Obamacare Exchanges Offering ‘Junk’ Policies With Limited Choices
Many of the policies being offered through the Obamacare health
insurance exchanges are super cheap because they offer a very limited
number of healthcare providers.
Major insurance companies deliberately created what Consumer Reports called “junk health insurance policies” to sell through the exchanges, articles in both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times show.
These policies will not pay for healthcare at many major hospitals and
will only cover services offered by a limited number of doctors.
“Our exchange products will have smaller provider networks that cost less than bigger plans with a larger selection of doctors and hospitals,” David Sandor, a vice president of Health Care Service Corporation (a Blue Cross and Blue Shield provider) admitted to The New York Times.
Chad Terhune of The Los Angeles Times wrote, “Consumers could see long wait times, a scarcity of specialists and loss of a longtime doctor.” Insurers Deliberately Excluded Major Medical Centers from Obamacare Networks
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden has found a
job working for a website in Russia, where he was granted asylum after fleeing
the United States, a Russian lawyer who is helping him said on Thursday.
"Edward starts work in November," lawyer Anatoly Kucherena said, according to
state-run news agency RIA.
N.S.A., in a practice that dates back to the depths of the Cold War and that has
never ended, was recording her conversations and those of a range of leaders in
Germany and elsewhere, storing them in databases that could be
searched later, if the need arose. It is unclear how often they
searched the databases for her conversations, if at all.”
I may share my opinion, I believe the same purpose could underlie the collection
of American citizen’s information. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist
to speculate how a Dick Cheney as president, or his daughter, could use all of
one’s words against a political enemy or a dissident, during “wartime.” If
Nixon, or even LBJ possibly, had had these tools during the Vietnam War, and if
they had followed the advice of Generals and Admirals running the war, war would
have been declared just for the purpose of imposing censorship, punishing
violators, and suppressing dissent. As some prominent law professors argued as
we entered World War I, the government had authority to try dissenters by
military commission. But Ex parte Milligan was fresh in people’s minds yet, so
we got the Espionage Act, with the Sedition Act a year later, instead. But at
least defendants then received some due process (not that it did them any good
during the war hysteria of the day that had been created). One doesn’t
need to speculate how far some military leaders of today have internalized the
Vietnam War officer’s advocacy of censorship and punishment of “seditious
speech;” General Alexander displayed that for us with his advocacy of
censorship, which would logically then need to be enforced in some manner. In a
time when we have antiwar activists under Grand Jury investigation yet of
whether they provided material support for terrorism in opposing war and when
the DOJ admits that a Chris Hedges could be put under military detention for
speech alone, it would be dereliction to avoid considering how far this could
all be taken in the future now that we have the “U.S. domestic common law of
war” to breach that parchment barrier of the Constitution.
months ago, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi carried out a coup in Egypt
that overthrew President Mohamed Morsi and imprisoned the leadership of
the Muslim Brotherhood. Hardly a day now passes without some indication
of how the new Egyptian regime seeks to erect a military-police state, crushing those who dare oppose it," the Financial Times writes in an editorial.
"The White House under Obama worked for the coming to power of the Muslim Brothers in 2012
in the context of an understanding that the latter would protect
American interests in the Middle East and across the Muslim world. The
dilemma that will confront the White House in the near future will be
the election of a new Egyptian president who would possibly be inspired
by the ideals of the Nasser era. And maybe this is the reason why the
Americans insist on an all-inclusive democratic process," Hussein Haridy
writes in Ahram.
removing their patronage from the Brotherhood and throwing their full
support behind the Egyptian military—and other regimes bent on crushing
the Brotherhood—the Saudis may be pushing the movement to become both
more extreme and more sharply anti-monarchical, threatening the Islamic legitimacy of all the Arab monarchies," Vali Nasr writes in the New York Times.
neocons are rewriting more Iraq War history, arguing that if only
President Obama had stayed the course on an open-ended U.S. military
occupation, the regional situation would be a lot better. But the truth
is that it was their invasion of Iraq that set loose the chaos, as
ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains.
From the Asia Times Online: a deft articulation of paranoid Sunni
apprehensions, explaining why some see the United States and Israel
sharing a preference for Shiite power in the region and conspiring with
Obamacare Insurance Plans Will Limit Your Hospital and Specialist Choices
Starting Tuesday, October 1, people around the country will begin
enrolling in “exchanges” mandated by the Obama Health Care Law, choosing
their health insurance for 2014. When they do so, however, many will
find their alternatives limited to cut-rate plans that allow them to see
only narrow groups of health care providers that exclude the best
specialists and health care centers.
A New York Times article titled, “Lower Health Insurance Premiums to Come at Cost of Fewer Choices” explains