To Control Costs, ObamaCrapCare Must Allow Sick People Die--In Other Words Death Panels!

Mark Halperin: Obamacare Contains 'Death Panels'

Monday, 25 Nov 2013 05:07 PM

By Bill Hoffmann

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• inShare

The Affordable Care Act contains provisions for "death panels," which decide which critically ill patients receive care and which don't, says Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for Time magazine.

"It's built into the plan. It's not like a guess or like a judgment. That's going to be part of how costs are controlled," Halperin told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.


"We do need to do some of that in this country, because we can't afford to spend so much on end-of-life care. A very high percentage of our healthcare spending is for a very small number of people at the last stages of their life," he said Monday.

"I'm not saying the system shouldn't allow that, but there's too much cost. There're judgments have to be made."

Halperin, coauthor of the bestselling book "Double Down: Game Change 2012," said the U.S. media was not effective in reporting about the effects of the Affordable Care Act on Americans.

"It's clear that at the time of the passage of the Affordable Care Act and in the context of the presidential campaign, the press did nothing like an adequate job in fly-specking and scrutinizing the whole law," Halperin said.

"Not just the provisions that have already become controversial, about which the president was misleading . . . but other aspects.

"I would hope that as we chronicle what's going on now with the political controversy of the law and scrutiny of the president's past statements on some issues that we all learn a lesson from that."

On the historic and controversial nuclear arms deal between the United States and Iran, Halperin thinks it strains America's ties with Israel.

"The relationship between both Israel and the United States and between President [Barack] Obama and Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu are both pretty fraught," he said.

"There's no doubt that President Obama believes the right way to proceed in Israel's interest is to have these secret talks . . . and it's no doubt that Netanyahu is much more skeptical of the Iranian government and what might happen."

Halperin thinks it will be tougher for Obama to even keep fellow Democrats in line on the Iran deal, as well as on healthcare, as next year's elections approach.

"The Democrats don't trust that the president has their political interests, their political future, at heart, and that's going to make it tough for him to get things done,'' he said.





© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Lois Lerner Might Be In Big Legal Trouble

It couldn't happen to a nicer person! That is our feeling toward Lois Lerner, the lady in charge of denying tax-exempt status to conservative, Tea Party and patriot groups while green lighting progressive and Obama supporting groups. If she is held in contempt, could that exact enough pressure on her to make her flip? Can she be the reason for Obama's downfall? Does she know where her instructions came from? Will the Republicans push hard enough to make this happen?

These are all great questions, unfortunately we cannot predict things in Washington. We would hope that she could be turned into an informant and that she would spill the beans and name names.  If so, maybe we can find out who gave the instructions.

Can the Republicans be depended upon to make the tough decision to go after her or will they wimp out? You tell us what you think.

Conservative Tom

Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt'

Wednesday, 22 May 2013 06:40 PM

By Bill Hoffmann

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• 0
  inShare

Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service’s embattled director of Exempt Organizations, could be held in contempt of court and jailed for refusing to testify before Congress, civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz says.

 

"She's in trouble. She can be held in contempt," Dershowitz told "the Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"Congress . . . can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail."Lerner, grilled Wednesday on the IRS' targeting of conservative organizations, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — but not before insisting "I have done nothing wrong." Her brief statement of innocence has opened a legal Pandora's Box, according to Dershowitz.

"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," the renowned Harvard Law professor said.

"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."

He said the fact that Lerner went ahead with her proclamation of could be considered malpractice on the part of her attorney — although it's possible she overruled the advice she received.

"It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond," he said.

"Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth."

He said the issue goes back to the "bad old days" of McCarthyism, during hearings in which suspected Communists were grilled by the House on American Activities Committee and Senate committees.

"[They] tried to trap people by saying, look, you're a Fifth Amendment communist, you won't answer any questions," he said.


"And the people would say we'd love to answer your questions but we can't because if we do, we waive [our rights] and then you'll ask us who our friends are and who else was a member of the Communist Party . . .

"The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/lerner-irs-held-contempt/2013/05/22/id/505922?s=al&promo_code=1395F-1#ixzz2U7X3fQKb
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

State Department Threatens Whistleblowers

Lawyer Implies State Department Is Threatening Benghazi Whistleblower

Monday, 06 May 2013 04:42 PM

By Bill Hoffmann

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• inShare1

The lawyer for Benghazi "whistleblower" Gregory Hicks is hinting the State Department threatened her client with retaliation if he kept insisting the assault on the U.S. Embassy in Libya was known to be a terrorist attack "from the get-go."

Victoria Toensing said she plans to reveal at a Congressional hearing on Benghazi Wednesday the pressure Hicks has been under since pressing his case that federal officials knew all along the massacre was staged by terrorists.

Story continues below video.

"We'll go into those facts at the hearings but let me just say, in general, people don’t threaten, they don’t come up and say you better not testify," Toensing, of the law firm of DiGenova & Toensing, told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"What they do is they say, 'You know that job assignment that you had scheduled in June? It just got eliminated.'"

On the day of the attack Sept. 11, 2012, Hicks was informed by Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself that the embassy was under siege. A short time later, Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

"He was the No. 2 person in the embassy and so he was in Tripoli when the attack occurred," Toensing told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"He'd gotten a call from the ambassador. ... The ambassador said to him, 'Greg, we're under attack.' And then it cut off."

On Sunday, CBS News' "Face the Nation" released excerpts from an interview Hicks conducted with federal investigators in which he thought the strike was "a terrorist attack from the get-go."

"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Hicks said in the interview.

His testimony is in direct conflict with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who characterized the assault as a spontaneous attack. President Barack Obama's administration later called it an act of terror.

Hicks is one of several witnesses testifying before the House Oversight Committee.

The Benghazi scandal has become a thorn in the side of the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Some critics believe the State Department has tried to cover up the fact there was lax security in place at the embassy.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-whistleblower-threatened-lawyer/2013/05/06/id/503049?s=al&promo_code=13655-1#ixzz2Sc8IuKl2
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Judge Allows Teens Free Access To Morning After Pill

Has this country lost is sanity?  How could a Judge with any common sense or sense of propriety ever allow twelve year old girls access to the Morning After Pill? That has occurred and tells you how far this country has fallen. In 1950, we would not even consider talking about such issues and girls who "got in trouble" were sent away to live with an aunt in a different state.  Now we don't discourage, we encourage sexual behavior. We give away condoms, morning after pills, teach sex in elementary school and frown on "old-fashioned morals."  

America is a country in decline, this is just another sign.

Conservative Tom

Mount Sinai Doctor: Morning-After Pill Ruling Is Dangerous

Friday, 05 Apr 2013 06:02 PM

By Bill Hoffmann

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• inShare4

A federal judge’s order that emergency contraceptives must be made available to girls of all ages within 30 days “doesn’t make any kind of medical sense,’’ a top Mount Sinai School of Medicine physician says.

“Now you have everybody that can get this medication without any doctor supervision, without any prescription,’’ Dr. David Samadi, Vice Chairman of Mt. Sinai’s Department of Urology, told Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show.’’

Story continues below.

“And it can really encourage and promote having a lot of sexual activities which can spread all the sexually-transmitted diseases, [cause] unwanted abortions, on and on.

“This decision just doesn’t make much sense medically and morally and ethically.’’

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of the morning-after pill was "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable." His judgment came as a result a lawsuit by reproductive-rights groups.

Samadi said many people don’t realize the large number of side effects that can be caused by morning-after pills.

Obamacare: Massive New Rules Revealed for 2013

“There’s bleeding and there’s many others. It affects hormonal changes in young girls like this, so it’s not just … there are no consequences. It’s got to be done under doctor supervision and not on your own,’’ he said.

He also lamented how the ruling strips parents of any control.

“It takes the power away from the parents and any kind of parental guidance,’’ he said.

“They can walk in and get this kind of prescription medication without any prescriptions so there’s no visit to the doctor, the parents may not even know that they’re on it.

“And again through peer pressure it can open up many doors for these girls to just become sexually active even younger than the normal age and just overall it’s not going to be healthy for them.’’

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/morning-after-pill-judge/2013/04/05/id/498097?s=al&promo_code=130D2-1#ixzz2Pn6Cs78c
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!