattoos above the neckline and
         below the elbows and knees, keeping that information in the servicememeber's official records.
3)  Enlisted personnel exceeding the limit of four [4] tattoos "... cannot request commissioning or appointment..." -- even if they are grandfathered, in accordance with the Pamphlet.

Senior soldiers interviewed, including officers and non-coms, advised that these new regulations will force out otherwise good soldiers -- particularly those with combat experience.

SGM-A Chandler listens to his Mom

Oddly, the soldier we'd expect to challenge the implementation of these new regulations, Sergeant Major of the Army Ray Chandler, seems to be going along with these new regulations with no challenge.

He did note, in a recent interview, that his children have tattoos, and that he promised his Mom that he would never get a tattoo.

And, we commend him for listening to his Mom.

But, we recall our time in the Military when soldiers tended to think for themselves, and to take pride in their specialties and accomplishments.

We'll cut him some slack though, since it appears that some of the initial requirements seem to have disappeared, perhaps due to his influence.  This included the requirement to surgically remove the existing tattoos.

We are, however, appalled that Secretary of Defense Hagel, whom we supported during his nomination based on his Enlisted Service, would allow these new regulations to be emplaced without regard to their impact on the combat readiness of our Army [yes, we said OUR Army, since we and OUR relatives continue to serve to protect OUR country!].

Those in my generation came into the Service pretty much on a non-volunteer basis - i.e., primarily via the Draft.  Nonetheless, a lot of us stayed in because we felt the Army -- and our country -- needed us.  So, we teachers, lawyers, engineers, and concert pianists -- stayed in and served OUR country, even though we disagreed with OUR country's leadership.

We do recall asinine regulations, enforced by our Academy company commanders, which required that sideburns not extend beyond the hole in our ears, or that we could not part our hair in the middle, or that our undershirts could not have V-Necks because the [West Point] Brigade Commander's wife objected to seeing the hair on our chests, or that we had to have shined boots even when we were in forward operating bases in mud up to our knees.  Soldiers in combat environments tend to operate in different modes than parade ground popinjays.

Now that the faux wars [the purpose of which we still ponder] have drawn down, and our Army is to be reduced to a strength of 420,000, we'll see the nonsense regulations once again take over as the spit-and-polish advocates from the academies demand, we expect to see less combat readiness, and an emphasis on parades and shiny uniforms -- and lots and lots of meaningless ribbons worn on the pretty new uniforms of senior officers and non-coms.

Congress Cuts War Vet Benefits

Follow @SpookdBlog

With thanks to The Boys of 3/5        [https://www.facebook.com/TheBoysof35]

Click here for related story [The Washington Times]

The new budget, which boosts spending..., includes a provision that would reduce the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees to 1 percent less than the rate of consumer inflation — and even reduces payments for veterans who were wounded in action.  The bill raises benefits for Civil Service employees and Congress.

Supporters of the Military, to include former Congressman Joe Scarborough condemn these cuts to the Military.

Military pensions and benefits are based on the premise that Military careers are based on "risk" -- very high risk.

The enlistment process promised a 20 year career, consisting of:

1) low pay
2) frequent moves
3) multiple/frequent deployments to combat zones
4) the high probability of injury [or death]
5) living in high stress/dangerous environments
6) long-term disabilities based on demanding physical conditions
7) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD]


Military killed from WW2 forward:

417,000   WWII
  59,000   Vietnam
  34,000   Korea  
    4,500   Iraq
    2,300   Afghanistan

These figures do not include the tens of thousands of Military who were maimed or suffered permanent disabilities, to include loss of limbs, sight, hearing, and mobility.

In return for their sacrifices while on Active Duty, Military members could retire after 20 years at half pay, with full health benefits, and the authorization to shop at commissaries and PXs -- which used to offer discounts on food and merchandise -- but not so much today; they're better off shopping at Walmart. 

It used to be that Veterans received generous benefits on mortgages and education -- but those have been fine-tuned by Congress so that those perks have eroded;
1) VA mortgages now require significantly greater qualifiers, eliminating many Veterans from the opportunity to buy a home
2)  VA education benefits now expire after a period of time, eliminating education benefits for those unable to use them immediately because they were trying to support their families.

There is no other profession in the US that carries the risks and hardships of a Military career -- 

yet Congress [which now has very few Military Veterans in its ranks] wants to boost its own benefits as well as those of Civil Servants --

while cutting back on the Military retirement and health benefits -- which were verbally guaranteed since WW2.

Perhaps there should be a requirement that candidates for Congress or the White House MUST have served in the Military.  That might alter their perspective on starting wars or regarding our Military as expendable pawns in budget deliberations.

Navy Yard Shooting

 

The US Navy Yard, before renovations

Click here for photo link [The Guardian]

A great deal of confusion this morning in the midst of a shooting spree by as yet, unidentified persons in the Navy Sea Systems Command building at the Washington Navy Yard.

Shooting broke out this morning in the Washington Navy Yard this morning; it was reputed to be one of the most secure military sites in Washington, with limited access through heavily guarded gates, with the interior buildings accessible only through entrances with both guards and scanners.  The shooters, dressed as uniformed military and security personnel, successfully bypassed those security barriers and moved freely among the 3,000 military and civilian personnel in the headquarters building, their weapons drawing little or no notice.

So far, it appears there are/were three shooters; one is now dead.  Two others are being hunted by security personnel.  According to Mayor Gray, casualties include 12 killed with an undetermined number of wounded evacuated to the Washington Medical Center.

One shooter,  dressed "all in [dark] blue" but not further identified [NFI] was walking the halls shooting at people.

A second shooter was described as a tall [5'10"] Black male, wearing an olive drab military uniform [US Marine?], approximately 50 years old, carrying a rifle.

A third shooter, White, [NFI], was wearing a Navy style short sleeve khaki uniform, wearing a beret, and carried a handgun.

Details of this tragedy are still unfolding.
-------------
UPDATE:

Notably, photos of the perp and more specific information seem to have mysteriously disappeared from this blog since it was first published.  Isn't that odd!

[The FBI later released vague information, referring to a young ex-sailor who had worked as a waiter at a cafe in Texas, but somehow was granted a Top Secret clearance and recruited by a Defense Contractor [not further identified], who then smuggled a shotgun, a rifle, and several handguns through the security gate, and somehow, these weapons -- plus a large bag of ammunition, went unnoticed at the security gate.]

 POST MORTEM:
The FBI officially announced that "... there was only one shooter -- armed with a shotgun. A crazed Navy Reservist with PTSD and a history of anger management issues who terrorized his neighbor and was enraged that he hadn't been paid enough as a Defense contractor."

This differs somewhat from a human interest story talking about the shooter's history as a waiter at a Texas cafe where everyone like him because he was a shy, but pleasant young man.
[We're not quite sure how he transitioned from cafe waiter, to Intelligence Consultant at the Navy Yard]

This shooting spree was followed by White House Press Secretary Carney's afternoon announcement that National Gun Control should be brought up for review again.

That should satisfy the average reader, and energize Congress to pass legislation to confiscate all personal weapons -- and to divert attention from the Syria debacle.

But, hold on. 

Let's take a look at this event and pick it apart before we rush to judgment.
Witness accounts as reported by law enforcement officials on the scene indicated there were multiple shooters.

Among early [confirmed] reports from law enforcement officials, there are identifications of at least two Black shooters that match these descriptions -- as separate individuals.

3d Shooter's Uniform

A third individual identified as a shooter was a White male in a Navy [officer] khaki uniform.

Police announced at one point that one of these individuals was no longer a suspect. 

Another Shooter?

After they declared one shooter [Aaron Alexis ] "deceased" it appeared there was still gunfire within the building; thus the multiple shooter concept; one was firing a rifle, another was firing a shotgun, still another used a pistol.  

Even an amateur knows the difference between a shotgun and a rifle - or a pistol!

[Oddly, there were few photos/videos from security cameras inside the building]

Somehow, we're not convinced these are photos of the same man.

 Differences:

1) Complexion [there is no way skin color can be altered to that extent]
2) Occipital Ridge [distinctly different]
3) Distance between eyes
4) Different eye shapes
5) Round vs Oblong Face
6) Different nose shapes
7) Different lip structure 
8) Age:
    a) Medium height man with light complexion [20s];
    b) Tall man with dark complexion [40s]

The final "official report" shows the "lone shooter" as the light skinned younger man, the contractor bestowed with a Top Secret clearance based, apparently, as a trusted busboy in Texas, who was able to enter the facility with an arsenal almost the size of that carried into the school in Sandy Hook.  Does it seem odd that he was able to carry in a shotgun, a 30.06, and a handgun with ammunition for all these weapons, and not be challenged by the guard force?

Published Excerpt from DC Police Report

"The Washington Navy Yard shooting occurred on September 16, 2013 when 3+fatally shot 12 people and injured three others in a mass shooting at the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) inside the Washington Navy Yard in southeast Washington, D.C. The attack took place in the Navy Yard’s Building 197; it began around 8:16 a.m. EDT and ended when Alexis was killed by police around 9:25 a.m. It was the second-deadliest mass murder on a U.S. military base, behind the 2009 Fort Hood shooting."

[The bio on Aaron Alexis claimed he was 42 years old, and worth between $1 Million and $ Million; not bad for an Indian guy from Queens, NY; described in The Washington Post as known and loved in Texas as a bus boy at the Happy Bowl cafe in Fort Worth.TX; while Wiki and news media described him as a highly educated graduate student studying Aeronautical Engineering at Embry Riddle]

Editorial Comment

Could this shooting have included the deaths/disappearance of senior flag rank Military officers from the Pentagon who had arranged a covert meeting with Obama at the very secure Navy Yard  to suggest his resignation in the face of impeachment based on Treason?  

Notably, not long after this event, Obama was bragging that 

he could never be impeached! 

---------------------------------------------

Footnote:

You might find this video informative as this process led to the selection of Trump as the Military's challenge to the communist process.

https://rumble.com/vbanpv-trump-military-agreement.html