Behold the Hollywood bubble. This week, actress Olivia Wilde starred in an Obamacare propaganda video targeting young people. "You can sign up for health care online in 10 minutes," her co-propagandist chirped as she cheered. Cue the laugh track. Back on planet Earth, Americans nationwide are still struggling with the $634 million online health care exchange nightmare.
One reader asked me to share his story. Like me and 22 million other citizens in the private individual market for health insurance, he recently received his "You Can't Keep It" cancellation notice. Here's what happened when he went online to find alternatives.
"I live in New Jersey, but work for a small company based out of Massachusetts. For years, we were all insured through the company from a plan that originated in Massachusetts. However, as soon as Obamacare was passed, we were "audited" by the insurance company, and it turns out only 50 percent of our company is based in Massachusetts, and therefore we did not qualify as a company under the law. Apparently, you need 51 percent based in the state. About five days prior to our insurance policy renewal, we were told we could not (renew), and I had to scramble to purchase a much more expensive individual policy with much higher costs.
"Fast-forward two years. I now receive a new letter from my insurance company, Horizon Blue Cross, (informing me) that the plan that I have now is being discontinued and I need to pick a new plan.
"On Oct. 1, I tried to get into the exchange for New Jersey that is run by the federal government. I earn too much for a subsidy, but I wanted to see what my options were and how much more this was going to cost.
"I created an account and tried for four days to get in. Each time it said my password was invalid. I tried to use the "forgot password" option so they could send me a link to reset. When I got the link, the system kept saying that it didn't recognize my user account. When I tried to re-create the user account, it told me that one already existed. I called the number several times, and they all told me the same thing: Try back later. The glitches are being worked out.
"I (then) created a new account under (my wife's) name. After several attempts, I was able to get in. Over the weekend, I spent at least four hours trying to fill out the application. Each time, the website crashed. When I got back to work on Monday, I tried one more time. Lo and behold, the application was submitted. At this point, President Obama must be thinking 'great, a success story.'
"Well, my options came back, and voila: According to the government, I'm not eligible for any private plans. I received a notice that my entire family is only eligible for Medicaid! I make a decent salary. I'm not eligible for a subsidy, let alone Medicaid.
"This morning my wife received a call. Apparently, it was the exchange. She explained to them that we are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. The person on the phone told her, "That is what the system says you are eligible for. If you want, you can file an appeal."
"So now back to a change in plans. I currently have a Point of Service plan that covers 70 percent after a large deductible, with somewhat large co-pays for doctors. Horizon Blue Cross does offer a similar plan (to the one being canceled) for about the same, but the problem is that my children's pediatricians are not in it (so much for keeping your doctors).
"The only plans that the doctors take involve a 40 percent deductible with higher co-pays. So now I have fewer options and not more. There is another new company offering coverage where I am, but it has zero out-of-network benefits and a smaller network. Either way, everything is changing for me with higher costs.
"I hope you can somehow relate this story to the public at large to let them see that the whole process is a joke. The automatons who know nothing are just collecting a government check and getting health care paid for by me with my tax dollars, when I cannot even get my own."
In sum: Obama lied. His health plan died. He can't keep his doctors. He couldn't sign up in 10 minutes for health care. He's being steered toward a government plan he doesn't qualify for or want. And he can't get his personal information back from the online Obamawreck black hole.
(Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin is the daughter of Filipino Immigrants. She was born in Philadelphia, raised in southern New Jersey and now lives with her husband and daughter in Colorado. Her weekly column is carried by more than 100 newspapers.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
If you are looking for a residential home in the Lakes Region of NH there is still plenty to choose from. There were an even 1,200 single family homes available as of October 1 in the twelve communities covered in this report. That's down slightly from the 1,249 available last month and the 1,230 available last Oct 1. The average asking price is $502,146 and the median price point is $259,948. They should change that to the average "hoping for" price.
Over the years there have been hundreds of songs written about home sweet home. There are songs about leaving, going, and missing home in every genre including country, rock, and blues. Every generation has their favorites and you can kind of tell someone's age by what songs they remember. I can pretty much guarantee that humming "My Old Kentucky Home" or "Won't you Come Home, Bill Bailey?" will put you in a different age bracket than "Sweet Home Alabama." You could say you definitely need a pre-1978 Lead Paint Disclosure form.
Rock and roll in the sixties was full of songs about homes. "Our House" by Crosby, Stills, and Nash should be the real estate theme song house. It's a great song about a very, very fine house with two cats in the yard. That's kind of like the American Dream unless you like pit bulls and then something like "Sweet Home Alabama" by Lynyrd Skynyrd would be more appropriate for you.
Probably one of the more famous songs about a dwelling was the "House of the Rising Sun" which was recorded by the Animals in 1964. That particular house was definitely not your grandmother's type of home (if you get my drift) and was located way down in New Orleans. That's a bit out of our local market.
The Beatles were pretty big on the home theme, too. They did songs like "When I Get Home" and "She's Leaving Home." In "Two of Us" we were "riding nowhere. Spending someone's hard earned pay. Two of us Sunday driving. Not arriving. On our way back home. We're on our way home." I sing that a lot when I am out with buyers looking at houses, especially when they are not arriving at a conclusion about which house they will buy. And after a "Hard Day's Night" showing property and I get home, you know I feel all right. That because "When I'm home ev'rything seems to be right."
The Rolling Stones were feeling a little left out so they came up with "2000 Light Years from Home" which was not necessarily in the physical sense at the time. But my favorite was "Paint It Black" which was not really so much about a house as it was with Jagger 's obsession about that darn door. He'd sing "I see a red door and I want to paint it black" over and over again. He was kind of angry and real serious about it. Black must have been kind of a fad at the time but now red is more popular, just watch HGTV...
Simon and Garfunkle had the mega-mansion home hit "Homeward Bound" which you will think about every time you're sitting in a railway station unless you're at Burrito Me in Laconia (except, of course, if you go there right after reading this article.) Everyone on the "Sloop John B" just wanted to go home but Ozzie Ozbourne was more determined and just told his "Mama, I'm Coming Home!" Phil Collins was looking for someone to "Take Me (him, that is) Home" and John Denver thought he was on the right track with "Take Me Home, Country Road." Today, Bon Jovi and Jennifer Nettles are a little more positive with "Who Says You Can't Go Home?" As long as you have a good realtor you can make that happen. Now that I have you humming, give me a call and we'll go look at property...
Please feel free to visit www.lakesregionhome.com to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others. Data was compiled using the Northern New England Real Estate MLS System as of 10/1/13. Roy Sanborn is a realtor at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-455-0335.
Last Updated on Friday, 11 October 2013 08:45
One way or another, the battle of the budget and the debt ceiling will be over by All Hallows' Eve. Yet, as one looks deeper, at the irreconcilable conflict behind the present clash, only a roaring optimist would imagine we shall ever know again the tranquility and unity of the Eisenhower-Kennedy years.
Consider the bile dumped upon Tea Party Republicans by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and their camp followers in the national press. What did the Tea Party do to deserve this? Answer: These extremists shut down the U.S. government, they're holding America hostage, and they're inflicting terrible suffering on innocent people.
But is this true? Three times in a fortnight, the House has voted to fund every department, agency, and program of the government — except Obamacare. Who, then, is truly shutting down the government?
What we are witnessing here is the unfolding of the Big Lie — the constant repetition of a transparent falsehood — to persuade a pliable public not only to believe it, but to recite it, as in Orwell's "1984." Obamacare, we are told, was enacted by Congress, signed by the president, upheld by the Supreme Court, confirmed by Obama's victory in 2012. To try to defund or reform it amounts to an attempted coup, an overturning of the election results of November. But does not Congress have the power of the purse to fund or defund any program it chooses? Is that not in the Constitution?
And have not the last three years exposed glaring flaws in Obamacare? Have not severely adverse consequences turned up in widespread layoffs and a reversion to part-time help? Did not the Cleveland Clinic say it will have to let 3,000 people go?
Why then is the House's exercise of its constitutional authority to defund Obamacare, which polls show a majority of Americans favor, such a moral outrage?
This brings us to the underlying conflict.
The Obamacare battle is part of a larger struggle between a party of government and a conservative party that fears America is heading down a road traveled by Greece, Italy and Spain. Now the party of government can surely claim credit for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. Yet, that same party is also responsible for driving New York City to the brink of bankruptcy in the 1970s and for the disaster that is Detroit today. That party is also responsible for an unsustainable welfare state where half the U.S. population pays zero income taxes but consumes hundreds of billions yearly in social welfare benefits.
And how are the people who preside over this annual redistribution of America's wealth faring? Just fine, thank you.
According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, the four counties in the United States with the highest median family income are all in the D.C. area: Arlington, Loudoun and Fairfax County, Va., and Howard County, Md. Maryland's Montgomery County, just north of D.C., ranks 7. Five of the top ten. Not bad, eh?
Though 120,000 D.C. residents are on food stamps, the city boasts a median family income higher than all but four states. And D.C. leads the nation in the number of bedroom counties, nine, where the median family income exceeds $100,000.
Big government and the Fat City are one in Barack Obama's America.
And how does the Tea Party imperil the country? First, they risk taking America over the cliff into default. But that raises a question: Since the Tea Party folks are newcomers to town, who brought America to the edge of this cliff? What radical added $6 trillion to our national debt in five years? Or did the Tea Party do that?
Almost all now agree that the entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — threaten to consume the budget. Is the Tea Party responsible for this gathering disaster? Was the Tea Party beating the drums for those trillion-dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the Tea Party responsible for our being committed to fighting other countries' wars and paying other countries' bills, in perpetuity, through foreign aid?
When the Tea Party says the Fed's QE3 amounts to printing money and inflating the currency, that it is creating stock market and real estate bubbles certain to burst, and that the dollar's future as the world's reserve currency is imperiled, do they not have a point? These same views are today being echoed by economists and writers, few of whom are ever likely to show up wearing side arms at God and Country Rallies.
And just where did our community-organizer president learn his economics. From Saul Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals"? From his senate days in Springfield, capital of the state that is the odds-on favorite to be first in the nation to default on its debts?
The Tea Party is feared and detested in Washington because these folks threaten the ideology, the vested interests, and most critical of all, the rice bowls in this city that voted 15-1 for Obama.
(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
Hey there, Mr. Speaker.
Good to hear that you've decided that the United States shouldn't default on its obligations, and that you're willing to violate the "Hastert Rule" — the informal rule that the Speaker shouldn't bring up a bill that doesn't have the support of a majority of Republicans, even if the bill does have the support of a majority of the members of Congress — to protect the full faith and credit of the United States.
But what about the full faith and credit of all the hardworking folks who aren't getting paid right now because your friends on the right are playing games with people's lives?
No one wants to see the United States default.
But what about all the folks who are facing default because they aren't getting paid anymore?
Maybe you can explain to us why, if a majority of members of Congress are willing to end this irresponsible shutdown, you won't bring that to a vote.
Oh, I know the answer. It's because that majority has too many Democrats and too few Republicans for your liking.
I can just imagine the dinner table conversation. Sorry, kids, we can't pay the mortgage; we're not going to Yosemite; the E-Verify system is down and so I can't get hired; we can't buy the house we've been saving for, can't get mortgage approval, can't get a loan for our business, can't sign up for a clinical trial — even though a majority of the members of Congress are against this shutdown — because of the Hastert Rule.
Yes, that's right: the Hastert Rule.
Now, my bet is that most Americans don't even know who Hastert is, much less why he has a rule that was never actually "passed" by anyone but is still more important than their getting a paycheck or buying a house or starting a business.
And if they do know who he is, they might ask — reasonably enough — why such an "informal" rule is more important than majority rule, and why a minority (the right wing) of the majority party (Republicans) should have more power than the majority of the whole House.
This is not the way they teach things in high school civics.
Truth be told, Mr. Speaker, no one can force you to follow the Hastert Rule. You do, except when you don't — for instance, when we were heading over the fiscal cliff, or when your right-wing members didn't want to provide help for the victims of Superstorm Sandy or pass the Violence Against Women Act. All three were passed by a coalition of sensible and moderate Republicans and Democrats.
Some of us actually think that's how Congress should work: the majority rules. The center holds. The lives of hardworking Americans don't get held hostage by an ideological minority that would rather play games. An "informal rule" shouldn't prevent you from getting paid or shut down the parks or leave first-time homebuyers unable to get approval for mortgage assistance.
And lest anybody has forgotten, all of this is happening because that minority of the majority wants to remind us (as if we didn't know) that they oppose Obamacare — which is taking effect anyway. No other reason. No other purpose. Pure symbolism.
Now, imagine this. Imagine that instead of throwing a temper tantrum and playing games, the people we elected to represent us took it upon themselves to try to fix some of the problems with Obamacare. Imagine that they said to themselves: We tried to stop it, but that didn't work, and then we lost the election. So now it's our job to make it work as well as possible, because that would be in the best interests of the people we represent. Instead of being sore losers, we should do our jobs.
I know. It's a fantasy, expecting these members of Congress to behave like grownups instead of spoiled brats.
Dear John: Enough is enough. Grow up or go.
(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
The problem was caused by James Madison. And by the 39 other men who signed the Constitution in 1787.
The problem, of course, is the government shutdown. It was caused because the Framers of the Constitution wisely provided for separation of powers among the three branches of government. The president would faithfully execute the laws and be commander in chief of the military, but both houses of Congress would have to approve of every penny the government could spend.
In the early republic, it was widely assumed that presidents could veto legislation only it was deemed unconstitutional. Disagreeing with policy was not enough. That changed after Andrew Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1832 and was promptly re-elected. Jackson claimed to act on constitutional grounds, but it came to be understood that presidents could veto laws they disagreed with.
That understanding, together with the constitutional structure, imposes something like a duty of consultation between the president and members of Congress. Otherwise — and you may have heard about this — the government will have to shut down.
Barack Obama hasn't engaged in much consultation this summer and fall. He has announced he won't negotiate with House Speaker John Boehner. His defenders note that Boehner has stated publicly he won't negotiate with the president. Boehner believes Obama unfairly upped the ante in their "grand bargain" negotiations in August 2011.
As a practical matter, it's Obama's refusal to negotiate that matters. A member of Congress can't get time with the president or his top aides on demand. A president can always get through to a member of Congress — as Obama did, finally, Monday night for a conversation described as "less than 10 minutes."
Astonishingly, Obama said in a prepared statement that no president had negotiated ancillary issues with Congress when a shutdown was threatened. Four Pinocchios, said Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler. The Post's Wonkblog helpfully listed 17 government shutdowns since the late 1970s. Almost all involved legislative-executive disagreement over ancillary issues.
The bulk of pundit opinion, on the Right as well as the Left, holds that House Republicans blundered by attaching Sen. Ted Cruz's defund Obamacare amendment to the continuing resolution funding the government. Democrats would never accept that, they say. And voters will blame Republicans for shutting down government.
Many pundits also say House Republicans' amendment delaying Obamacare was foolish for the same reason, although "delay" polls much better than "defund."
Cruz argues that once people receive Obamacare subsidies, they will be hooked and support the program. It's an argument akin to Mitt Romney's 47 percent. But beneficiaries of government don't necessarily vote Democratic. The state with the highest percentage of residents who receive disability insurance, West Virginia, voted 62 percent for Romney. Moreover, it's not clear that Obamacare subsidies will be that generous or visible. On Tuesday, the day the health exchanges were supposed to open, many Obamacare websites were giving error messages.
Divided government is not exactly a novel thing. We've had a White House controlled by one party and at least one house of Congress held by the other for 32 of the last 45 years — 70 percent of the time. It's the default mode, not an exception.
The current divisions result from what I call volitional migration in my just-published book, "Shaping Our Nation: How Surges of Migration Have Transformed America and Its Politics." Americans have been moving to places they consider culturally congenial.
Democratic voters — blacks, Hispanics, gentry liberals — are heavily clustered in certain central cities. They give Democrats an advantage in the Electoral College.
Republican voters are more evenly spread around beyond these Democratic bastions. That gives Republicans an advantage in the House of Representatives.
So both sides have a legitimate mandate — but not an unlimited one.
Republicans are furious that their members can't defund or delay Obamacare. They want to see politicians stand up yelling, "No!" Theater has a function in politics. But in fact, they've had a partial victory this year, a win that didn't seem likely last December. By accepting the sequester despite its defense cuts, Republicans have actually dialed down domestic discretionary spending. Democrats' position now is essentially the sequester. They're swallowing something they hate. No wonder Obama seems sullen.
So both sides will have frustratingly partial victories and not get everything they want. That's how James Madison's system is supposed to work in a closely divided country.
(Syndicated columnist Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.)
Last Updated on Friday, 04 October 2013 11:50