http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/minnesota-farm-community-honors-barack-obama-with-manure-spreader/
Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Counter-Terror Operation Stops Trucks On I-20 - News Story - WSB Atlanta
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25198651/detail.html<br><div style="color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">Sent with <a
'Credible But Not Specific' Threat of New Terrorist Attack - ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-credible-specific-threat-terrorist-attack/story?id=11747364<br><div style="color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">Sent with <a
New “credible” terror threat has CIA bombarding Pakistan jihadis with drone strikes
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/28/new-credible-terror-threat-has-cia-bombarding-pakistan-jihadis-with-drone-strikes/
At least 20 separate strikes in 28 days this month so far, an unprecedented pace. And it’s paid off: According to Bill Roggio, a missile attack a few days ago might have killed Al Qaeda’s new operational commander in Pakistan. Follow the first link to the Journal and you’ll find only a few bare details about the terror plot they’re trying to disrupt — the main target is Europe, the Haqqani network in Afghanistan might be involved, but very little beyond that. Luckily, ABC has been digging and has new info:
There’s not much else to say for now, but I’m putting it on your radar screen in so that you have some context if you hear about any terror scares in Europe over the next few days. Like, for instance, this one. If you can spare the time, it’s also worth reading this NYT report on the newly ramped-up drone campaign, as it offers an altogether different motive for the strikes. The “terror threat” theory is that a plot might be in motion and thus it’s crucial to disrupt communications by forcing jihadi commanders to go to ground. The Times’s theory is that Petraeus has lost patience with Pakistan’s promises to attack the Taliban’s safe havens across the border and is enlisting the CIA to help do the job that Islamabad won’t do. There’s a little tidbit about a terror threat buried way down in the article, but it’s almost an afterthought compared to the broader strategic goal of debilitating the Taliban vis-a-vis their capacities in Afghanistan. Exit question: Could the feds be emphasizing the terror-plot angle in order to justify escalating the drone campaign over Pakistani objections? It’s one thing to say we need to go all-out across the border because it serves our war ends, it’s another to say we need to do it as an emergency defensive measure because we’re facing an imminent attack. Pakistan will complain either way, but the second reason makes it easier to ignore them than the first.
At least 20 separate strikes in 28 days this month so far, an unprecedented pace. And it’s paid off: According to Bill Roggio, a missile attack a few days ago might have killed Al Qaeda’s new operational commander in Pakistan. Follow the first link to the Journal and you’ll find only a few bare details about the terror plot they’re trying to disrupt — the main target is Europe, the Haqqani network in Afghanistan might be involved, but very little beyond that. Luckily, ABC has been digging and has new info:
US and European officials said Tuesday they have detected a plot to carry out a major, coordinated series of new terror attacks in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and possibly the United States…Why is the U.S. worried about a plot involving German jihadis? Because, as ABC notes, German citizens don’t need a visa to enter the U.S. The Bagram prisoner who tipped them to the plot is reportedly a jihadi named Ahmad with ties to the same mosque in Hamburg patronized by some of the 9/11 hijackers and only recently shut down by German authorities. He was allegedly picked up in early July — and yet only in the past few weeks has the CIA ramped up the drone attacks in Pakistan. Is that because Ahmad didn’t spill the beans about the attack until recently or was it only within the last few weeks that some sort of corroborating evidence discovered suggesting that the attack is in motion?
Intelligence and law enforcement authorities in the US and Europe said the threat information is based on the interrogation of a suspected German terrorist allegedly captured on his way to Europe in late summer and now being held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
US law enforcement officials say they have been told the terrorists were planning a series of “Mumbai-style” commando raids on what were termed “economic or soft” targets in the countries…
The captured German reportedly said several teams of attackers, all with European passports, had been trained and dispatched from training camps in Waziristan and Pakistan. Officials say the German claimed the attack plan had been approved by Osama Bin Laden.
There’s not much else to say for now, but I’m putting it on your radar screen in so that you have some context if you hear about any terror scares in Europe over the next few days. Like, for instance, this one. If you can spare the time, it’s also worth reading this NYT report on the newly ramped-up drone campaign, as it offers an altogether different motive for the strikes. The “terror threat” theory is that a plot might be in motion and thus it’s crucial to disrupt communications by forcing jihadi commanders to go to ground. The Times’s theory is that Petraeus has lost patience with Pakistan’s promises to attack the Taliban’s safe havens across the border and is enlisting the CIA to help do the job that Islamabad won’t do. There’s a little tidbit about a terror threat buried way down in the article, but it’s almost an afterthought compared to the broader strategic goal of debilitating the Taliban vis-a-vis their capacities in Afghanistan. Exit question: Could the feds be emphasizing the terror-plot angle in order to justify escalating the drone campaign over Pakistani objections? It’s one thing to say we need to go all-out across the border because it serves our war ends, it’s another to say we need to do it as an emergency defensive measure because we’re facing an imminent attack. Pakistan will complain either way, but the second reason makes it easier to ignore them than the first.
US/Russian nuclear treaty briefing to be given to Senate on Wednesday amid worries about Moscow compliance
http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=5013
RWBNews: The nuclear treaty with Russia requires a 30% cut in warheads. Why would Obama enter into anything like this? That’s right. His pledge to reduce nuclear arms and make a level playing field. What a great strategy! The treaty would need to be ratified this fall.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.29e5f9ae941bd52cd3e12c591e89ab19.3c1&show_article=1
US spy chief James Clapper will brief senators Wednesday on intelligence issues tied to a landmark nuclear treaty with Russia, amid worries aboutMoscow’s compliance, aides said Tuesday.
Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, will head to the capitol in the early evening, one official said on condition of anonymity. Another confirmed that the briefing would occur without specifying a timeframe.
The US Senate is expected to vote on ratifying the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) after November elections that are expected to deal a blow to President Barack Obama’s Democratic allies in the congress.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee endorsed the agreement in a 14-4 vote on September 16 even after one of the panel’s Republican members, Senator James Risch, said the US intelligence community had shared “troubling” new information with lawmakers.
Lawmakers were tight-lipped about the details, but the top Republican on theSenate Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond, warned in a statement about “the treaty’s lack of verification necessary to detect Russian cheating.”
Asked whether there was anything new given longstanding allegations of Russian non-compliance, Risch told reporters: “You haven’t seen the same stuff I’ve seen,” but would not elaborate.
The treaty — signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama at an elaborate ceremony in Prague in April — restricts each nation to a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads, a cut of about 30 percent from a limit set in 2002.
The agreement, a top Obama foreign policy initiative, replaces a previous accord that lapsed in December 2009 and also requires ratification by Russia’s lower house, the Duma.
US Senate ratification requires 67 votes, Democrats control 59 seats, and just three Republicans on the foreign relations committee voted in favor of the accord, with four against.
Republicans have charged the accord could hamper US missile defense plans — a charge denied by the Pentagon — have concerns about Russian implementation, and want assurances about plans to modernize the existing US nuclear arsenal.
RWBNews: The nuclear treaty with Russia requires a 30% cut in warheads. Why would Obama enter into anything like this? That’s right. His pledge to reduce nuclear arms and make a level playing field. What a great strategy! The treaty would need to be ratified this fall.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.29e5f9ae941bd52cd3e12c591e89ab19.3c1&show_article=1
US spy chief James Clapper will brief senators Wednesday on intelligence issues tied to a landmark nuclear treaty with Russia, amid worries aboutMoscow’s compliance, aides said Tuesday.Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, will head to the capitol in the early evening, one official said on condition of anonymity. Another confirmed that the briefing would occur without specifying a timeframe.
The US Senate is expected to vote on ratifying the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) after November elections that are expected to deal a blow to President Barack Obama’s Democratic allies in the congress.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee endorsed the agreement in a 14-4 vote on September 16 even after one of the panel’s Republican members, Senator James Risch, said the US intelligence community had shared “troubling” new information with lawmakers.
Lawmakers were tight-lipped about the details, but the top Republican on theSenate Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond, warned in a statement about “the treaty’s lack of verification necessary to detect Russian cheating.”
Asked whether there was anything new given longstanding allegations of Russian non-compliance, Risch told reporters: “You haven’t seen the same stuff I’ve seen,” but would not elaborate.
The treaty — signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama at an elaborate ceremony in Prague in April — restricts each nation to a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads, a cut of about 30 percent from a limit set in 2002.
The agreement, a top Obama foreign policy initiative, replaces a previous accord that lapsed in December 2009 and also requires ratification by Russia’s lower house, the Duma.
US Senate ratification requires 67 votes, Democrats control 59 seats, and just three Republicans on the foreign relations committee voted in favor of the accord, with four against.
Republicans have charged the accord could hamper US missile defense plans — a charge denied by the Pentagon — have concerns about Russian implementation, and want assurances about plans to modernize the existing US nuclear arsenal.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Short URL: http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=5013
Lame Duck Agenda Grows
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/lame-duck-agenda-grows
The lame duck agenda that Democratic leadership poopooed for months is growing.
Remember back in July when the left swore there was "no secret plan!"? This scoffing was followed closely by saying a lame duck session was "pretty preposterous and straight out of the black-helicopter wing of GOP thinking."
Now would be a good time to say "who's laughing now" if this weren't such a completely unlaughable matter. Nervous about elections and eager to avoid making any decisions or tough votes, Democrats are now planning on squeezing in at least 20 bills after the Nov. 2nd election.
These are major pieces of legislation - a far cry from the "mopping up" Democratic leaders claim they have to do, as if they were tidying the House for the new members and not going in with a bulldozer.
Tackling these big pieces of legislation during a lame duck session without any sense of accountability post-election would be a clear violation of the will of the people.
Sign the No Lame Duck petition today.
The lame duck agenda that Democratic leadership poopooed for months is growing.
Remember back in July when the left swore there was "no secret plan!"? This scoffing was followed closely by saying a lame duck session was "pretty preposterous and straight out of the black-helicopter wing of GOP thinking."
Now would be a good time to say "who's laughing now" if this weren't such a completely unlaughable matter. Nervous about elections and eager to avoid making any decisions or tough votes, Democrats are now planning on squeezing in at least 20 bills after the Nov. 2nd election.
Democrats are considering cramming as many as 20 pieces of legislation into the lame-duck session they plan to hold after the Nov. 2 election.The list of bills to be now includes things like
The array of bills competing for floor time shows the sense of urgency among Democratic lawmakers to act before the start of the 112th Congress, when Republicans are expected to control more seats in the Senate and House.
- defense authorization
- the DREAM Act
- unemployment benefit extension
- renewable electricity standards
- Medicare doc reinbursements
- cybersecurity
- an arms treaty with Russia
- mine safety
- EPA suspension
- currency manipulation
- food safety
- child nutrition
These are major pieces of legislation - a far cry from the "mopping up" Democratic leaders claim they have to do, as if they were tidying the House for the new members and not going in with a bulldozer.
Tackling these big pieces of legislation during a lame duck session without any sense of accountability post-election would be a clear violation of the will of the people.
Sign the No Lame Duck petition today.
New claims about who is the money-man behind the Ground Zero Mosque also lead to new developments that there already is a Mosque in lower Manhattan (video)
http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=5005
RWBNews: Elzanaty is claiming to be the money behind the Ground
Zero Mosque. He goes on and states that he wanted a location in lower
Manhattan where Muslims could pray. FoxNews reports there is an active
Mosque in lower Manhattan which would alleviate the need for the Ground
Zero towering Mosque to be built. Details in the video.
By Charles Leaf Video in link http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/beliefnet/new-mosque-in-lower-manhattan-20100927
MYFOXNY.COM – A mosque not too far from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan is now active — and it’s not the one causing all the controversy. Hisham Elzanaty’s attorney spoke to Fox 5 about a new mosque at 30 Cliff Street.
Elzanaty, the majority owner in the controversial proposed mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site, told Fox 5′s Charles Leaf last week that he only picked the site because he thought it would be a great place to pray.
Now there is such a place, so Elzanaty’s attorney went to check it out.
“I had the pleasure of meeting the imam, I spoke with him today,” said Wolodymyr Starosolsky. “The people were very kind and very courteous.”
Elzanaty and his attorney are now considering whether this location is good enough to replace the project near Ground Zero.
Starosolsky said there are just proposals, ideas.
“There is a long road to go before you get to the end,” he said. He also stressed that the person who is the ultimate decision maker is Elzanaty.
In the days ahead, Elzanaty plans to meet with the imam of this new mosque and the families of 9/11 victims. He is reassessing the project near Ground Zero.
By Charles Leaf Video in link http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/beliefnet/new-mosque-in-lower-manhattan-20100927MYFOXNY.COM – A mosque not too far from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan is now active — and it’s not the one causing all the controversy. Hisham Elzanaty’s attorney spoke to Fox 5 about a new mosque at 30 Cliff Street.
Elzanaty, the majority owner in the controversial proposed mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site, told Fox 5′s Charles Leaf last week that he only picked the site because he thought it would be a great place to pray.
Now there is such a place, so Elzanaty’s attorney went to check it out.
“I had the pleasure of meeting the imam, I spoke with him today,” said Wolodymyr Starosolsky. “The people were very kind and very courteous.”
Elzanaty and his attorney are now considering whether this location is good enough to replace the project near Ground Zero.
Starosolsky said there are just proposals, ideas.
“There is a long road to go before you get to the end,” he said. He also stressed that the person who is the ultimate decision maker is Elzanaty.
In the days ahead, Elzanaty plans to meet with the imam of this new mosque and the families of 9/11 victims. He is reassessing the project near Ground Zero.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Short URL: http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=5005
The Anatomy of a Hostile Government Takeover
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/247929/anatomy-hostile-government-takeover-james-c-capretta
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
First,
there are the heavy-handed statements coming out of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). Two weeks ago, HHS secretary Kathleen
Sebelius sent a letter
to the nation’s insurers with a plainly stated threat: Either the
insurers conform to the political agenda of the administration and
describe the reasons for premium increases in terms acceptable to the
Democratic party, or they will be shut out entirely from the
government-managed insurance marketplace. What could possibly have
provoked a cabinet secretary to launch such an indiscriminate broadside
against an entire industry? Simple: A handful of insurers had dared to
utter the truth, noting that the new law has imposed costly insurance
mandates that will raise premiums for everyone. For that offense, the
federal government has essentially threatened to put the truth-telling
insurers out of business. And what’s truly astonishing, and telling, is
that the new law almost certainly gives the HHS secretary the power to
do so if she really wants to.
Then there is the matter of Dr. Donald Berwick. Recall that
President Obama took more than a year to settle on Dr. Berwick as his
nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) —
and then moved in a matter of weeks to put him in place without Senate
confirmation. The president tried to blame Republicans for this blatant
end-run around constitutional checks and balances, even though
Democrats control the Senate and could have held a hearing and a vote
if they had wanted to. The truth is that Democrats didn’t want Dr.
Berwick to be confirmed in the Senate. They wanted him on the job, for
sure, because he is an ardent government-takeover enthusiast, and is
prepared to use all of the levers at his disposal to advance that
objective. The president and his Democratic allies just wanted to get
Dr. Berwick in place without the public’s really noticing. So they
chose to circumvent the normal process and put him in the CMS position
with a time-limited recess appointment. For the next year and a half,
Dr. Berwick is free to use CMS’s enormous new powers to force doctors
and hospitals to conform to his vision of effective health care, and he
is essentially accountable to no one but the president.
To distract the public from these power plays, the administration decided to launch a series of “information” campaigns that are plainly political and filled with all manner of distortions. HHS sent a letter to the nation’s Medicare beneficiaries supposedly explaining what the new law will mean for them. Somehow, it failed to mention that the law will cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars over a decade, and cut the value of Medicare Advantage by an average of 27 percent by 2017. HHS followed this up by putting the same distortions on television, in the form of an expensive advertising campaign featuring Andy Griffith.
In the meantime, busy beavers in various corners of the federal bureaucracy are laying plans for new fiefdoms. Thousands of new employees are planned for various offices in HHS, including the new office to regulate private health insurance nationwide. The IRS is gearing up both to enforce with tax penalties the requirement that everyone carry government-approved insurance, and to help administer the massive new entitlement program that will require income verification on tens of millions of applicants. States will also be forced to build new bureaucracies to carry out the scores of tasks the federal government will be ordering them to perform.
Massive bureaucracy. Disinformation campaigns. Blatant power plays. The politicization of decisions that should be made with a focus on patient care. The use of government power to threaten citizens and their livelihood.
This is what Obamacare has brought us. And that’s just in its first six months.
— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
During
the long national debate over the future of American health care,
President Obama frequently chastised his opponents for launching
exaggerated attacks on his plan for “reform.” He took particular
exception to the criticism that the changes he was pushing amounted to
a government takeover of the whole health sector. He knew full well
that this kind of criticism might derail the entire effort in Congress,
because most Americans recoil at the thought of a distant and
bureaucratic federal government running the health-care system for
everyone. So Obama vigorously denied that his program would lead to any
such thing. In his Aug. 8, 2009, radio address,
he described the “takeover” accusation as “outlandish” and
characterized his approach as a mainstream and moderate attempt simply
to reform the nation’s private health-insurance system.
It’s now been six months since Congress passed Obamacare — not a
long time given the sweeping nature of the legislation and the long
phase-in schedule for its most significant provisions. Even so, it is
already abundantly clear that Obamacare’s critics were dead right: The
new health law has set in motion a government takeover of American
health care, and a very hostile one at that. The Obama administration’s
clumsy and overbearing behavior since its passage proves the point.
ADVERTISEMENT
To distract the public from these power plays, the administration decided to launch a series of “information” campaigns that are plainly political and filled with all manner of distortions. HHS sent a letter to the nation’s Medicare beneficiaries supposedly explaining what the new law will mean for them. Somehow, it failed to mention that the law will cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars over a decade, and cut the value of Medicare Advantage by an average of 27 percent by 2017. HHS followed this up by putting the same distortions on television, in the form of an expensive advertising campaign featuring Andy Griffith.
In the meantime, busy beavers in various corners of the federal bureaucracy are laying plans for new fiefdoms. Thousands of new employees are planned for various offices in HHS, including the new office to regulate private health insurance nationwide. The IRS is gearing up both to enforce with tax penalties the requirement that everyone carry government-approved insurance, and to help administer the massive new entitlement program that will require income verification on tens of millions of applicants. States will also be forced to build new bureaucracies to carry out the scores of tasks the federal government will be ordering them to perform.
Massive bureaucracy. Disinformation campaigns. Blatant power plays. The politicization of decisions that should be made with a focus on patient care. The use of government power to threaten citizens and their livelihood.
This is what Obamacare has brought us. And that’s just in its first six months.
— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
Seniors On Medicare Lose Their Insurance – Thanks To Obamacare
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/14508
Update: National Review has a good recap of “Obamacare @ 6 Months” and how all signs indicate those who opposed Obamacare were right and the supporters of Obamacare were – at best – misleading:
Well Madam Speaker, we are clearly getting a glimpse of how Obamacare will force most Americans off their current insurance plans, even those on Medicare:
It is no surprise democrats are an endangered species this election (and will be for many election cycles to come). They lied to America as they took from them one of their most sacred possessions – their health care coverage. Now the government is in charge of deciding who shall live and who shall be called to give the ultimate sacrifice to their fellow (younger) citizens.
Everyone knows this election is critical to the survival of this nation and its people.
Update: National Review has a good recap of “Obamacare @ 6 Months” and how all signs indicate those who opposed Obamacare were right and the supporters of Obamacare were – at best – misleading:
Two weeks ago, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to the nation’s insurers with a plainly stated threat: Either the insurers conform to the political agenda of the administration and describe the reasons for premium increases in terms acceptable to the Democratic party, or they will be shut out entirely from the government-managed insurance marketplace. What could possibly have provoked a cabinet secretary to launch such an indiscriminate broadside against an entire industry? Simple: A handful of insurers had dared to utter the truth, noting that the new law has imposed costly insurance mandates that will raise premiums for everyone. For that offense, the federal government has essentially threatened to put the truth-telling insurers out of business.Orwell was just a tad too early in his prediction of Big Brother. Oppressive government hit the US in 2008, not 1984. Obamacare killed the Democrat Party. Lesson #2 from November. Lesson #1: government cannot stimulate ecomomic growth, that has to come from the private sector. The corollary: Big Government and out of control spending can snuff out even the world’s largest and strongest economy. - end update
…
Recall that President Obama took more than a year to settle on Dr. Berwick as his nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — and then moved in a matter of weeks to put him in place without Senate confirmation. The president tried to blame Republicans for this blatant end-run around constitutional checks and balances, even though Democrats control the Senate and could have held a hearing and a vote if they had wanted to. The truth is that Democrats didn’t want Dr. Berwick to be confirmed in the Senate. They wanted him on the job, for sure, because he is an ardent government-takeover enthusiast, and is prepared to use all of the levers at his disposal to advance that objective. The president and his Democratic allies just wanted to get Dr. Berwick in place without the public’s really noticing.
Well Madam Speaker, we are clearly getting a glimpse of how Obamacare will force most Americans off their current insurance plans, even those on Medicare:
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has notified customers that it will drop its Medicare Advantage health insurance program at the end of the year, forcing 22,000 senior citizens in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine to seek alternative supplemental coverage.So Obama lied when he said you can keep your current coverage – big surprise there. Seniors were the ones most duped by Obama’s lofty and misleading rhetoric on health care. He has always been a big proponent of death panels through rationing. And now we see the fruits of all his bribes in the Senate to get his government take-over of health care passed.
It is no surprise democrats are an endangered species this election (and will be for many election cycles to come). They lied to America as they took from them one of their most sacred possessions – their health care coverage. Now the government is in charge of deciding who shall live and who shall be called to give the ultimate sacrifice to their fellow (younger) citizens.
Everyone knows this election is critical to the survival of this nation and its people.
Obama to hold rally for Sen. Feingold & Sen. Fiengold to skip town.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/obama-to-hold-rally-for-sen-feingold-sen-feingold-to-skip-town/
Harvard Pilgrim cancels Medicare Advantage plan
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/09/28/harvard_pilgrim_cancels_medicare_advantage_plan/
The
decision by Wellesley-based Harvard Pilgrim, the state’s second-largest
health insurer, was prompted by a freeze in federal reimbursements and
a new requirement that insurers offering the kind of product sold by
Harvard Pilgrim — a Medicare Advantage private fee for service plan —
form a contracted network of doctors who agree to participate for a
negotiated amount of money. Under current rules, patients can seek care
from any doctor.
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has notified
customers that it will drop its Medicare Advantage health insurance
program at the end of the year, forcing 22,000 senior citizens in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine to seek alternative
supplemental coverage.
“We became
concerned by the long-term viability of Medicare Advantage programs in
general,’’ said Lynn Bowman, vice president of customer service at
Harvard Pilgrim’s office in Quincy. “We know that cuts in Medicare are
being used to fund national health care reform. And we also had
concerns about our ability to build a network of health care providers
that would meet the needs of our seniors.’’
Under
Medicare Advantage plans, the federal government pays private health
insurers to sell customers over 65 years old enhanced policies, many of
which offer prescription drug coverage not covered by standard
Medicare. But the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has
been seeking to reduce the amount it pays to private insurers for such
programs.
Medicare told
Harvard Pilgrim to notify customers that its Medicare Advantage
program, known as First Seniority Freedom, was being canceled. In a
mailing, the insurer was required to list alternative Medicare
Advantage plans, including those offered by its competitors.
Harvard
Pilgrim in a second mailing this week will urge customers to switch to
a new Medicare Supplement plan it will begin offering in October.
Unlike Medicare Advantage, which is overseen by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, the new Harvard Pilgrim plan will be
overseen by the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.
It
will be “slightly more expensive’’ than the Medicare Advantage plans,
but competitive with supplemental insurance plans offered by rivals
such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest
health insurer, Bowman said.
She
said the Medicare Supplement plan will feature some benefits not
covered by the current plan, such as fitness reimbursements, but won’t
pay for prescription drugs, which are covered by some versions of the
current plan. Instead, seniors can buy separate supplemental drug
coverage through a partnership with Coventry Health Care, in Bethesda, Md.
As of yesterday afternoon, about 1,000 customers had sought information about the product change.
Newton
resident Robert Gray, 68, a retired computer engineer and technology
researcher, said he was disturbed to find out his plan was being
discontinued. But he said he prefers to remain with Harvard Pilgrim
because he is a longtime customer.
“If
there’s a big increase in price or the various options in the new plan
don’t seem to be the same . . . we might consider going to another
plan,’’ Gray said.
More
than 60 percent of senior citizens in Massachusetts are covered only by
Medicare, according to Harvard Pilgrim research. Those who buy
supplemental insurance are divided roughly evenly between Medicare
Advantage and Medicare Supplement plans.
Robert Weisman can be reached at weisman@globe.com. 
Conflicting reports on FBI investigation of former SEIU President Andy Stern
http://www.ibleedcrimsonred.com/2010/09/conflicting-reports-on-fbi.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ibleedcrimsonred%2FOvJu+(I+Bleed+Crimson+Red)&utm_content=Google+Reader
NYT just a reminder that those saved or created jobs are about to disappear.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/28/nyt-just-a-reminder-that-those-saved-or-created-jobs-are-about-to-disappear/
Whistleblower raising eyebrows in voter intimidation case
http://www.newsy.com/videos/whistleblower-raising-eyebrows-in-voter-intimidation-case/
FBI terror targets tied to Obama's Chicago new paryt!
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/fbi-terror-targets-tied-to-obama’s-chicago-new-party/
New Cybersecurity Bill Gives Obama ‘Power To Shut Down Companies’
Found this interesting link on the Drudge Report:
New Cybersecurity Bill Gives Obama 'Power To Shut Down Companies'
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-cybersecurity-bill-gives-obama-power-to-shut-down-companies.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)