Search This Blog

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Congressional exemption from GOP healthcare plan to be addressed separately

Congressional exemption from GOP healthcare plan to be addressed separately
By Olivia Beavers - 05-03-17 22:47 PM EDT

As Republicans rush to vote on their latest ObamaCare repeal-and-replace plan, it appears to still include a waiver exempting members of Congress and their staffs from losing the healthcare bill's popular provisions.

House GOP leaders worked Wednesday night to fast-track consideration of their ObamaCare replacement bill without posting the bill text and without a Congressional Budget Office analysis detailing the effects of the latest changes to the legislation.

After Vox reported that the bill appeared to still include the exemption for lawmakers, Rep. Tom MacArthur's (R-N.J.) office said separate legislation would close that loophole.

The exemption appears to still be a part of the healthcare bill that is up for a vote on Thursday, but the

All members of Congress and their staff are required, like every other ObamaCare enrollee, to buy coverage through the ObamaCare marketplace.

The House Rules Committee approved procedural rules Wednesday night to fast-track consideration of both the GOP healthcare bill and the separate measure to address the potential congressional exemption.

GOP rushing to vote on healthcare without analysis of changes

GOP rushing to vote on healthcare without analysis of changes  
By Peter Sullivan and Cristina Marcos - 05-03-17 20:39 PM EDT

House Republicans are once again fast-tracking consideration of their ObamaCare replacement bill without knowing the full impact of the legislation they'll vote on Thursday.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not expected to have completed its analysis detailing the effects of the latest changes to the legislation overhauling the nation's healthcare system in time for the Thursday vote.

Leadership's decision to press ahead with the floor action means lawmakers will be voting on the bill without updated figures from their nonpartisan scorekeeper on how many people would lose coverage under the bill or how much it would cost.

Some lawmakers acknowledged that it would be helpful to have an analysis, known as a "score," from the CBO, but said they could not wait for it.

When asked why the vote would not wait for the score, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) -- the lead sponsor of a new amendment to the bill that might push it over the finish line -- said "because I don't expect it probably for a couple weeks."

"I wish that we had it, alright?" Upton added. "I wish that we had had it in committee, I said so at the time."

The lack of a score comes despite years of GOP attacks on Democrats for what Republicans argued was a rushed process that rammed through ObamaCare in 2010.

The latest bill text was posted Wednesday, just one night before the vote.

Upton's amendment adds $8 billion over five years aimed at helping people with pre-existing conditions afford their premiums in states that choose to repeal ObamaCare protections preventing sick people from being charged exorbitantly high premiums.

Many health policy experts doubt that $8 billion is enough money. And Upton himself said Wednesday that he doesn't know for sure that it will be.

"Is it enough money? I don't know," Upton said. "That's the question that I asked and was led to believe that $5 billion would be enough, which is why it's $8 billion."

He noted that "at some point, this will be scored by CBO," and said that if the analysis finds there is not enough money, more could be added by the Senate or at another point.

The CBO also has not provided an analysis of the amendment authored by centrist Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) and Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) that lets states apply for waivers from key ObamaCare provisions preventing insurers from charging sick people higher premiums and mandating minimum insurance coverage requirements, so long as high-risk pools are offered.

When asked if there are concerns the process is being rushed without a CBO score and limited time to review late-breaking changes, Meadows said Republicans have waited long enough to fulfill a nearly decade-long campaign promise.

"We've been talking about repealing and replacing ObamaCare for seven years. That's the first time that I've had anybody say that we rushed anything," Meadows said.

At the same time, he conceded, "It's a valid point."

The CBO score of the underlying bill gave many moderates pause when it found that 24 million more people would become uninsured under the measure over 10 years.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) downplayed the notion that lawmakers didn't have enough time to review the legislative text of the original bill or amendments authored by GOP Reps. Gary Palmer (Ala.), MacArthur and Upton.

"The bill has been out there for a while. I mean, the MacArthur amendment's pretty short if you want to read it. The Palmer amendment's pretty short. I assume this amendment that may be added before the final vote with the $8 billion will be short," Harris, another Freedom Caucus member, said.

"Look, the bottom line is we're going to deliver to the American public what we said, that premiums are actually going to go down," he continued.

The Palmer amendment is four pages long; MacArthur's is eight pages; and Upton's is three pages. The original underlying bill was unveiled in March.

The lack of a CBO score isn't the only sign of a markedly rushed process.

House GOP leaders gave themselves flexibility earlier this week to speed up consideration of the bill if they decided to bring it up for a vote.

The House voted along party lines in a Tuesday procedural vote to waive a rule requiring lawmakers to wait a day before considering a measure out of the Rules Committee, which determines how legislation is considered on the floor.

The move, known as "martial law," is typically reserved for tight deadlines like avoiding an imminent government shutdown.

It's highly unusual for leaders to invoke the procedure while trying to move legislation that doesn't face a pressing need for passage, especially for something as far-reaching as healthcare reform.

If the rushed process sounds familiar, that's because GOP leaders used the same tactics when they tried to bring the bill up for a vote in March.

As with this week, House Republicans voted to invoke martial law to speed up the floor vote. And GOP leaders also posted an amendment that would have repealed ObamaCare's minimum insurance coverage requirements the night before they planned to vote on it.

GOP leaders ultimately canceled a vote when it became clear the legislation didn't have the support to pass.

Thursday's planned vote comes after years of Republicans mocking House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was the Speaker when ObamaCare passed, for saying, "we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what's in it."

Now, on the eve of the vote on the GOP plan, Pelosi is charging that Republicans are deliberately trying to conceal the impact of their proposal.

"Forcing a vote without a CBO score shows that Republicans are terrified of the public learning the full consequences of their plan to push Americans with pre-existing conditions into the cold," Pelosi said.

"But tomorrow, House Republicans are going to tattoo this moral monstrosity to their foreheads, and the American people will hold them accountable."

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

PIERS: Hillary didn’t lose because of misogyny, she was arrogant

Piers Morgan

Hillary Clinton is on her loser tour.
It’s been going on for a few months now, and it follows a familiar theme: she gives defiant speeches or interviews to empathetic audiences in which she makes it very clear there are myriad reasons why she lost the US election – but absolutely none of them has anything to do with her.
Tuesday, speaking at a ‘Women for Women’ event in New York, Hillary reached dizzying new heights of self-delusion as she tried to explain away the most humiliating loss in American political history.
‘I take absolute personal responsibility,’ she said, and then proceeded to do the complete opposite.
1) It was the Russians’ fault.
Vladimir Putin hates her, she insisted, because she said one of his Russian presidential elections was rigged, so he was determined to wreak revenge by rigging THIS election so she would lose.
She categorised this as ‘unprecedented interference, including from a foreign power whose leader is not a member of my fan club.’
No matter that there remains no hard evidence proving Putin rigged anything, let alone that he did it with Trump’s help, which is another of Hillary’s wild, unsubstantiated claims.
2) It was FBI director James Comey’s fault.
His decision to publicly re-open the investigation into her notorious emails a week before the election swung it Trump’s way. ‘I was on the way to winning,’ she whined. ‘Until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter and Russian Wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off.’
Hmm, perhaps they were scared off by the fact that someone they already deeply distrusted after decades of dodgy behaviour set up a secret private email server while Secretary of State, a massive and inexcusable breach of protocol. And that she deleted 33,000 emails before investigators could see them. And that the server was linked to Anthony ‘I’ll show you my weiner’ Weiner, the predatory sex-mad husband of her right hand woman Huma Abedin and about as big a security risk imaginable.
3) It was the media’s fault.
Apparently, they never asked Trump the right questions in the TV debates. Specifically they failed to grill him about his plans to create jobs.
This is a blatant lie: NBC’s Lester Holt’s first question to the candidates in the debate he moderated was about how they would create jobs.
4) And it was sexist men’s fault.
Asked if misogyny had played a role in her defeat, she said: ‘Yes, I do think it played a role. It was very much a part of the landscape, politically, socially and economically.’
Really?
Hillary lost because she’s a woman?
She spent her entire campaign playing up the need to ‘break the glass ceiling’ by making her the first female president, as if somehow America is the only country that matters with regard to political gender equality.
The political glass ceiling was first smashed decades ago, in 1970 when Sirimavo Bandaranaike became Prime Minister of Ceylon.
And it’s carried on being smashed ever since.
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became first female Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Our current Prime Minister, Theresa May, is also a woman and she is very likely to win a landslide election victory in the UK’s general election on June 8.
In 2005, Angela Merkel became first female Chancellor of Germany and is still in office today.
In fact, there are over 20 female world leaders currently in power.
Yet apparently, Hillary was thwarted from becoming President by misogyny, in a country that is widely considered to be the most progressive in the world for women’s rights.
And if her sexism claim is true, then why did 51% of white women in America vote for her male opponent?
‘We overcame an enormous barrage of negativity, of false equivalence, and so much else,’ Hillary continued. ‘As Nate Silver has concluded: if the election had been on October 27, I would be your president.’
Ah yes, Nate Silver – the polling genius who gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the Republican nomination and just a 35% chance of becoming president as Americans went to vote.
‘Remember,’ she said, eyes glinting with pride, ‘I did win more than 3 million votes more than my opponent.’
So what?
The US election is not won by popular vote.
It’s won, as she knows, by votes in the electoral college, and in that contest, Trump thumped her convincingly.
Hillary’s ‘I won the popular vote’ claim is like the producer of Hangover saying his movie really won the Oscar for Best Film in 2010, and not The Hurt Locker, because more people watched it so the votes of the Academy’s members don’t count.
The system is the system.
After two crushing presidential race defeats to Barack Obama and Donald Trump, you might think Hillary would now retire gracefully from public life.
No chance.
‘I’m back to being an activist citizen, and part of the resistance,’ she roared to huge cheers.
Hmmm.
I’d say the very LAST thing democrats need right now is Hillary Clinton leading the charge to resist Donald Trump.
This is the woman who led the charge to resist him all last year – and lost so humiliatingly she couldn’t even appear in public to face the music until the following day.
Lest we forget, the ‘most qualified candidate in the history of the United States’ was beaten by a real estate tycoon who hosted a reality TV show.
Now Hillary’s coming over as the worst kind of whiny brat loser who can’t bear the fact somebody else won the prize she assumed she was entitled to win.
She still appears in complete denial about the real reason she lost, so let me help her with that because I can pinpoint the exact moment.
It came during a mid-evening speech she made to a star-studded audience at a fund-raiser in New York on Friday, September 11, when she suddenly decided to abuse, denigrate and mock tens of millions of her fellow Americans.
‘You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,’ Hillary sneered. ‘Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.’
The well-heeled, affluent, liberal, metropolitan elite crowd at super-fancy Cipriani restaurant in Wall Street, where Barbra Streisand and Rufus Wainwright performed that same night, whooped and hollered.
Hillary, basking in their applause, added: ‘He has lifted them up. Now some of these folks are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.’
It was a staggeringly arrogant and crass statement to make.
Hillary was directly, unequivocally, accusing vast swathes of her fellow Americans of being racist, sexist, gay-and-Muslim haters.
She tarred 20% of the entire voting nation with her poisonous bigotry brush.
As I wrote at the time, Trump seized on the gaffe like a ravenous hyena scavenging on a freshly slaughtered gazelle.
‘Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters,’ Trump tweeted, ‘millions of amazing, hard-working people.’
His running mate Mike Pence joined in the attack: ‘The people who support Donald Trump’s campaign are hard-working Americans,’ he said. ‘Let me just say from the bottom of my heart: Hillary, they are not a basket of anything, they are Americans and they deserve your respect.’
Yes, they did.
I spent a lot of time with members of Hillary’s ‘basket of deplorables’ immediately after that speech, filming various documentaries in states like Florida and Texas.
To a man and woman, they were incensed by what she’d said.
To them, it confirmed their worst suspicions that Hillary was an elitist, out-of-touch, celebrity-worshipping snob who didn’t have clue about Americans living between the east and west coasts, and cared even less.
And come November 8, that outrage manifested itself in spectacular style with those people voting for her opponent.
So, Hillary can blame whomever she likes for her dismal failure.
But the truth is she ran a dreadful, purposeless campaign from start to finish and ignored the very real fears and concerns of middle America.
Trump heard those people, visited them regularly and made them believe in him.
That’s why she lost.
The fact she won’t go quietly, and with dignity, is perhaps unsurprising to anyone who’s followed her ruthless, self-interested, power-crazed Goldman Sachs funded career.
But it’s a disaster for the Democrats if they want to stand any chance of beating Trump in 2020.
The longer Hillary Clinton hangs around now, like a rotten egg, the worse the stench of failure will linger.
She should put her party before her bruised ego and shut up. 
RELATED ARTICLES
JUST THE PICTURES
Visit our website
Get our free app
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook

US Military: ‘Very Good Chance’ ISIS Gets Destroyed In Afghanistan In 2017



An Afghan policeman stands at the site of a blast in Kabul, Afghanistan March 13, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammad Ismail

By Russ Read
02 May 2017, 04:17 PM

The U.S. military believes that it could potentially destroy the Islamic State’s affiliate in Afghanistan by the end of 2017, according to a military spokesman.

Islamic State Khorasan, also known as ISIS-K, has been a prime target for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The group was the focus of public attention in April when the U.S. dropped its most massive non-nuclear bomb, known as the “MOAB,” on an ISIS-K compound in Nangarhar province. U.S. forces followed up the strike with a large nighttime raid on an ISIS-K leader’s compound.

The military believes these efforts will help ensure the group’s impending destruction.

“We have a very good chance of destroying them in 2017, making it very clear that when ISIS fighters are destroyed elsewhere around the globe that this is not the place for you to come to plot your attacks,” said Capt. Bill Salvin, a spokesman for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, asquotedby Agence France-Presse.

Salvin noted that IS-K had between 2,500 and 3,000 fighters at its peak. Recent losses and desertions have lowered that number to no more than 800.

IS-K first established itself in Afghanistan in 2015, primarily in the country’s mountainous eastern regions in the Nangarhar and Kunar provinces.

The MOAB strike is believed to have killed approximately 96 fighters. The follow-up raid on an IS-K compoundtargetedAbdul Hasib, a local IS-K leader. Two U.S. Army Rangers were killed in the attack, possibly by friendly fire.

U.S. engagements with both IS-K and the significantly larger Taliban are likely to intensify as the traditional Afghan fighting season begins. Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and editor of the Long War Journal believes that the Taliban and al-Qaida still present the greater threat.

“It’s not that they don’t pose a threat, but I would argue that the Taliban pose a far greater threat to the stability of Afghanistan,” Roggio told AFP.

Follow Russ Read on Twitter

Send tips to russ@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

THE MEMO: Trump seeks to wipe away the Obama brand

THE MEMO: Trump seeks to wipe away the Obama brand
By Niall Stanage - 05-03-17 06:00 AM EDT

President Trump is going in with all guns blazing in an effort to eradicate Barack Obama's legacy.

The push encompasses everything from the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to unwinding smaller initiatives that are primarily identified with former first lady Michelle Obama.

On Monday, the Trump administration targeted two of the former first lady's signature programs.

Sonny Perdue, the former Georgia governor who is now Agriculture secretary, announced he would relax some of the rules that had been placed around federally funded school lunch programs.

Those rules were part of a broader effort spearheaded by Michelle Obama to combat childhood obesity. Critics characterized the regulations as overly onerous and said children disliked the meals.

The same day, CNN unearthed an administration memo that said the Peace Corps would cease using the name "Let Girls Learn"  - also associated with the former first lady - for its efforts to help overcome gender disparity in education in the developing world.

Those moves came on top of a broader push against former President Obama's policies on subjects as diverse as tax regulations and national monuments.

While Trump defenders argue that there is nothing unusual about a new president of one party moving in a sharply different direction from his predecessor, voices within the Obama camp characterize the Trump approach as petty, especially in relation to the Let Girls Learn initiative and the school meal standards.

Jen Psaki, Obama's former communications director, said it was "surprising and politically stupid ... for this administration to be winding back or trying to dismantle initiatives that are as positive and impactful as Let Girls Learn."

She added that she believed Trump advisers were "perhaps more focused on the political objectives of dismantling the initiatives of his opponent, more so than doing what is in the interests of the public."

But to Trump's defenders, those views miss the crucial overarching point: that he was elected to change things in Washington.

"One of the reasons President Trump got elected was because of a reaction against the whole elitist 'we know better than you,' nanny-state mentality," said conservative strategist Greg Mueller.

The White House has asserted that the substantive elements of Let Girls Learn will remain unchanged.

In response to CNN's initial report, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told the network that there had been "no changes." She insisted that the Trump administration "supports policies and programs to empower adolescent girls, including efforts to educate them through the completion of secondary school."

But the apparent retiring of the title associated with the Obama era is still seen by some as an attempt to eradicate anything linked to the previous administration.

That may not be surprising, given that relations between the Trump team and the Obama camp quickly deteriorated after the transition.

The new president's now-infamous tweets making the unsupported allegation that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign are only the most dramatic example.

Trump has argued several times that the Obama administration left the nation in "a mess." He has reversed Obama policies, such as the former president's support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and is in the midst of a second bid to repeal and replace the ACA.

For his part, Obama was implicitly critical of Trump's executive order on travel and immigration targeting predominantly Muslim nations. The former president's office pushed back forcefully against the wiretapping allegations.

Some outside observers argue that Trump could be trying to shore up his own support by taking a scythe to Obama-era policies and programs.

"Even if it has a vindictive edge, politically it works for him," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "It puts attention back on Obama and, for Republicans, on what they don't like about Obama. Every time he strikes at an initiative - even a small one - it focuses Republicans on what they don't like about Obama rather than any problems they might have with him."

One Democratic strategist saw the Trump strategy through a similar lens.

"He needs to hold on to his electoral base," Hank Sheinkopf said. "And what better way to do that than attacking the person who is hated most [by Trump supporters]? Attacking Obama keeps people's focus away from the first 100 days of non-accomplishment."

But conservatives see things very differently. Mueller asserted that Obama had put a drive toward over-regulation "on steroids" and that Trump was making a laudable effort to push that back.

"I think this is all part of freeing the economy up, freeing the people up from Washington," he said.

Zelizer, the historian, argued that it was not quite as simple as that.

"I think part of it is that he wants to remind President Obama that he is the victor, he is the one in power," he said. "I also think there is a lot of animosity because he perceives a level of respect accorded to former President Obama that he doesn't get. I think that's part of it: 'I'm the one with influence.' "

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage, primarily focused on Donald Trump's presidency. 

Hillary Clinton still blames everyone but herself

Darkness at the Heart of Liberal Progressivism