Tag Archives: health-insurance

Patricia Heaton Also Apologizes For Insensitive Sandra Fluke Jokes

She may star on The Middle , but when it comes to politics, Patricia Heaton is one of the few outspoken celebrities who is far to the right. How far to the right? Rush Limbaugh far. Just like that conservative talk show host , this actress went off on Sandra Fluke not long after the Georgetown Law School student appeared at a press conference last week and pleaded her case for why contraception should be covered by health insurance companies. As you can see in the sample Tweets below, Heaton continually, condescendingly mocked Fluke’s supposed reliance on others: But then also like Limbaugh , Heaton issued an apology via Twitter, writing: Mea culpa Sandra! Wasn’t being respectful 2 u re my tweets as I hope people wd b w/me. Don’t like you being dissed -so sorry.” Perhaps realizing that a Mea Culpa written like a second grader was equally disrespectful, Heaton gave it another try and finally struck the right tone: I apologized to Ms Fluke last week. I may not agree with her views but I didn’t treat her with respect and I’m sorry. I was wrong. Mea Culpa.

Continue reading here:
Patricia Heaton Also Apologizes For Insensitive Sandra Fluke Jokes

Quote Of The Day: MSNBC Contributor Says “Corporate America Is Raping Minorities”

All we can say is PREACH! Writer and MSNBC contributor has drawn some criticism for her outspoken criticism of Washington politics as usual and crooked azz Corporate America during an interview Wednesday. Taylor was asked about the catastrophic effect of the recession on minorities and she went IN on the folks she feels are responsible: “Catastrophic is right, you know. If you look at African-american and Hispanic households, fully a third of them report zero wealth. Not even a dollar in positive wealth. A lot of that wealth was tied up in the homes that they spent more than 75% of their income either buying or maintaining, and so when those homes were taken away, the wealth went with it. “If you put on top of that affordable health care and access to health insurance, then, you know, most of the bankruptcies in this country, especially from black and brown people, are driven because of health care costs, and so when you ask yourself what has happened to black and brown Americans, I can tell you what happened to them. “Corporate America happened to them. People who are, you know, literally raping these people over medical costs, exorbitant medical costs and then to turn around and swipe the homes that they worked their lives to build, you know, over some subprime lending issues. So I think that we ought to re-examine our priorities as a country and re-examine how to go forward. I don’t think that’s the America we’re banking on, the America we all believe in.” Sounds about right to us. You can watch the interview below:

More here:
Quote Of The Day: MSNBC Contributor Says “Corporate America Is Raping Minorities”

Tips On How To Appeal A Denied Health Claim

Go here to read the rest:

Under the 2010 health law, the situation should improve. Health plans will be required to inform members that they can appeal disputed claims internally within the health plan as well as to an independent review organization not affiliated with the health plan.The new rules become effective in July. As the daughter of a woman who had a terminal disease, I can tell you first hand that it pays to appeal. You must stand firm. Here is a simple check list for you to use while you are going through this trying time. 1.      Review the details of your insurance appeals process . Insurance companies are required to give you all the tools you need to properly make an appeal. There are certain timeframes to appeal so make sure you act fast. 2.      Make sure you have all your paperwork in order . Keep records of everything: the bills from your provider, your explanations of benefit, copies of denial letters, your medical records, letters from your provider, etc. 3.      Contact your Human Resources Department. (if you receive coverage through your employer). HR Departments are often equipped to provide you with some direction and can translate the fine print of your policy. 4.      Check your insurer’s medical policy . Ask your physician to review and utilize it to prepare a “Letter of Medical Necessity” to support your case.  Your physician is your best resource in preparing a successful appeal. 5.      Take detailed notes when you speak to the insurance company . Write down the time and date, length of the call, the name and title of the person you speak with, and all the details of the conversation. Make note of any follow-up activities and next steps by all parties. 6.      Write down your argument. Make notes of exactly what happened, when and why. If you are seeking approval for treatment, note any supporting science, clinical evidence, expected benefits, etc. Be clear, firm and concise. Make it clear that you plan to pursue the appeal until it is resolved and the claim is paid or care is approved. 7.      Keep on top of the insurance company. Many appeals take weeks, even months, so call often to check in on the status. And take notes of each call. 8.      An appeal may go through many levels. All insurance companies are required by law to have an appeals process. And most of these have at least three levels. The first level appeals are usually processed and reviewed by the insurance company’s appeals staff or by the insurance company’s medical director responsible for the denial. The second-level appeals are reviewed by a medical director not involved in the original claim decision. And the third-level appeals are usually completed by an independent, third-party reviewer in collaboration with a physician who is board-certified in the same specialty as the patient’s physician.  If your appeal is elevated to the third level and the insurance company continues to deny your claim, you can then take your appeal to the state level. Contact your state’s Insurance Department (contact information is usually found on your state government’s website) for more information. 9.     Seek professional help. If you believe you have a case but are physically unable to handle the appeals process, there are professional health advocacy organizations that can compile and submit the appeal on your behalf. Health Advocate, Inc. and Health Proponent are two of the advocacy industry leaders who can assign a personal health advocate to your case. 10.  Notify your healthcare professionals. If your appeal is successful, you will want to explain the situation to your healthcare providers as soon as possible to avoid any lapse in care or damage to your credit. Before you file an appeal, talk with your insurer to understand why your claim was denied.The biggest mistake people make is that they write an appeal that doesn’t really address the reason for the denial. Good luck. Let me know how  it turns out. Are These BP Artists Good Enough to Get Signed? Lil’ Kim & Nicki Minaj To Perform Together At BET Awards? Sean Kingston Released From The Hospital! DMX “I Don’t Like Drake”

Tips On How To Appeal A Denied Health Claim

Anti-‘Obamacare’ Congressman Doesn’t Understand How Health Insurance Works [Sigh]

New Maryland Republican Representative Andy Harris won his seat on a platform of resisting the expansion of “government-run or government-mandated insurance.” He also spent Monday demanding to know why he had to wait 28 days for his own government-run insurance. More

Likely Voters Steer Clear of MSNBC, Don’t Like or Don’t Know Prime Time Talkers

According to a recent poll, likely voters get their political news primarily from cable television. Among cable channels, 42 percent, a plurality, watch Fox News for its political coverage. Only 12 percent said they watched MSNBC. What’s more, most likely voters don’t like or have never heard of MSNBC’s prime time talent. The poll , conducted by Politico and George Washington University, used a sample split evenly between political parties – even slightly favoring Democrats in some areas : 41 percent of respondents identified as Republicans, while 42 percent said they were Democrats. Forty-four percent said they usually vote for Republicans, while 46 percent answered Democrats. Forty-eight percent voted for Obama, while only 45 percent voted for McCain. Even among this group, Fox News is by far the most popular cable outlet. CNN comes in at second, with 30 percent. A sorry MSNBC brings up the rear. Among cable news personalities, FNC’s Bill O’Reilly – consistently the highest-rated cable news talker – is the most popular. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they thought O’Reilly has a positive impact on the American political conversation. Thirty-two percent said he has a negative impact. Interestingly, respondents – again, split evenly among the two parties – thought all three of Fox’s evening opinion commentators (O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity) have a net positive impact on the national debate. All three have a positive spread in the category. Also of note, for none of the three did majorities answer “never heard of”. MSNBC’s hosts are a different story. Only 23 percent said Keith Olbermann has a positive impact on the debate, while 25 said he has a negative one. A plurality, 42 percent, had never heard of him But at least it was only a plurality. Majorities said they have never heard of Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow – 70 percent and 55 percent, respectively. The positive impact/negative impact responses were split down the middle for both. In other words, the vast majority of likely voters either do not like MSNBC’s prime time talkers, or have never heard of them (with the notable exception of Chris Matthews, whose name was not included in the poll). “How did it get to this state?” wonders Ed Morrissey . After all, NBC had a long history in television news, starting decades before CNN and even longer than Fox. Its partnership with Microsoft should have given the cable news network a distinct advantage in the New Media world. Their roster of news anchors, present and future, should have immediately challenged CNN for primacy and marginalized Fox, who may have had cash but relatively fewer newsgathering resources in the US when it launched. Under the direction of GE’s Jeff Immelt, though, NBC’s cable network went for the full-insane demographic. Fox took CNN’s talking-head format and simply reversed the bias, although Fox rightly argues that it presents more opposing viewpoints than CNN did as part of their establishment talent and not just occasional guests and party spinmeisters. NBC decided to emulate Air America with its cable lineup instead, perhaps seeing some opportunity in the last Bush term to capitalize on his unpopularity and become a center of opposition opinion. Rather than accomplish that, the decision by NBC and its parent GE has not just destroyed MSNBC’s credibility but also NBC’s as well. With the exception of Joe Scarborough, who is hard to pigeonhole but certainly isn’t a hard-Left hysteric, the entire lineup is exactly what one would find on the failed libtalker radio network. It’s no coincidence that two of its featured hosts come straight out of Air America, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. Maddow has, at least, produced a watchable show, albeit with a hard-Left tilt that clearly is out of touch with the mainstream, but Schultz is barely coherent. Top that off with a daily “news” broadcast from Keith Olbermann that almost literally consists of a Two Minute Hate (Olbermann’s WPIW lists), and it’s a recipe for the kind of disaster that only political hacks could love. The wonder is that GE and NBC apparently seem content to alienate 88% of the viewing audience with its trainwreck theater.

Read more:
Likely Voters Steer Clear of MSNBC, Don’t Like or Don’t Know Prime Time Talkers

CNN’s Chetry, Newsweek’s Miller Agree: ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Phenomenon Misleading Because Candidates Largely Oppose Liberal Policies

Are “Mama Grizzlies” who oppose state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP) and teachers’ unions unfaithful to their maternal name? CNN anchor Kiran Chetry joined Newsweek’s Lisa Miller Monday in wondering if that is so. Miller appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” to feature her most recent piec e on “Mama Grizzlies,” prominent female conservatives in the vein of Sarah Palin. “All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific,” reported Miller, a senior editor for Newsweek. “There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.” Miller ultimately concluded that the “Mama Grizzlies” movement will fall short of its political goals, because “the issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not.” “Do we really want bears to solve our problems?” Miller quipped at the end of the segment.   Kiran Chetry agreed that the candidates’ positions may contradict their maternal title. “I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids.” Among the examples of “Mama Grizzlies” failing to help America’s children? Both Miller and Chetry noted the candidates’ opposition to S-CHIP programs, teachers’ unions, Pell Grants, and Obamacare as evidence. Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle’s opposition to a domestic violence bill in the Nevada state legislature and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s vote against a federal parental-leave policy drew some attention as well. So who on the Democratic side would make a good “Mama Grizzly?” Miller said Hillary Clinton would, being a “powerful woman and a mom,” although she wouldn’t admit it. A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on September 27 at 8:14 a.m. EDT, is as follows: KIRAN CHETRY: It’s interesting, because when you take a look at some of the candidates she’s referring to, and we can talk about some of them, they aren’t necessarily all on the same page with each other when it comes to some of these issues. I mean, is this sort of a coherent set of ideas, or is it more of a marketing tool? LISA MILLER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Right, well, I mean, I would say – and we say at the end of the story that it is really more of a marketing tool. It’s a very compelling image, right? Everybody who’s a parent has that feeling of wanting to protect their kids. And if we make it America’s kids, or our kids, you know, our future, it’s a very powerful image. On the other hand, you know, Christine O’Donnell for example isn’t a mom. So she talks about our grandchildren in speeches, but she’s not actually a “Mama Grizzly.” And then on things like education, the “Grizzlies” are really all over the place. You know, Sarah Palin is actually quite progressive on education. She has always talked about paying teachers more. In Alaska, she ramped up the budget for the Department of Education over and over again before she left the position of Governor of Alaska. She promised a big infusion of money to the schools. Whereas Angle and Bachmann are known for sort of hating the teachers’ unions, fighting back against lobbyists. All of them, many of them, have this anti-Department of Education position, you know, parents know what’s good for kids, and administrators and bureaucrats should get out. CHETRY: Right, but just because you’re against the Department of Ed doesn’t mean you’re not for kids getting a better education. MILLER: I guess that’s true. On the other hand, you know, a lot of them have voted for – against things like Start, programs for poor kids, Pell Grants, which are to help, you know, poor kids get college education – CHETRY: Right, and this is the interesting part. Because, I mean, I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, is they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids. We have Bachmann, Michelle Bachmann in the Congress, and Nickie Haley who are both against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, that provides health care to poor children. MILLER: All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific. There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.   CHETRY: Yeah, the other issue that you talked about is the voting against – was it Angle who voted against a Domestic Violence bill in the Nevada legislature? MILLER: Yes, and Bachmann voted against a federal parental-leave policy for federal employees. So when you have a new baby, time off. That seems like a good thing for kids. CHETRY: Is there a Democratic equivalent to the “Mama Grizzly” phenomenon on the other side? MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, you could call Hillary Clinton a “Mama Grizzly,” right? She’s a powerful woman, she’s a mom. But I don’t think she would ever call herself a “Mama Grizzly.” She doesn’t fit in to this demographic. CHETRY: You wrote in an interesting line at the end of the article that said in the wild, real “Mama Grizzlies” are known to be aggressive, irrational, and mean. The issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not. So what is the upshot of this? MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, it’s a great marketing tool, as we said at the outset. You know, calling upon women’s primal maternal instincts is a good thing, but let’s think about it. I mean, this is a very divided country, and we have some big problems to solve. Do we really want bears to solve our problems?

Follow this link:
CNN’s Chetry, Newsweek’s Miller Agree: ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Phenomenon Misleading Because Candidates Largely Oppose Liberal Policies

An Open Letter to President Obama

Mr. President, I write this letter as a patriot, a taxpayer, a lifelong resident and as concerned citizen of what I consider to be the greatest nation ever known to man, the United States of America. I am Caucasian, so let’s get the racial aspect out of the way to start with.  This letter has nothing to do with your race. I lived through the cruelty of Jim Crow and segregation and learned early on in my life that the color of my skin does not make me better or worse than any other man. We all remember Martin Luther King, Jr.’s statement about judging people, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, and I believe that with all my heart. I believe that America is an exceptional country.  We have been liberator, benefactor and leader of the free world for centuries.  America is an example of what can be achieved by free people living under the free enterprise system. We have led the world in technology, industry, science and medicine for a long time. Our capitalist system guarantees that those who explore new worlds and bring us new products and better techniques are amply rewarded for their efforts, and this is as it should be. A person who is the first one to get there and the last one to leave, who burns the midnight oil and never gives up until they realize their goals, are a boon to humankind.  They’re the ones who discover new cures, start new industries and create jobs. These people deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and for the products and services they bring to make life better for all mankind. Mr. President, it is my personal opinion that you want to take the well-earned rewards of these people and give it to those who have done nothing to deserve them. It’s really redistribution of wealth, and it’s nothing new. It’s been tried many places before and it has miserably failed in every one of them.  It’s called socialism. Am I calling you a socialist?  Yes, I am.  I firmly believe that you are a socialist and a globalist, and that you think America should have a comeuppance and have our playing field leveled to match those of other countries not as industrious or as innovative as we are. Mr. President, how can you support the building of a mosque in the very same area where Islamic radicals murdered so many Americans? Just who’s side are you on? Am I accusing you of being a Muslim?  No I’m not, but the jury is still out a little bit on that subject in my mind, because many times your sympathies seem to lean in that direction.  You need to watch who you bow to Mr. President. You have betrayed a whole generation of African-Americans who voted for you because they really believed all that junk about “hope and change,” they really thought you were going to do something great and the only thing you’ve done is to make their jobs disappear and their health insurance go up. You and your party have corrupted duly elected officials in an effort to get your legislative agenda passed.  Remember the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback,” and that’s just a couple we know about, but you bought off a bunch of congressmen and senators, knowing that you were going against the will of the majority of Americans, because you think that you and your arrogant friends know more about what’s good for America than the citizens your disastrous actions effect. Am I accusing you of being an elitist?  You bet. I don’t believe you take the Islamic threat to America nearly as seriously as you should. You use semantics like “Overseas Contingency Operation” and “Man Caused Disasters” to soften your rhetoric toward people who would like nothing better than decapitate the entire population of America. And Mr. President, if you’d really like to know the kind of warriors who are fighting the “Overseas Contingency Operation,” and you would like to really know about what kind of enemies they’re fighting, you should read a book called Lone Survivor by a brave, young Navy Seal named Marcus Lutrell who went to hell and back for his country, and is still a dedicated patriot.  I think you’d find it enlightening, Mr. President and after you finish it would you pass it on to Janet Napolitano?  And by the way, tell her that my invitation to take her to Iraq and show her some “Man Caused Disasters” is still open. Am I calling you naïve?  Absolutely. You seem to think that America has an endless supply of tax dollars for you to waste and give away, and the debt you’ve piled up could well bankrupt the greatest nation on earth. Am I calling you a failure, Mr. President? With all due respect that’s exactly what I’m doing.

See the original post:
An Open Letter to President Obama

Sebelius to Health Insurers: Shut Up Or Else About ObamaCare Increasing Premiums; To AP, It’s Mere ‘War of Words’

Adopting language and tactics more typical of tyrants, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius yesterday sent a public letter to the head of a health insurance industry group demanding that carriers stop “falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act,” and that “that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” She reinforced her short-term threat with a longer-term one: We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections. Keep in mind that three months ago (noted at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), leaked government documents estimated that, depending on the assumption sets used, anywhere from 49 of small employer health plans and 34 of large employer plans would be forced financially or otherwise to “relinquish” their “grandfathered” status by 2013. This necessarily means that the market for private plans will decrease, while the market for those who would be forced to buy coverage through the “Exchanges” (what’s with the uppercase?) will necessarily expand. Thus, when Sebelius threatens exclusion from the “Exchanges,” she is really saying: “Shut up and eat your costs, or you’ll be out of business in a few years.” If you didn’t expect that the Associated Press’s coverage of Sebelius’s threats by Ricardo Alonso-Zalivar wouldn’t make this linkage, you’re right. In fact, the AP writer characterized them as “warnings” and part of a “war of words”  in his coverage (HT Hot Air ): HHS to insurers: Don’t blame us for your rates President Barack Obama’s top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won’t tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law. “There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby. “Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections,” Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They’d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide. The letter to America’s Health Insurance Plans was the latest volley in a war of words over who gets the blame for rising premiums. Polls show that many people expect their costs to go up as a result of the law, but there’s also widespread mistrust of the insurance industry. Note how helpful the AP writer is to Sebelius’s cause with his reference to “bad actors,” as if a company passing on otherwise legitimate cost increases is presumptively so. It’s also a complete whitewash to describe what’s going on as a “war of words,” when the government is browbeating carriers into reducing otherwise presumably justifiable increases, while brazenly brandishing denial of access to the “Exchanges” and other sanctions as weapons. Though I can’t be sure, it appears that Alonso-Zaldivar got his 30 million figure from estimates of “the uninsured” — really those who don’t have insurance for a brief period during a given year — who would become covered under ObamaCare. If that’s the case, he has totally ignored Treasury’s preliminary estimates of those who would have to flee to the “Exchanges” as a result of employer plan terminations. Even at the low end of Treasury’s estimates (a blended 39% of small and larger employers, assuming that terminated plans have similar average numbers as those which remain), as many as 48 million Americans (39% x roughly 190 million Americans under age 65 x roughly 65% who currently have private plan coverage) would be herded into the exchanges by the end of 2013. Now there’s a threat, namely that the “Exchanges” will be so overwhelmed by new applicants that they will fail to function properly and disrupt the entire system of medical care delivery. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Link:
Sebelius to Health Insurers: Shut Up Or Else About ObamaCare Increasing Premiums; To AP, It’s Mere ‘War of Words’

REPORT: Conservative Groups Gearing Up To Spend $400 Million On Midterm Election

http://www.newdeal20.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/picture-21.png In the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, corporations and special interest groups now enjoy the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. Now, with less than 10 weeks until November, it’s clear just how far conservative groups are willing to go to try to influence the midterm elections. According to a new report from ThinkProgress, conservative organizations have committed (or already spent) $400 MILLION to advance their conservative agenda at the ballot box this year. For comparison’s sake, this outside money alone is more than the Democratic campaign committees http://bit.ly/ahWQxY spent combined when they took back both houses of Congress in the last midterm election. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal notes that special interest groups have already spent three times as much in 2010 than they had in 2006 http://bit.ly/aKSlIP . Among the outside groups that plan to spend hundreds of MILLIONs of dollars electing conservatives are some familiar faces and some new ones as well. While the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce have long supported conservative causes, the former plans to double its spending from $10 MILLION in 2006 http://bit.ly/dmz7Gt to $20 MILLION http://bit.ly/bZHEsw now and the latter will triple its commitment http://http ://bit.ly/aKSlIP to $75 MILLION this year http://bit.ly/9v6ClV . Many new groups are also entering the scene in a big way, including Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group with $52 MILLION http://politi.co/awScg7 and Norm Coleman’s American Action Network with $25 MILLION http://bit.ly/aslsCg . Those conservative groups trying to use $400 MILLION in outside spending to tip the midterm election include: > – *Chamber of Commerce* has pledged to spend > – $75 MILLION http://http ://bit.ly/9v6ClV > – *American Crossroads* has pledged to spend > – $52 MILLION http://http ://politi.co/awScg7 > – *Americans for Prosperity* has pledged to spend > – $45 MILLION http://nyti.ms/a8gWtX > – *Republican State Leadership Committee* has pledged to spend > – $40 MILLION http://http ://bit.ly/aslsCg > – *American Action Network* has pledged to spend > – $25 MILLION http://bit.ly/aslsCg > – *American Future Fund* has pledged to spend up to > – $25 MILLION http://bit.ly/dywWzx > – *Club for Growth* has pledged to spend AT LEAST > – $24 MILLION http://bit.ly/cCKOS5 > – *National Republican Trust PAC* has pledged to spend AT LEAST > – $20 MILLION http://bit.ly/aKSlIP > – **An unnamed** *Health Insurance Industry Coalition* has pledged to spend > – $20 MILLION http://bit.ly/bST4bX > – *National Rifle Association* has pledged to spend > – $20 MILLION http://http ://bit.ly/bZHEsw > – *Faith and Freedom Coalition* has pledged to spend > – $11 MILLION http://bit.ly/ddcqhn > – *FreedomWorks* has pledged to spend > – $10 MILLION http://http ://nyti.ms/a8gWtX > – *Americans for Job Security* has pledged to spend > – $10 MILLION http://politi.co/cSUiQa > – *Susan B. Anthony List* has pledged to spend > – $6 MILLION http://bit.ly/9T5PLf > – *Our Country Deserves Better (Tea Party Express)* has ALREADY SPENT > – $5 MILLION http://bit.ly/ajFcGU > – *Tax Relief Coalition* has already spent > – $4 MILLION http://bit.ly/a0V4p2 > – *Republican Majority Campaign* has pledged to spend > – $3 MILLION http://bit.ly/avk0QQ > – *Campaign for Working Families* has pledged to spend > – $2 MILLION http://bit.ly/cpP6Bv > – *Heritage Action for America* has pledged to spend > – $1 MILLION http://bit.ly/9Wb55b > – *Financial Services Roundtable* has already spent > – $0.5 MILLION http://bit.ly/aQ4pNR > – *Family Research Council* FRC has raised > – $0.5 MILLION http://bit.ly/dx5RWf > – *Citizens United Political Victory Fund* has pledged to spend > – $0.2 MILLION http://bit.ly/caDIWO – ** TOTAL: $399.2 MILLION or $399,200,000 ** – Given the number of progressive accomplishments in the 111th Congress, including health care reform, the economic stimulus bill, and Wall Street reform, it’s no wonder that conservative groups are fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent a repeat next term. Chris LaCivita, a Republican strategist who has also been involved in many independent-expenditure campaigns, told Politico, “If there is a time for independent groups to step up, this is it. This is the year for independent groups to put up or shut up.” http://politi.co/cSUiQa Indeed, with conservative special interest groups putting it all on the line this November, their $400 MILLION pledge may even increase before long. added by: toyotabedzrock

Juan Williams: Missouri’s Anti-ObamaCare Ballot Irrelevant – Only Old White People Voted For It

Juan Williams on Sunday said the passage of Missouri’s anti-ObamaCare ballot initiative last week is irrelevant because only older white people voted for it. Discussing the issue on “Fox News Sunday,” the liberal FNC contributor said, “As far as the Missouri vote, you get 70 percent inside an echo chamber of older white people, no not in St. Louis not in Kansas City, saying, ‘Oh yeah, we don’t like a requirement that everybody has to have healthcare even though the hospitals in Missouri say it’s gonna drive up our costs.'” Host Chris Wallace seemed somewhat stunned by this and asked, “What happened to respect for democracy?” When Williams elaborated saying that he believes this will eventually be decided by the courts, Liz Cheney rightly scolded her colleague, “I think it is stunning you and the White House are unwilling to heed the votes of the people in Missouri” (video follows with transcript and commentary): LIZ CHENEY: You’ve also got Robert Gibbs this week when asked about what does it mean that 71 percent of the people in Missouri said they don’t want any mandate for health insurance, he said, quote, “It means nothing.” Now when you’ve got a White House that is that unwilling to listen to what the people out there are saying, I think that you know, it causes some real concern about whether or not they are actually going to be responsive to the voters. But, I think, frankly it gives the voters much bigger impetus come November to elect some folks who will listen to him. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Juan? JUAN WILLIAMS: I like George W. Bush, but the decider? I think, he’s the one that coined that phrase. He said he was the decider when he was president, so I guess President Obama can be the decider now that he is president. Isn’t that the deal? CHENEY: I don’t think Bush ever said he got to decide who had the keys to the scar. WILLIAMS: Look, I think this is, and as far as the Missouri vote, you get 70 percent inside an echo chamber of older white people, no not in St. Louis not in Kansas City, saying, “Oh yeah, we don’t like a requirement that everybody has to have healthcare even though the hospitals in Missouri say it’s gonna drive up our costs, everyone is just going to run to the emergency rooms when they have their accidents.” WALLACE: What happened to respect for democracy? WILLIAMS: I have tremendous respect for democracy, but as Ted Olson… WALLACE: The proposition was on the ballot… WILLIAMS: Yes. WALLACE: …and 71 percent voted in favor of it. WILLIAMS: That’s who’s energized. The unions didn’t participate and they didn’t get out there… WALLACE: Well, that’s their problem, isn’t it? WILLIAMS: Right, so because everybody knows, as Ted Olson told you in an earlier segment on the gay rights issue, the courts, the courts have said that federal law trumps state law in this area, or they will decide if it’s to be the case. WALLACE: That has to do with immigration, we are talking about healthcare. WILLIAMS: That is exactly right, Chris, on the issue, does, can a state say that we will not require our citizens to buy health insurance? That issue is right now being taken up by several attorney generals around the country in seperate states, and, they will eventually end up in the courts. I hate to inform you of this, you should know this as our anchor. (Laughter) CHENEY: It is a real constitutional issue whether or not the federal government has the right to force people to buy insurance, and I think it is stunning you and the White House are unwilling to heed the votes of the people in Missouri. Isn’t it wonderful how much race is now brought into every discussion about politics? I thought Barack Obama was going to change all that.

Original post:
Juan Williams: Missouri’s Anti-ObamaCare Ballot Irrelevant – Only Old White People Voted For It