FOXNews.com: The president's ObamaCare victory speech -- a translation

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

The president's ObamaCare victory speech -- a translation Jun 30th 2012, 04:05 After the Supreme Court approved ObamaCare Thursday, the president gave a speech.  I think it needs decoding.    Obama: Today's decision was a victory for people all over this country. It's a victory for central planners, not "people." One thing I've learned in 42 years of reporting is that centrally planned bureaucracy kills innovation, increases costs and undercuts personal liberty. If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. Unless your insurance company, like Principal Financial, leaves the business, because you've made it bad business.  Then people lose their policy.    This law will only make it more secure and more affordable. It's impossible to do both. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay under their parent's health care plans… That will make insurance cost more. …A provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans. And made insurance cost more. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs – a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about 600 dollars each. Even rich seniors get a handout.  According to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion in the next 10 years. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. True, because people like "free" stuff. If you're one of the 30 million Americans who don't yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. There were already plenty of options for them, including Medicare and charity.  But we in government are only happy if it's all centrally planned. Now, you'll get to "choose" from a whole "array" of mandated expensive and mediocre healthcare "options."   They won't be able to charge you more just because you're a woman. That's right. They'll just charge everybody more in higher premiums and higher taxes.  But that's nuts!  Women visit doctors more than men.  They consume more health care. Not charging women more for health insurance is like not charging Charlie Sheen more for property insurance.  People who incur higher costs pay higher insurance rates or insurance doesn't work. If you're sick, you'll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. Quality? Affordable? Without a market, how would we know?  Quality and innovation come from market competition.  That pretty much stops with central planning.  Canadians get "free" healthcare, and they have the privilege of waiting 23 hours to see someone at the ER, as opposed to the 4 hours Americans have to endure. And if you can't afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it. And you will be taxed for that.  The bill raises premiums by up to 50% -- that's $1,500 for individuals, and $3,300 for families -- according to a study by Blue Cross Blue Shield (BSBA). Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. Should take responsibility?  No.  The Supreme Court ruled that you must buy insurance because the Feds say so.  That's not "can take responsibility," that's force. …If you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don't require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they're sick to buy the care they need… We still will.  The penalties cost less than insurance.  This will drive private insurance companies out of business.  Then we will be stuck with government care.  Maybe that was the intention all along.   In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for president. True.  Although he imposed it only on one state.  We have 50.  Experiments at the state level at least allow comparison.  And some freedom.  Also, when ObamaCare passed, there was not "support from both parties."  No Republicans voted for the law and Mitt Romney promises to repeal the law if he gets elected.   …I didn't do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country.   I believe you. Statists think that big intrusive complex government micromanagement is a good thing.They think that government can solve our healthcare problems. I say, "No They Can't."   And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. But ObamaCare works against all those things.  It discourages those who do work from hiring people.  It makes it harder to pay down our debt. This study predicts that the healthcare law will add $530 Billion to the national debt in just 10 years.   …when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward. We'll be better off if we have the sense to repeal it.  Government doesn't know best.  Central planning, federal mandates and government controls are a fatal conceit of an arrogant political class.  Mr. President, at Harvard Law School, you were taught that you can manage life though paper and procedure.  But that is a lie.    John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Will 'Fast and Furious' influence your vote in November?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Will 'Fast and Furious' influence your vote in November? Jun 28th 2012, 17:09 The House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress on Thursday after Holder refused to turn over all of the documents related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' "Fast and Furious" gunrunning sting. President Obama asserted executive privilege over some of the documents last week. Will the 'Fast and Furious' scandal influence your vote in November? This is a non-scientific viewer question.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: How to know when it's time to declare bankruptcy

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

How to know when it's time to declare bankruptcy Jun 30th 2012, 09:00 As the housing crisis continues to touch American lives, one of the ripple effects of the crisis is the desperate financial straits of homeowners who continue to struggle with debt -- even years after losing their homes.  As lenders continue to pursue deficiencies from three or four years ago, honest people who want to make good on their debts are increasingly overwhelmed. They find it impossible to rebuild their financial lives. Attempting to make even the minimum payments on a sea of debt can wipe out your retirement savings and max out your credit cards. It takes only one small shift in circumstance to make repayment an impossible task: a loss of employment, divorces, a health or housing crisis. Remaining in denial about the futility of repaying all debt is stressful and takes a toll on your relationships, family and health. When your liabilities are excessive, and your assets are minimal, if not gone, it is time to take a rational look at a very personal and, often emotional, decision: Should you declare personal bankruptcy? Years ago, personal bankruptcy was considered by some to be a shameful last resort.  In today's economy, however, personal bankruptcy filings are no longer seen as a kiss of death to your credit worthiness. These filings have become an acceptable last-ditch effort to help you organize your debt, and free you from years and years of making minimum payments that will never go away. If you qualify, filing for personal bankruptcy may be an effective way to restore optimism in your financial future and rebuild your dreams. If you are considering bankruptcy the most important thing to do is to find a reputable lawyer to advise you.  For instance, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, you must meet a "means test" which will look at your income and debt to determine your true need for relief. These guidelines vary from state to state.  Martindale-Hubbell is an index of lawyers, available online at martindale.com, which you can use to search for a bankruptcy lawyer in your area. Search for lawyers rated "AV" which indicates that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence. The consequence of filing for personal bankruptcy is that it does stay on your credit report for many years. However, there is evidence that lenders are adjusting to this new landscape. With careful management of limited credit and prompt repayment of any new debt, it is possible to repair your FICO scores. Some lenders are even allowing mortgages to people who have claimed bankruptcy. The economy has forced many of us to a place where we need to stand up and declare: "enough is enough." We need permission to free ourselves from the bondage of minimum monthly payments that are holding us hostage the promise of a more secure financial future.  Personal bankruptcy no longer has to carry the shame of failure.  If you have tried to meet your obligations, but have been battered by economic forces beyond your control, the decision to take action and take control of your finances can be a cause for optimism and the beginning of a more stable financial future. Robert "Bob" Massi is an attorney and Fox News Legal Analyst. Watch him discuss the foreclosure crisis Thursdays on "Fox & Friends."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama's legal victory, political defeat

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Obama's legal victory, political defeat Jun 29th 2012, 17:34 The Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act represents a big victory for President Obama and will generate plenty of discussion and debate on the merits of that legislation and of the court's action. But this victory can't rescue Obama from the fundamental politics of the issue—or his own approach to the presidency. Few presidents have sought to change the country's direction with so much audacity mixed with so little understanding of what it takes to actually do so. The Affordable Care Act reflects this fundamental reality of the Obama presidency. With his talk of audacity and his actual audacious decision-making in the early months of his presidency, Obama made clear his resolve to join the ranks of those presidential greats who transformed the country's political landscape and set it upon a new course. But this cannot be done through mere force of will or by manipulating the levers of legislative procedure or by mustering the full force of partisan unity—all of which Obama did to enact his health legislation. That he succeeded in pushing through Congress such an overwhelmingly unpopular measure is testament to his political doggedness but also to his political nescience. The greatest presidents didn't seek to transform the balance of political sentiment in the country by enacting bold and direction-altering legislation. It was quite the opposite: they first transformed the balance of political sentiment in the country in order to enact their seminal legislation. Consider Lyndon Johnson's grand accomplishment in enacting civil-rights legislation in 1964. At the time, Democrats commanded 258 House seats and sixty-seven in the Senate. Johnson and his congressional allies (both Democrats and Republicans) managed to scramble the political fault lines in both houses in a way that ensured this nation-changing legislation could pass both chambers with substantial majorities among both Republicans and Democrats. Thus, he transformed the national consensus on race and ensured that his accomplishment would stick.  By contrast, Obama had sixty Senate Democrats (including two independents who caucused with Democrats) and 242 House Democrats, and yet he felt comfortable pushing through Congress legislation of the highest magnitude on an almost strictly partisan basis. Ronald Reagan offers another instructive illustration. When he sought to transform the country's fiscal policies in the maiden year of his presidency, he first mustered a preponderance of political sentiment in the country behind his bold new fiscal philosophy. It helped that his Republican Party had picked up twelve Senate seats in the 1980 election and thirty-three in the House. Still, the House remained in the hands of Democrats, whose leaders resolved to thwart Reagan's fiscal initiatives at every turn.  But, with Reagan pulling in a vast body of support around the country, his initiatives proved irresistible for a significant number of Democrats. Fully twenty-nine bolted their party's position on the House floor to support Reagan's budget proposal, and forty-eight crossed over to support his controversial tax-cut plan.  In other words, Reagan first laid down the political groundwork and then leveraged it to pass his legislation. Obama never did that with the Affordable Care Act. Reagan offers another important lesson for presidents with bold leadership ambitions, and it is a lesson seen in the work of every Leader of Destiny who has occupied the White House. This is the lesson that presidential greatness requires an expansion of the governing coalition—bringing to the presidential banner new voters who previously had not been part of the governing bloc. For Reagan it was the "Reagan Democrats," working-class Americans disgruntled over the country's direction under Democratic leadership. By pulling these people to his standard, Reagan altered the political balance of power in the country, and that fueled his political success over two terms. Other notable presidents did the same thing.  Andrew Jackson cleverly perceived that the politics of the country were being transformed by developments in the burgeoning West, where more and more states were choosing presidential electors by popular vote and eliminating property requirements for voting. The result was the emergence of a mass electorate, which could be exploited precisely with his brand of conservative populism.  Lincoln was elected in 1860 with less than 40 percent of the vote, but he worked through his first term to build his party into the country's premier agency of industrialization, which ensured its dominance through the remainder of the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth. Franklin Roosevelt totally scrambled up the country's political fault lines to his party's benefit, creating a powerful new coalition of labor, African-Americans, urban dwellers, intellectuals and Jews. He also cut into Republican support among farmers and senior citizens with farm-support programs, rural electrification and Social Security. Obama neglected to pursue any such political initiatives as these. He sought to govern from a base that former Colorado senator and presidential aspirant Gary Hart calls "reactionary liberalism." It is a declining base, and it couldn't sustain a truly successful presidency, much less a transformational one. Finally, Obama missed another crucial element seen in the stewardship of those presidents who actually managed to alter the course of the nation. They all united their party (most often an expanded party) while dividing the opposition. Obama did the opposite. He divided his own party while uniting the opposition. When Reagan pulled those House Democrats to his fiscal initiatives in the summer of 1981, he pulled off a classic "divide-and-conquer" political strategy.  All truly consequential presidents have done the same thing.  Thomas Jefferson divided the Federalists to such an extent that, by the time he and his political acolytes had relinquished the White House twenty-four years after his initial election, the Federalists no longer existed. Lincoln's carefully crafted position on slavery divided both the Democrats and Whigs along sectional lines, thus enabling him to pull off a presidential win with less than 40 percent of the vote. Roosevelt's success in coalition building stirred intraparty battles among Republicans for decades. Consider now the impact of Obama's Affordable Care Act on the two parties. By going so boldly for a controversial approach that wasn't underwritten by any national consensus, he drove a wedge through his own party, as congressional Democrats scrambled to follow the president's leadership while maintaining voter approval. That proved impossible for many, as the 2010 midterm elections demonstrated. Meanwhile, Republicans found it politically expedient—and very easy—to rally to a unified GOP stance of opposition. During the passage of Obama's health legislation through Congress and the immediate aftermath of its enactment, many commentators speculated that, while public opinion opposed the measure during that fiery time, the public eventually would embrace the new health-policy structure, as it has other major federal programs. That proved to be false—and represents another political miscalculation of immense proportions. To the extent the Obama administration bought into that formulation, it created a trap for itself. All this is relates to the political ineptitude of the Obama forces on the health issue, not on the constitutional ramifications laid bare by the Supreme Court. That's a separate issue, and when the court speaks it becomes the final word on any issue at any given time. But, while the president won a big battle in the judicial arena, he faces ongoing controversy in the political arena. That's the one in which the people will have the final say. Robert W. Merry is editor of The National Interest and the author of several books on American history and foreign policy. His most recent book is "Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians" (Simon & Schuster).

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: ObamaCare ruling destroys perfectly good teaching tool for tax professors

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

ObamaCare ruling destroys perfectly good teaching tool for tax professors Jun 29th 2012, 14:00 As Father Guido Sarducci used to remind us, everything you remember from college can be taught in 5 minutes.  And he wasn't kidding. Within those 5 minutes are little sparks of knowledge.  They originate from a good teacher who imparted upon us something so simple yet profound that it made an indelible mark on our memory, causing us to never forget it. One of these sparks I recall from law school came from a professor who taught his students how to identify when a tax occurs: "A tax occurs on a transfer of money.  Picture a government hand.  There are times when a buyer transfers money to a seller, interrupted by the government hand grabbing the money in the middle, taking out its share then handing the balance to the seller." This definition of a tax occurring only on a transfer of money has served me well because the definition has never failed me. A review of Black's Law Dictionary's definition of tax shows a variety of taxes, all of them first requiring a transfer of money or value:  Income tax, payroll tax, consumption tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, gift tax, franchise tax, gross receipts tax, severance tax, tariffs, excise taxes on fuel, liquor and cigarettes, licenses and surcharges all involve obvious transfers of money. User fees tax the transfer to the consumer of that which is being used. Ad Valorem taxes in manufacturing are levied upon the transfer of a product whose value has been increased. Even real estate taxes, a form of ad valorem, occur when realty is transferred (though more insidious than others in that the transfer is then taxed each year, the amount of tax rising and falling with the value of the property which is tied to the transfer of money being gained or lost).  Real estate taxes are also user fees assessed for the transfer of benefits like snow removal, garbage removal, etc. Every tax has at its core the prerequisite of a transfer of money or value. Thanks to the ObamaCare ruling, not transferring money or value may now be taxed, the precise opposite of what a tax has been in the history of jurisprudence. The dissent laments the scant words used by Chief Justice Roberts on the issue, and all that can be found is the following, surely to win this year's circuitous argument award: "Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can." [Emphasis in the original] In other words, Congress did it, therefore we assume they can do it.  Can you say, unchecked power? What is left out of that analysis is what a tax "is."  Let's break Roberts' argument down.  The question of "whether Congress properly exercised its taxing power" was answered in the affirmative by the Chief Justice based upon nothing more than the collection agent being the IRS. As the Chief Justice said specifically, he is not deciding the issue of whether Congress "can" do this; he's merely recognizing they did. Why leave open the issue of whether the Congress "can" do this?  Because that would require defining what a tax "is."  This clearly not being a tax (as Roberts ironically finds in the first part of the decision to avoid the Anti-Injunction Act) the answer would have been that Congress clearly "cannot" do what they did.  Roberts' reasoning can be stated thusly:  "Congress did it, therefore it is done." The most succinct words from the dissent about this is an affirmation that what Congress and the Chief Justice have done has never been done before, centered on this being a penalty not a tax (exactly as the Obama administration contended, and as Roberts found in the beginning of this schizophrenic decision that finds on one issue this is a penalty an on another issue it is a tax): We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a penalty. While the definition of tax and how to identify a tax has now been set upon its head, far more damage has been done to individual liberty. Congress may now tax you for not doing what it wants you to do. Somehow, that's not a penalty so long as the IRS collects the money.  It is a tax. The Democrats who constructed this new power suffer from the "Good King" delusion.  They see their ends – universal health care – as so good that it justifies giving themselves the power to retard liberty and direct individual behavior. The problem, of course, is never with the "Good King," rather the "Next King."  What sort of behavior will the Next King, the one we don't know yet, compel us to do with this new power to direct our behavior against our will?    Tommy De Seno is editor of JustifiedRight.com and  is a practicing attorney. He writes frequently for Ricochet.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Justice Roberts -- savvy person or odd duck?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Justice Roberts -- savvy person or odd duck? Jun 29th 2012, 15:36 Weird, strange, infuriating. And maybe brilliant. Chief Justice John Roberts is either the most savvy person on the Supreme Court, or an odd duck detached from his colleagues, the Constitution and the real world. Either way, he and he alone stands responsible for saving ObamaCare. In a tortured opinion that infuriated the eight other justices, Roberts' ruling sent off a false signal that led many reporters initially to misread it as overturning the individual mandate. He eventually reached the opposite conclusion, on grounds that almost nobody saw coming, a shocker that could scramble the political fallout. President Obama is a big winner — sort of. He gets to keep most of his signature legislative achievement. But, thanks to Roberts' finding that the penalty attached to the individual mandate is really a tax, Obama is saddled with having imposed a huge hike on middle-class Americans, something he promised he would never do, and something he expressly said the law doesn't do. The president didn't mention the T-word yesterday, saying after the ruling that "it's time to move forward," a not-so-subtle use of his campaign slogan. Republicans and other opponents are the big losers — the law survives their objections. But the defeat and the tax issue have many more fired up today than they were before, and Mitt Romney grabbed the moment by saying that on his first day as president, "I will act to repeal ObamaCare." The frustrating part of Roberts' decision is that it fails to provide the one thing everybody in the country wanted: simple clarity. He didn't split the baby in half, but he did give each side enough ammunition to continue fighting. That actually seems to be part of his goal. Arguing he's no judicial activist, by his own definition, Roberts stressed that he wasn't passing judgment on the law's wisdom so much as finding a way to authorize legislation crafted by elected officials. "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," he wrote. That loaded statement reveals that Roberts aims to keep the court out of the partisan crossfire and preserve its independence, not only in reality, but in perception. By joining with the four liberals to make a majority, he defuses the partisan argument for now. But to get there, he created a novel way to support the individual mandate. He agreed with the four other conservative justices that it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, saying it stretched government power too far. "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance," he wrote, wording that set off premature celebrating by opponents. But Roberts went on and, contradicting supporters, including Obama, Roberts said the mandate "can be read" as a tax — and as such, the law is constitutional. Let us count the oddities. Start with the fact that ObamaCare never would have passed had the penalty been called a tax in Congress. In fact, a version calling it a tax was rejected. It barely passed both houses only after the wording was changed because many Democrats refused to vote for another tax hike. Now, it turns out, they have. It is also odd that Roberts defended his finding on the grounds of judicial restraint. By making possible the enactment of ObamaCare, a law that has taken on antichrist proportions in some circles, Roberts will not persuade many conservatives he is one of them, no matter his legal rationale or desire to protect the court. Moreover, Roberts seems to open the door to expanded government taxing power, hardly a conservative virtue. Indeed, the other conservative justices railed that his interpretation "carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of sophists." Ouch! Those four thought the whole law invalid, while the four liberals who joined Roberts to uphold the law believed he reached the right conclusion for the wrong reason. They believed the fines levied under the mandate should be approved under the Commerce Clause and not as a tax. They, too, blasted Roberts' reasoning, even as they went along with him to make a majority. The court also ruled that Congress has no right to penalize states that don't adopt the particulars of Medicaid expansion required. The threat to take away all other Medicaid money violates state sovereignty, the majority said, a ruling that throws confusion over the state exchanges. The split rulings mean a final resolution of ObamaCare will have to be settled in November. That suits John Roberts just fine. On that one point, at least, he is absolutely correct. We the people, and not the courts, are responsible for our political choices. This commentary originally appeared in The New York Post and on NewYorkPost.com.  Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: The politics of dependency

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

The politics of dependency Jun 29th 2012, 13:30 The cost of ObamaCare pales, economically or in terms of quality of care, in my opinion, in comparison to what President Obama's health care law will cost our country, in terms of mindset.  Here's why: The notion of an individual mandate, that is forcing Americans to buy something with their after-tax dollars (or pay a fine), can make citizens see themselves as serfs who actually have no right at all to the money they earn, and keep it only when it suits the federal government.   Money is a metaphor:  Take away the right to determine what people do with their earned, after-tax income and you will take away their self-confidence, self-determination, creativity and courage to act on their beliefs and their ideas.     An American citizen who willingly allows the federal government to earmark his or her after-tax income and direct it to insurance companies is an American citizen who has decided that the government "knows best."  The federal government is, from that moment forward, (in at least some measure) that citizen's parent, leaving them only with an allowance, consisting of what's left after they buy what their "parents" in Washington tell them to. Every human being knows in his or her heart that the ability to earn a living and make decisions about the money that flows to him or her is one of the hallmarks of an autonomous life. An American citizen who willingly allows the federal government to earmark his or her after-tax income and direct it to insurance companies is an American citizen who has decided that the government "knows best." - Children and adolescents dream of the day when they will "have their own money," because they understand that the roots of the monetary/financial system reach deep into sacred notions of individual choice and freedom.  Take that decision-making capacity away from the individual, and you risk slingshotting him or her back to a pre-adolescent stance. You infantilize that person.  Seen this way, the individual mandate is, therefore, another in those forces unleashed by President Obama--along with lots of food stamps and lots of unemployment payments and lots of bailouts--which encourages adult Americans to turn to their government for nurturance, and to become angry at perceived oppressors when they feel unfulfilled.   If you think that Occupy Wall Street was a spectacle, just wait and see how tens of millions of adult children, who have been told they can't decide how to spend their money, behave when their allowance dries up.   Seen through this "We the Parents" lens, rather than "We the People," it should be obvious that ObamaCare is a terrifying trap. Under the guise of "helping" and "healing" and "caring" for Americans, it reminds them how vulnerable they are to illness. Under the guise of "fairness," it takes away their financial decision-making capacity.  In true Progressive fashion, it makes people regress and feel as though they don't know best how to manage their health or their affairs.  It renders them weak. Deep inside, people despise being weak.  It is an affront to their God-given rights to SELF-determination and the pursuit of happiness.  Hence, the stance of federal government as parent that sits so well with President Obama opens the door to depression and all manner of ills (including drug abuse) that afflict those who feel disempowered. With Egypt in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, with Iran building nuclear weapons and with Europe facing economic calamity, the last thing we need are lessons from Washington in how to be weak individuals. Because courage comes from deep inside, from each adult American in this nation it will, ultimately, be the only thing that stands between us and calamity. The individual mandate of ObamaCare is a virus that could destroy that good psychological DNA.   Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Will 'Fast and Furious' influence your vote in November?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Will 'Fast and Furious' influence your vote in November? Jun 28th 2012, 17:09 The US House of Representatives is expected to cite Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress this week. The decision comes in the wake of Holder's refusal to turn over to Congress all of the documents related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms "Fast and Furious" gunrunning operation. President Obama asserted executive privilege over some of the documents last week. Will the "Fast and Furious" scandal influence your vote in November? Will the 'Fast and Furious' scandal influence your vote in November? This is a non-scientific viewer question.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: ObamaCare and the 2012 Campaign

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

ObamaCare and the 2012 Campaign Jun 28th 2012, 22:16 There's no question that Thursday's ruling by the Supreme Court upholding the individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014 is a short term victory for President Obama. That's simply undeniable. The court's decision to uphold the individual mandate and almost all of the health care law is a much better outcome for the Administration politically than invalidation of all -- or even part -- of the law. Indeed, it comes at the end of an especially bad month for Obama and stems the bloodletting that has been going on for most of June. But there's a downside in today's news for the White House and the president's 2012 reelection campaign. Put simply, in the court of public opinion, polling has consistently shown that ObamaCare is a loser. ObamaCare was unpopular in 2010, remains unpopular now, and almost certainly be unpopular come November. A new Associated Press-GfK poll found that the Affordable Care Act remains unpopular across-the-board -- and particularly among independent swing voters. Indeed, Just a third of Americans overall -- and only 21 percent of independents approve of the law, a new low in AP-GfK polling. And today's Supreme Court ruling --, which established in no uncertain terms that ObamaCare is a TAX -- will not make the law more popular in the long term. Indeed, it will mean that the legislation will now be explicitly seen in the context of higher taxes for hardworking Americans at a time of weakened economic conditions. This means that going forward in the election campaign, it will be increasingly difficult for President Obama to defend an unpopular law at an unpopular time -- thus working to Republican challenger Mitt Romney's advantage. What the President needs to do is something that he has been reluctant to do -- take on the issue of entitlement policy in the context of overall fiscal and budgetary reform. He must position ObamaCare as the centerpiece of an overarching plan to address the issue of costs in a serious and sustained way, while simultaneously  facilitating economic growth and private sector job creation. Moreover, he must put forth a comprehensive set of policy prescriptions to address the issues that the American people regard as fundamental, and a long-term economic agenda that emphasizes tax reform, fiscal prudence, and economic growth -- as well as the need to rein in entitlements, balance the budget, and reduce the debt and deficit. To that end, he can talk about ObamaCare in a manner that emphasizes cost containment and innovation, within the context of fiscal discipline and budgetary restraint -- specifically referencing the work of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform -- a bipartisan commission chaired by former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, Erskine Bowles. For his part, Mitt Romney will almost certainly say that his first act if elected President will be repealing ObamaCare, and continue to attack the higher taxes and the impact on health care costs that will surely result. And in the short-term this makes sense. But with Mitt Romney's own favorability  ratings remaining low and a new round of polling showing Obama holding a consistent advantage in key swing states -- it is a strategy with limited upsides. Governor Romney, too, has to articulate a vision for comprehensive health care reform. Put simply, in the absence of a clear set of core principles, and a plan to balance the budget, create jobs and a smart, reasonable, and rational discussion about health care and a health care policy that takes steps to rein in excesses in the system, his hopes for winning the White House come November -- a goal that is well within reach -- could be dashed. Douglas E. Schoen is a political strategist, Fox News contributor, author of the new book, "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond" (Rowman and Littlefield). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Who benefits most politically from Supreme Court upholding ObamaCare?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Who benefits most politically from Supreme Court upholding ObamaCare? Jun 28th 2012, 21:21 The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's health care law. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014. Share your thoughts by answering our question.   Who Benefits Most Politically From the Ruling?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Beyond the Obamacare debate -- why does health care cost so much?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Beyond the Obamacare debate -- why does health care cost so much? Jun 28th 2012, 18:00 ObamaCare has been upheld.  But whether you are horrified, elated, or indifferent, one fact remains. The cost of health care just keeps on rising.  In fact, medical care now represents nearly 20% of total US GDP.   Health care spending is so far out of control that not only individuals and families, but the entire economy is buckling under the strain.  General Motors spends so much money for its employees' health care that Warren Buffet has called the corporation "a health and benefits company with an auto company attached."  Each year, General Motors, like Ford and other U.S. automakers, pays more than $1,500 in health care costs for every car they make.  Japan's Honda pays only $150. The chairman and CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, says that his company spends more money on insurance for its employees than it spends on coffee. It hasn't always been like this.  We now spend more than $2.5 trillion annually on medical care.  But as recently as 1950, Americans spent only about $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today's dollars).  The increase has been mind-boggling.  After adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every ten days as we did in the entire year of 1950. But Aren't We Healthier Than Ever? Perhaps skyrocketing spending could be justified if the result was greatly improved health for the nation's citizens.  But the truth is that our health has actually been declining in recent decades.  According to a 2005 Johns Hopkins University analysis, "On most health indicators, the US relative performance declined since 1960; on none did it improve." Despite spending far more per capita on health care than any other nation, the U.S. now ranks a dismally low 37th among nations in infant mortality rates, and 38th in life expectancy.  In 2010, the World Health Organization assessed the overall health outcomes of nations.  It placed 36 other countries ahead of the United States.  We are fast becoming the fattest and sickest industrialized country in world history. What Should We Do? This would be tragic in any case, but it is especially so because we know exactly how to bring down the costs of health care while dramatically improving our health.  Studies have shown that 50 to 70 percent of the nation's health care costs are preventable, and the single most effective step most people can take to improve their health is to eat a healthier diet.   If we were to stop overeating, to stop eating unhealthy foods, and to instead eat more foods with higher nutrient densities and cancer protective properties, we would have a more affordable, sustainable and effective health care system.  We'd be less dependent on insurance companies and doctors, and more dependent on our own health-giving choices. The typical American diet is producing devastating rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.  It's making us sick, and it's bankrupting our families, our companies, and our government.  If you were to design a diet to promote heart disease, cancer and diabetes, you'd be hard pressed to do better than what many of us in the US eat today. Benjamin Franklin spoke of becoming "healthy, wealthy and wise."  We are doing the exact opposite.   Ocean Robbins is a leading spokesperson and advocate for the creation of thriving, just and sustainable ways of life for all. John Robbins is author of "No Happy Cows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Food Revolution," and co-host of "The Food Revolution Network."  Find out more about his work at johnrobbins.info.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: ObamaCare decision may hasten the arrival of a single payer system

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

ObamaCare decision may hasten the arrival of a single payer system Jun 28th 2012, 16:36 The Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Health Care Act requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a tax, as well as most other provisions regulating the health insurance market, may ultimately instigate a single payer system, akin to the British National Health Care Service. The vast majority of Americans believe that all citizens are entitled to some reasonable access to health care. However, folks with chronic conditions or a medical history indicating high risk often cannot purchase health insurance and face financial ruin from medical bills. Also, many people tend to forgo health insurance until they develop a chronic condition or otherwise expect to encounter large medical bills. Consequently, individual policies, even for the healthy, are often prohibitively expensive or offer severely limited benefits. Both groups end up in emergency rooms and hospitals when conditions become acute and can't pay their bills. The rest of us pick up the tab through significantly higher insurance premiums and government subsidies. Most liberals and a few conservatives argued the individual mandate was necessary, along with the ACA requirement that insurance companies not deny coverage or set rates on the basis of preexisting conditions, is necessary to ensure that everyone have access to reasonably priced health care. Maryland already compels insurance companies to take all comers and not discriminate in the rates they charge, but unlike Massachusetts, the state does not impose an individual mandate. However, thanks to a requirement that employers cover employee dependents until the age of 26 and a well regulated system as compared to other states, an individual mandate was proven unnecessary to spread the extra cost of insuring individuals with preexisting conditions or without employer coverage across the entire insured population. Rather, the individual mandate was just a political deal between the Obama administration and insurance companies — the latter will get millions of new healthy policyholders and attendant profits—and it is much like other deals the president made to co-opt pharmaceutical manufacturers and health care providers and dragoon a bad law through Congress. However, the ACA does not solve the broader affordability problem bedeviling business and middle class families facing rising premiums, co-pays and burdensome claims processes The law provides subsidies for low and moderate income individuals to purchase health care and assistance to small businesses—together with the individual mandate, these should lower the number of Americans without insurance from 50 million to about 30 to 35 million. These subsidies will accelerate health care inflation—the costs of drugs, doctors' visits, hospital stays, administrative costs, and malpractice suits will rise faster than ever, making health insurance increasingly unaffordable for businesses and middle-income individuals. The ACA requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to sponsor, through private firms, two health plans—those public options will be advantaged by larger taxpayer contributions and exemptions from critical regulations imposed on private insurers. Businesses will have a strong incentive to push employees into one of the two public plans or drop coverage altogether and pay the $2,000 penalty imposed by the ACA.  Middle and upper income employees displaced from employer-based plans will likely find one of the "public options" the least expensive and most sensible choice. Once one major firm in a market—be it a national market like autos or local market like dry cleaners—drops private insurance in favor of a government plan, or drops health coverage altogether and simply pays the $2,000 per employee fine, others will be compelled by price competition to follow. All along, the OPM-sponsored plans were a Trojan Horse. They will be advantaged over private insurers even with the individual mandate helping pull down the latter's costs per enrollee. With the ACA pushing health care costs ever higher, the artificial price advantage of government-sponsored insurance will be too big to resist. Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Now it's up to Congress to put Americans back in control of their health care

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Now it's up to Congress to put Americans back in control of their health care Jun 28th 2012, 17:01 While the White House and partisan supporters will celebrate the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act today, patient care and our economy will suffer. Even though the health care law was not ruled unconstitutional, it's still unworkable, unpopular and unaffordable. It is now clear that the president's law broke his promises not to raise taxes on the middle class. Chief Justice Roberts wrote: "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness." The Court also gave states the freedom to opt out of the law's massive and expensive Medicaid expansion. Today's decision does not change the fact that this law is bad for patients, providers and taxpayers. By taking $500 billion from Medicare, it will make it harder for seniors to find a doctor. The law raises taxes, increases the deficit, and forces many Americans to lose the insurance they have, even if they want to keep it. It may not be the role of the Court to decide the law's wisdom or fairness, but it certainly is the role of Congress and of the American people. With only one-third of Americans favoring the president's law, it is more important than ever that we continue to fight against this massive Washington overreach. Republicans in Congress are committed to repealing the law and enacting common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. That's the kind of real reform we will enact. We will not take the same failed approach Democrats took. We won't rush to pass a massive 2,700-page bill the American people don't support. We will keep in mind the words of James Madison, the father of the Constitution. He said that Congress should not pass laws "so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." Our top priority must be to lower the costs of health care. That was the most important reason for reform in the first place – for families and small businesses alike. President Obama and Democrats in Congress lost sight of that goal. That's why their law failed to truly reduce costs. The president promised that by the end of his first term premiums would decrease by $2,500 for the average family. Instead, the average family premium has gone up by almost $2,400 over the past three years. We need to let insurers provide individualized incentives -- like premium breaks -- that encourage healthy behavior. We must end the lawsuit abuse that leads doctors to practice defensive medicine by ordering expensive and unnecessary tests. When Democrats cut deals to protect special interests, they let trial lawyers off the hook and left taxpayers to pay the bill. The president's health care law fell short because it confused access to coverage with access to care. It tried to expand coverage by forcing millions of people onto overburdened Medicaid rolls. Already nearly half of all doctors won't see patients on Medicaid because of the program's low reimbursement rates. We should take reasonable steps to increase meaningful coverage, like allowing small businesses to join together to offer health insurance to their workers. We should also remove the red tape that prevents Americans from buying health insurance across state lines. Democrats in Washington made a huge mistake by wasting so much time pushing this terrible health care tax. They should have focused on jobs and the economy. After more than two years, the president's health care law remains unpopular. It's time for Democrats in the White House and Congress to pay attention to the needs of the American people and not the needs of Washington. They may not have violated the Constitution, but they certainly created an expensive tax that will further burden the middle class in an already bad economy. Now it is up to Congress to help put the American people back in control of their own health care. Republican John Barrasso represents Wyoming in the U.S. Senate. He serves in the Senate as a member of both the Energy and Environment Committees.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Chief Justice Roberts does the right thing on ObamaCare

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Chief Justice Roberts does the right thing on ObamaCare Jun 28th 2012, 15:53 In Marbury v. Madison, the watershed Supreme Court case in 1803 that established the basis of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall referenced the oath of office that all justices take: I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. That oath, with only minor changes, is the same one taken by Supreme Court justices to this day. Thankfully, Chief Justice John Roberts was paying attention when he repeated it. The individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act aka "ObamaCare" was always, clearly constitutional — so much so that conservatives, recall, were not only the ones who came up with the idea in the first place but generally scoffed at legal challenges when they first raised.  "It's become just a very partisan battle cry on behalf of an argument which a few years ago was thought to be completely bogus," said Charles Fried, President Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General in Supreme Court cases 1985 to 1989.   It's one thing to not like a law. It's another to suggest that the highest court in the land should overturn centuries of precedent, not to mention the clear tax and commerce power enshrined by our Founders in the Constitution, in order to serve a partisan political agenda.  In a recent survey conducted by Bloomberg News, 19 of 21 constitutional law scholars — across political affiliations — agreed that the individual mandate in health care reform is constitutional.  Thankfully, conservative Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority decision and ruled that, whether he personally likes it or not, Congress has the power to mandate health insurance coverage. In 2008, over 88 percent of Americans agreed our health care system was in desperate need of reform. President Obama put forward a plan not to create single payer Medicare system for all (as his progressive base, including myself, wanted) but to fix the crisis of runaway costs and 37 million uninsured Americans by bolstering the private insurance market with the individual mandate.  It was not accidental that this centerpiece of his plan originated in conservative think tanks and was supported by, among others, Senator John McCain during his run for president.  President Obama went to pains to present a bipartisan solution to our health care crisis.   Republicans? They did an ideological about-face, declared their wrath against the individual mandate and voted in a block against the Affordable Care Act. Conservatives have been trying to use health care reform as a political football ever since. Chief Justice Roberts' vote is so striking precisely because it bucks the recent trend of conservatives contorting their own past beliefs and principles to attack President Obama in any way possible.   It's no coincidence that, today, the very same Republicans who decried Congress wasting taxpayer resources on "witch hunts" when George W. Bush was president have launched a grandiose fishing expedition against Attorney General Eric Holder -- not because of "Fast & Furious," which has long been addressed, but because of some far-fetched conspiracy theory about the Justice Department's own internal investigation.  To ordinary Americans watching this exchange, it would appear that Republicans are against Congressional committee witch hunts, unless Democrats are the targets, just as Republicans support individual mandate solutions within the private insurance market, unless Democrats propose the idea.   In 2006, Mitt Romney praised the individual mandate as the solution to our nation's health care challenges. Now, he has joined the rest of his opportunistic party in condemning it.  The American public is getting increasingly sick of conservatives flip-flopping on their supposedly core beliefs simply to try and score points against President Obama.  And the Tea Party, which keeps trying to oust any Republican who shows an ounce bipartisanship, isn't helping.  Fortunately, no matter how increasingly powerful the extreme right of the Republican Party becomes, they cannot oust Chief Justice John Roberts. I'm not going to say  that I wasn't surprised by today's ruling. A quarter century ago, 2 out of 3 Americans approved of the job the Supreme Court was doing. Today, less than half of Americans feel the same way -- in no small part because 3 out of 4 Americans believe that the justices' decisions are sometimes influenced by their political or personal beliefs.  The Roberts' Court leans right and a number of 5-4 decisions along party lines have overturned centuries of precedent to serve partisan aims (see, e.g., Parents v. Seattle, Gonzalez v. Carhart and of course Citizens United).   But look, America, sometimes justice manages to be blind to politics and sometimes, just sometimes, even conservatives on the Court realize that we have a federal government for good reason. And, too, sometimes the Constitution that conservatives love to pay lip service to confers all kinds of legitimate powers to government.  It's a good thing Chief Justice Roberts referred to the Constitution in his decision, and not Twitter. In Marbury v. Madison, the Court wrote: "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." Far too often and far more frequently, the five conservative men on the Supreme Court have put politics ahead of the law.   Today, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a vital act of Congress that will bring down our health care costs, improve the quality of our care and make sure 37 million uninsured Americans have access to affordable insurance.  But Chief Justice Roberts also upheld the integrity of the Supreme Court on which he sits. We can only hope that today's ruling is a significant step toward restoring the sort of independent rationalism and truth we so desperately needs. In a country far too blinded by partisanship, justice may not really be blind but hopefully it can see better than the rest of us. Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer.  You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sallykohn.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »