Thanks to early proactive actions by President Trump and Vice President Pence, the USA so far (as of 3/9/2020) has the LOWEST Coronavirus infection rate per 100,000 people - by far (0.2 compared to 12.2 in Italy and 4.3 in Switzerland) Democrats/MSM should be APPLAUDING America's greatest President ever. Yet these same hacks helped cover up Obama's 60.8M H1N1 infections and 12,469 deaths in the USA (CDC estimates). MSM are so dishonest, corrupt, biased and evil! Country / Population / Infections ➡️ Infection Rate (per 100,000): France / 67,022,000 / 1,209 ➡️ 1.8 Germany / 82,790,700 / 1,151 ➡️ 1.4 Italy / 60,317,546 / 7,375 ➡️ 12.2 Switzerland / 8,570,140 / 374 ➡️ 4.3 Sweden / 10,302,984 / 203 ➡️ 2.0 Canada / 37,797,497 / 132 ➡️ 0.3 USA / 328,239,523 / 565 ➡️ 0.2 Obama (H191) / 328,239,523 / 60,800,000 ➡️ 18,523 (12,469 deaths) Sources:
- John Hopkins University: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 - CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html
0 Comments
BY ELISE VIEBECK - 08/08/13
THE HILL "ObamaCare’s cost-cutting board — memorably called a “death panel” by Sarah Palin — is facing growing opposition from Democrats who say it will harm people on Medicare. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean drew attention to the board designed to limit Medicare cost growth when he called for its repeal in an op-ed late last month. Dean was quickly criticized by supporters of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), who noted his ties to the healthcare industry as an adviser to a major D.C. lobbying firm. But the former Vermont governor is not the only Democrat looking to kill the panel. .... The cost-cutting board has been dogged with controversy . Major healthcare interests like the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the pharmaceutical lobby have supported IPAB repeal, saying the panel would cut providers' pay arbitrarily. Public awareness of the board shot up when [Sarah] Palin called it a “death panel,” connecting the IPAB to her previous attacks on a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning in the Affordable Care Act. “Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that ObamaCare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about healthcare funding,” Palin wrote on Facebook. This claim experienced a revival on the right after Dean published his op-ed, which argued that the board would ultimately ration care for Medicare patients. “The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.” Dean wrote in The Wall Street Journal. The piece quickly went viral, prompting conservative bloggers and Fox News hosts to cheer: “Dean confirms that Sarah Palin was right!” The IPAB is designed to kick in when Medicare cost growth grows above a specified rate. It is charged with making recommendations on how to reduce Medicare spending, and its proposals are required to be fast-tracked through Congress. The Affordable Care Act prevents the IPAB from making recommendations that would directly ration care. But critics say reducing provider reimbursements would have the same result by making it difficult for healthcare professionals to make money in Medicare. While it's unlikely the board will be convened soon, Medicare cost growth is not high enough to trigger its work, and any nominees would face long confirmation fights in the Senate, Dean's op-ed renewed focus on bills to repeal the IPAB. Dean’s piece also drew strong arguments in favor of the panel from supporters like Peter Orszag. The former White House budget director said the IPAB is necessary in light of Medicare’s transition to new payment models that are meant to lower costs while improving care. It's preferable to the “old way,” which saw Congress “simply slash Medicare payments” to providers, Orszag wrote in a column for Bloomberg. “The point of having such a board — and here I can perhaps speak with some authority, as I was present at the creation — is to create a process for tweaking our evolving payment system in response to incoming data and experience, a process that is more facile and dynamic than turning to Congress for legislation,” Orszag wrote. Barack Obama and Congress did not remove the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)! On February 9, 2018, the United States Congress voted to REPEAL THE IPAB as a part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, by a vote of 71−28 in the US Senate and by a vote of 240−186 in US House of Representatives. The IPAB would not have been removed without the election of President Trump. Sources: - thehill.com/policy/healthcare/316045-obamacare-cost-cutting-board-faces-growing-opposition-from-democrats - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board by John Malcolm & Michael F. Cannon | September 05, 2017
Washington Examiner "Contrary to assurances and in violation of federal law, the Obama administration shielded lawmakers from an effective pay cut of up to $12,000 each by granting Congress several types of special treatment unavailable to the public.
Obama took these steps because he knew Congress would have quickly revamped or even repealed Obamacare if lawmakers had to live under its terms. President Trump seems to agree, and has threatened to end the exemptions and subsidies. "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly," he tweeted recently, "BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!" For Better or Worse, Congress Cut Its Own Pay Prior to Obamacare, federal law treated members of Congress and their staffs like other federal workers. They received health benefits through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and a tax-free federal contribution of up to $12,000 toward their premiums. When Congress passed Obamacare, it shut members of Congress and their staffs out of the FEHBP and ended those premium contributions. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," the text of the law says, "after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff" as an employee benefit "shall be health plans that are created under this Act," such as those "offered through an Exchange." That provision bars premium contributions for Congress in several ways.
In case there was any lingering uncertainty, additional provisions of federal law also bar Congress from receiving employer contributions to exchange plans. Federal law prohibits employer contributions in Obamacare's individual-market exchanges, while Obamacare itself prohibits any employer with more than 100 employees—such as Congress—from participating in the law's small-business or "SHOP" exchanges. For better or worse, when Congress passed Obamacare, it cut congressional pay by leaving members and staff to buy health insurance without a federal contribution to their premiums. Nothing in Obamacare or federal law exempts members and staff from that pay cut. Indeed, not exempting Congress was the entire point. Obamacare forces lawmakers into the exchanges for the purpose of making lawmakers live under the same rules they were imposing on everyone else. Any sort of exemption would defeat this express purpose of the statute. Since Obamacare provides no other effective date, Congress' banishment from the FEHBP and the accompanying pay cut should have taken effect immediately upon Obama signing the law on March 23, 2010. Obamacare for Thee, But Not for Me Instead, the Obama administration immediately ignored that provision and continued to do so for nearly four years. Contrary to Obamacare, and citing no legal authority, the administration allowed Congress to keep enrolling in FEHBP coverage, and to keep receiving the FEHBP premium contribution, until 2014. The congressional pay cut should have become unavoidable when the Obama administration finally got around to ousting members and staff from the FEHBP in 2014. Indeed, as Politico reported, "OPM initially ruled that lawmakers and staffers couldn't receive the subsidies once they went into the exchanges." But as Politico also reported, "This caused an uproar in Congress." Responding to pleading from both parties in Congress, Obama personally intervened and pressured OPM to reverse its initial (and correct) interpretation of the law. The agency acquiesced. Contrary to OPM's initial ruling, to the letter and spirit of Obamacare, and even to the agency's own authorizing statute, OPM ruled Congress could both enroll in the District of Columbia's small-business exchange and keep receiving the FEHBP premium contribution. D.C. officials played along by ignoring a D.C. law prohibiting participation in its small-business exchange by all but " employers with 50 or fewer…employees." Thanks to those illegal exemptions, members of Congress and congressional staff are receiving an also-illegal subsidy of up to $12,000 toward their health insurance premiums. Those exemptions even give Congress privileged status among federal employees: Members and staff are the only group of federal workers who receive FEHBP premium contributions toward non-FEHBP coverage. At no point have the Obama administration, OPM, Congress, or any other defenders of this exemption cited any statutory authority either for the OPM to contribute to the premiums of health plans the agency has not " approved" to participate in the FEHBP, or for allowing just this one large employer to participate in a small-business exchange. In its rule announcing the policy, the OPM made no mention at all of the employer-size restrictions in federal and D.C. law that bar large employers from participating in D.C.'s small-business exchange, and offered only blandishments such as"we believe that it is appropriate" to offer the disputed contributions. That's just not good enough. There is an entire constitutional amendment devoted solely to limiting congressional pay. The 27th Amendment forbids any congressional pay increase from taking effect until after the next federal election. Here, a president personally intervened to produce an agency rule that just happened to increase congressional pay up to $12,000 per member more than federal law allows. It also kept each member's staff from falling apart, a benefit most members likely value even more. A Tangled Web We Weave The officials who implemented this scheme betrayed its illegality, and likely violated criminal laws, when they knowingly and repeatedly made false statements to skirt the legal barriers in their way. Obamacare prohibits employers with more than 100 employees from participating in its small-business exchanges. For calendar year 2014, however, both federal and D.C. law prohibited employers with more than 50 employees from participating in D.C.'s small-business exchange. Obviously, neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate qualifies. The House has 435 voting members. The Senate has 100 senators. Each chamber employs thousands upon thousands of staff. Yet a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed that in Nov. 2013, unknown House and Senate officials filed applications with D.C.'s small-business exchange in which they falsely attested the House has only 45 members, and the Senate only 45 employees total—each just under the statutory limit." Source: www.washingtonexaminer.com/congress-illegal-and-egregious-obamacare-exemption-explained December 2018 - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally released information and a map of where the #AFM is occurring. More details are now on the CDC website. Sources: - cdc.gov/acute-flaccid-myelitis/afm-surveillance.html - twitter.com/Tara4MAGA/status/1069274460589604864 "Danish doctor warns: Vegan food may lead to mental retardation:
Chief physician Allan M. Lund at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen warns that vegan food can have severe consequences, such as epilepsy and ultimately developmental disorders. In Denmark, there is now a debate about the suitability of an increasing number of families giving their children only vegan food. Critics are opposed to scrapping all animal products in small children’s diet. The problem is that poor food, which for example requires the addition of vitamin B12, can have serious consequences for children. And as a result several children on a vegan diet have been treated at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. “Such a diet may involve developing different brain symptoms. With muscle weakness, poor contact and epilepsy. And in the long term mental retardation”, says chief physician Allan M. Lund to TV4. According to Lund, one should not completely remove meat, eggs and dairy products from small children’s diet without first consulting with a dietician. In addition to developmental disorders, it can also cause nutritional deficiencies." Source: voiceofeurope.com/2018/12/danish-doctor-warns-vegan-food-may-lead-to-mental-retardation "Japanese researchers have developed a trick to implant false visions into people’s brains, altering the way they experience the world and potentially even the way they think. Describing the new technique in the journal Current Biology, the scientists reveal how they were able to achieve this effect without actively engaging with their subjects’ thoughts, instead prompting them to unwittingly warp their own sense of perception. Speaking to Stat, lead researcher Takeo Watanabe explained that this simple brainwashing exercise could one day lead to new treatments for cognitive disorders such as depression and autism. By provoking people to rewire their own brains, he hopes to help patients strengthen certain healthy connections and erase other less desirable ones." Link: www.iflscience.com/brain/researchers-can-now-implant-false-memories-into-peoples-brains/ Watch and listen to the discovery of the first 4000 exoplanets here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjkWi9pf0dM&feature=youtu.be |
Archives |