OBAMACARE RECREATES CUBAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM: GOOD HOSPITALS FOR THE RICH AND POLITICALLY CONNECTED ONLY!

One Citizen Speaking...

---

Posted: 08 Dec 2013 06:31 PM PST I am blessed to live in an area with access to some of the best medical facilities and doctors in the nation. UCLA, Cedars Sinai, St. Johns, USC – all worthless if my insurance coverage denies top-notch coverage at these facilities, or even worse, denies me medically-necessary treatment because it is been judged “experimental” to hold down costs. Everyone should be concerned … New Affordable Care US health plans will exclude top hospitals Americans who are buying insurance plans over online exchanges, under what is known as Obamacare, will have limited access to some of the nation’s leading hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centres. Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the newhealthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, will not offer patients’ access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country. Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law. It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors “in network”. In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan. Under some US health insurance plans, consumers can elect to visit medical facilities that are “out of network”, but they would probably incur high out of pocket costs and may need referrals to prove that such care is medically necessary. The development is worrying some hospital administrators who see the change as an unintended consequence of the ACA. Read more at: New Affordable Care US health plans will exclude top hospitals - FT.com Bottom line … Obamacare is designed for the masses – to curtail costs, to promote efficiencies, to control individual lives for political reasons, and to give socialists embedded in the system perpetual control over government. How it works is simple. If you are not wealthy or have a commonly-treatable condition, your life hangs in the balance. (From my blog post: What you need to know about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Approving or denying care according to computerized criteria that is designed to provide adequate healthcare to the 80% masses while rejecting the specialized healthcare that may be required to save the lives or improve the quality of care in the 20% outliers. This can be easily illustrated using a standard statistical “bell curve” found in all areas of science and statistics. Even if you do manage to get insurance coverage, will it be sufficient to cover your medical needs without delay or denial? In the final analysis, we need to remove the progressive socialist democrats who forced Obamacare down our throats in the 2014 congressional election cycle. Vote as if your life depended on it – because this time you life literally depends on fixing the healthcare system and removing the socialists and communists from power. -- steve Related articles Obamacare: The chickens are coming home to roost and the bird-sh*t is being ignored by the politicians Obamacare Dates: Obama extends healthcare enrollment period ... Until December 23, 2013 Fairness + Equality = Misery Guest Post: Obamacare Is A Catastrophe That Cannot Be Fixed Surprise! Obamacare Now Projected To Cost Hundreds Of Billions Less Than Expected Obamacare Restricts Choice Of Hospitals And Doctors 'MELTDOWN': Read the Email Top Obamacare Official Sent Just Days Before Healthcare.gov Launch 'Brutal!' The doctor is in? This newspaper's Obamacare headline says it all [photo] More News On Obamacare Restricting And Reducing Access To Healthcare

IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILLFULLY GUTTING OUR MILITARY LEADERSHIP AND KILLING OUR SOLDIERS FOR POLITICAL REASONS? Posted: 08 Dec 2013 06:11 PM PST In the United States, the military is controlled by civilians, but what happen when those civilians hate their country and its military? But the question remains, can you allow civilian politicians and advisors with little or no military knowledge or experience to dictate battlefield rules of engagement? Can you allow anti-America political ideologues like Valerie Jarrett to interfere with military operations and compromise American lives when the window of opportunity for taking action does not coincide with the favorability ratings of the President or if a failure might have negative consequences on the President’s poll numbers? Likewise, can you sharp-shoot effective military leaders by snooping on their personal lives and dismissing them for personal foibles that do not rise to the point where they could be criminally prosecuted under the Military’s Uniform Code Military Justice? How many people actually believe that General Petraeus’ love affair was “accidently” found by investigators looking at someone’s e-mail account? Here is a story that needs to be read … Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths. A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan. But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes. “In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. “It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.” As President Obama’s troop surge began in 2009, so did new rules of engagement demanded by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was responding to local elders angry over the deaths of civilians from NATO airstrikes and ground operations. Mr. Karzai now is refusing to sign a status of forces agreement for U.S. troops to remain in his country after 2014, even though Mr. Obama personally pledged to him in a letter that Afghan homes would be mostly off-limits to ground forces. Even before the president’s edict, commanders since 2009 had to insure that a Taliban fighter was carrying a weapon before they could authorize direct fire.A unit engaged in combat on the ground and requesting airstrikes must convince commanders — and lawyers — back at headquarters that no civilians would be harmed. Read more at: Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times Lawyers … It appears that lawyers are now associated with everything bad in our society. Rather than produce clear, easy-to-read and understand documents, they revel in hyper-complicated documents that requires a lawyer to read, interpret, and in the final analysis, the client, not the lawyer, suffers the consequences for misinterpretations. But, to have lawyers interject political and legal viewpoints on the battlefield is to bind our soldiers to rules that favor the enemy and prolong the conflict. Truth-be-told, Hamid Karzai is little more than the kleptocratic mayor of Kabul, stealing billions while the real power still rests with the tribal warlords who are able to dictate policy in tribal areas. Why the Obama Administration would listen to this tin-horn pol is beyond me? However, if one follows the money, combatants on both sides – the military equipment suppliers and contractors and the kleptocrat politicians – have very little incentive for ending the war. To what end? The purpose of war and military action is to force the enemy’s leadership to accept the victor’s point of view. To this end, the military kills people and breaks things. While collateral damage among civilians is tragic, it is by no means avoidable. Especially when our enemies stage operations among civilians knowing the United States, unlike Russia, China, or other nations, has a distaste for media attention with political consequences at home. Why any military unit allows embedded reporters is a mystery. Perhaps we should ask General McChrystal who saw his career destroyed and tarnished when a reporter recorded the remarks of some of his subordinates during their leisure time activities? Bottom line … We need to throw out the progressive socialist democrats who would rather see Americans than our enemies killed here and abroad. We need to set a clear political objective and a clear military policy. Then we attack our enemies with the sole objective of winning and minimizing the loss of our troops. We investigate war profiteering and prosecute the profiteers and their political connections that enabled the activity and benefited from the profits. It is about time mealy-mouthed politicians listen to the people. Stop with enlarging the size and scope of government by citing terrorism – and actually kill terrorists and those who support them. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and the source of the enhanced improvised explosive devices that killed and maimed thousands of Americans, yet the Obama Administration sits idly by while they pursue their nuclear ambitions and continue to threaten the region. What other U.S. President, including Jimmy Carter, has Americans wondering about his loyalties and his actions that seem to disadvantage our allies and confer benefits to our enemies? Throw the progressive socialist democrats out of office in 2014. Start rebuilding America’s strength, both economically and militarily. If we must go it alone, so be it. Following the progressive socialist democrats and their damn lawyers down the socialist path to destruction of our Constitution is not an option. As for the rules of engagement: “Do they pose even a potential threat to our fighting men? Yes, neutralize them in the most permanent way. If they are they standing next to children, women, and non-combatants – too bad, it’s their choice to place themselves near their fellow citizens and put their lives in danger. I could make the same case that was made for using an atomic weapon on Japan, it saved millions of lives, American, Japanese, and others in the area of combat operations around the world. -- steve