http://www.dailywire.com/news/14765/stephen-king-says-republicans-are-mean-poor-people-aaron-bandler?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=102516-podcast&utm_campaign=beingconservative

Stephen King Says Republicans Are Mean To Poor People. Here Are 7 Statistics Showing They're Not.

Stephen King is well-known for churning out brilliantly written novels. Somehow that brilliance doesn't translate to his thoughts on politics, where King comes across as a petulant child.

Here is King's latest asinine political tweet:

A Salon headline articulated a question I've been asking myself for years: Why are Republicans so mean to poor people?

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) March 23, 2017

King's first mistake was taking a Salon headline seriously. His second mistake was whining about Republicans for supposedly being big meanies to the poor. The statistics simply do not support his childish assertion.

Here are seven statistics that show Republicans are not mean to poor people:

1. Fifty-four percent of registered Republicans donated to charity while only 45 percent of Democrats did so. This is according to 2012 data compiled by the Huffington Post, which also found that 51 percent of registered voters donated to charity while only 22 percent of those who aren't registered to vote donated to charity.

2. Thirty-three percent of Republicans volunteered their time to charitable work; 24 percent of Democrats did the same, according to the Huffington Post.

3. Nine out of ten of the states that donated the most charity voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. 

.@StephenKing You were saying? pic.twitter.com/wXz7SWlT7z

— Kayla (@VixenRogue) March 24, 2017

There is one important caveat: once charity to religious organizations are taken out of the equation, the more left-wing northeastern states emerge as the more charitable states. But not only do religious organizations like churches provide charitable aid to the less fortunate, they teach philanthropic values to their members. They also increase the likelihood of the wealthy being introduced to people in poverty, thereby raising the likelihood that those who are rich will donate money to charity and volunteer for charitable causes. So, it's valid to include donating to religious institutions as donations to charity.

4. Conservative households donated 30 percent more of their money to charity than left-wing households. This is despite the fact that left-wing households had six percent higher incomes than conservative households, according to data from Arthur Brooks in 2008.

5. The percentage of families living in "deep poverty" was 5.5 percent before welfare-to-work reform was passed in 1996; that number was reduced to 2.5 percent in 2007. The Republican Congress sent the welfare reform bill to President Bill Clinton's desk twice before he finally relented and signed it on Congress's third attempt. The bill clearly helped lift people out of poverty. Today, the percentage of families in "deep poverty" is closer to three percent but that's because of the sluggish nature of Barack Obama's economy.

For more on the welfare reform bill, read the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector's piece on it here.

6. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, 86 percent of those in the poorest 20 percent of income brackets in 1979 lifted themselves into better income brackets. The Left likes to claim that Reagan's presidency slammed the poor in favor of the wealthy, but this statistic from the Treasury Department debunks that claim, according to David Limbaugh.

7. The free-market values that underlie the Republican platform have lifted more people out of poverty worldwide than any government program ever could. The Daily Wire has a bevy of statistics on that here. 

A couple of questions for King: if Republicans are mean to the poor, then why do they donate more to charity than Democrats? Why is it that their policies actually lift people out of poverty while Democrat policies keep them there?

King's political tweeting history suggests that he won't consider such questions; he will only continue to tweet about supposedly mean Republicans, encapsulating the childlike mindset of the Left.

Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/10/er-demonstrates-inverted-priorities-american-society.html

The ER demonstrates the inverted priorities of American society

Edwin Leap, MD •Physician • October 11, 2014

We fling open the doors of America’s emergency departments to help those who can’t afford health care.  We have legislated this protection: No person can be turned away for financial reasons.  This is very compassionate and represents the higher angels of our culture.  Alas, it also is emblematic of the stupider demons of government.  You see, the ER demonstrates the inverted priorities of American society.

In the ER, expensive tattoos abound.  Piercing is ubiquitous.  Almost every adult and child has a smartphone, it seems.  All too many spend the duration of their ER visit glaring at the screen of said phone; barely looking up at the physician who is attempting to engage them in meaningful conversation about the reason they came for care.

Cigarettes populate purses and drug screens are notoriously positive for at least chronic narcotic pain medications, but often other substances, among them marijuana and amphetamines.

Dental care?  It is regularly ignored because, in the words of my patients, “I don’t have dental insurance.”  Guess what.  Neither do I, and I pay a lot for insurance.  Dental care has typically been a cash business. That’s why dentists, crafty guys and gals that they are, spend their time mucking around the human mouth.  Floss and toothpaste?  Seems a bit excessive compared to a nice new tattoo.

But, on the southern end of things, carefully groomed pubic hair is not at all out of the question.  The teeth may fall out; the nether regions will be carefully tended.

It’s all about priorities: those of individuals and those of leaders.  Our leaders, ever convinced that we must give medical care to those perceived to be in need, often forget that modern definitions of poverty and need may be a bit different from need throughout human history.  And that if a family has an expensive cell plan, new truck and big-screen TV with satellite, it might not be unreasonable to ask them to put up a little money for their own health care.

A woman told me, recently, that her daughter (at birth) had a minor congenital abnormality that required daily application of a cream.  “And I had to spend $200 of my own money!”  She was aghast.  As are all of those who will gladly pay anything for Oxycontin (legal or otherwise), but who are offended and downtrodden when their antibiotic isn’t free at the local pharmacy.

We can’t keep this up.  We’ve created a monstrosity of entitlement.  I care for the poor; I love the poor and have always tried my best to help those in genuine need.  Those truly hurting.

But when cosmetics, vices and electronics are considered reasonable expenditures while the rest of us pay for necessities like prescriptions (or over the counter Tylenol and Motrin as I’m often asked to prescribe for Medicaid), then we are entering the death spiral.

Hate me if you want.  The truth is unpleasant.

But it is clean-shaven.

Edwin Leap is an emergency physician who blogs at edwinleap.com and is the author of The Practice Test.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/ahca-amendments/?utm_term=.4b2d8672bd84

Eleven health-care bill changes aimed at wooing moderates and the far-right

In an effort to coax skeptics within the party to support an overhaul of federal health-care law, House Republican leaders introduced nine amendments on Monday night and three more on Thursday. The House originally was to have voted on the legislation, called the American Health Care Act, on Thursday, but the chamber’s leaders postponed it for lack of support. At the urging of President Trump, they announced Thursday night that they would hold the vote on Friday.  It remains unclear whether these changes are persuading the dozens in their ranks who have been saying they oppose the legislation or have serious concerns. Given that all Democrats are expected to vote against it, the legislation will fail if more than 22 House Republicans vote against it. 

The legislation faces resistance from both moderates within the House GOP and the most conservative faction. As a result, the bill’s authors have proposed to alter parts of the bill in ways to appeal to one camp or the other — and even offered a change specifically targeting a handful of representatives from Upstate New York. Here’s how the bill has changed:

The three amendments added Thursday:

AHCA

For conservatives

Eliminate federal requirement that plans be comprehensive

Starting next year, would get rid of the ACA’s requirement that health plans sold to individuals and small businesses must cover 10 “essential health benefits,” including care for pregnant women and newborns, mental health treatment and maternity care, among other things. The bill would, instead, direct each state to determine the basic health benefits that insurance must include. Some states would be free to keep the 10 required under the ACA, cut the list, or not establish any minimum coverage. As a result, health plans in parts of the country could be sold that are skimpier and less expensive.

For moderates

Increase aid to states for maternity and newborn care

AHCA

Would add maternity and newborn care to a list of ways that states could use federal money they would receive through a “Patient and State Stability Fund” that the legislation would create.The delay in the repeal of the Medicare tax on wealthy Americans would provide $15 billion to be used for this purpose.

For moderates

Delay repeal of Medicare tax on wealthy Americans

AHCA

This change would leave in place for another six years a 0.9 percent Medicare tax the ACA created on people who earn above $200,000 if filing individually, or $250,000 if married and filing jointly. The repeal would now take effect in 2023.

The eight amendments added Monday:

AHCA

For conservatives

End Medicaid expansion sooner

Obamacare's Medicaid expansion allowed people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line to enroll in the program in participating states. The Republicans’ bill would, within a few years, end the generous federal funding the ACA provides states to help cover people in this Medicaid expansion. 

The AHCA would allow states to expand Medicaid until the end of 2019, but an amendment would mean that only states that had expanded their programs by March 2017 could receive the higher amount of federal Medicaid money provided under current law.

AHCA

For conservatives

Optional work requirement for Medicaid

States could choose to require able-bodied adults to prove that they are working or looking for work to qualify for Medicaid benefits. Children, pregnant women, parents of young children, some students and disabled people would be exempted. 

[ Trio of GOP proposals would overhaul Medicaid dramatically, starting with job requirement]

For moderates

$85 billion in additional aid for older Americans

AHCA

An amendment would try to free up federal money to provide more financial help to Americans ages 50 to 64, who typically have higher health costs than younger people and could face big insurance price increases under the AHCA. (Those 65 or older are typically eligible for help under Medicare.) The amendment does not spell this out, however, and the House GOP leadership is hoping the Senate would further alter the legislation to include this help.

[ House Republicans unveil changes to their health-care bill]

For moderates

Increased inflation factor for elderly and disabled

AHCA

Under the legislation, the way the government helps pay for Medicaid would be profoundly changed. Instead of covering a fixed percentage of the costs of each person on the Medicaid rolls in a given state, the government would begin to pay a fixed sum of money per person, with the sum changing from year to year based on the rate of medical inflation. The amendment would slightly increase the yearly inflation adjustment for people on Medicaid who are elderly or disabled — but not for other adults or for children.

AHCA

For conservatives

Medicaid block grants option

States could have an alternative to the per-person funding — a block grant, which is a fixed amount of federal funding, not tied to the number of enrollees. In exchange, states that chose block grants would be freed from federal standards that define the people states must include in their Medicaid programs and the medical benefits that must be covered.

[ Trio of GOP proposals would overhaul Medicaid dramatically, starting with job requirement]

AHCA

For conservatives and the health-care industry

Accelerating the expiration of the ACA’s taxes

The amendment would move up, from 2018 to 2017, the repeal of several taxes that help pay for provisions of the ACA. They include taxes on health insurers, prescription and over-the-counter drugs, medical devices and tanning beds, as well as a tax on Americans with higher incomes.

A delay in the legislation of the ACA’s “Cadillac tax” on high-cost employer plans would be extended by a year from 2025 to 2026.

AHCA

For New Yorkers

Upstate New York counties to give less to state for Medicaid

New York helps fund its Medicaid program through county property tax revenue. The amendment incentivizes the state to change this by blocking federal reimbursement of Medicaid funds collected by counties, which Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) said amounts to $2.3 billion. The amendment excludes New York City.

AHCA

For Illinoisans

Increase federal Medicaid funding for Illinois

According to lllinois’ GOP delegation, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Director Seema Verma said the state would be allowed to adjust its 2016 expense report. That means, the state would receive more money when Medicaid switches to per-person funding.

Sent from my iPhone

http://freedomoutpost.com/trump-delivers-documented-evidence-of-obama-wiretaps-to-house-panel/

Trump Delivers Documented Evidence of Obama Wiretaps To House Panel

At this point in time, the public does not yet know the contents of the documents delivered by President Trump’s DOJ to the House Intelligence Committee regarding the wiretapping incident, but presumably since the documents were sent by Trump’s team, it stands to reason that whatever was delivered to the House Intelligence Committee was in favor of Trump’s claims, not the other way around.

Throughout his time in office, Barack Obama associated with many political operatives who were real lowlifes, and who often walked a tightrope between the world of what was considered legal behavior (however, unethical), and what was considered criminal behavior. There’s an old saying I’m sure you’re familiar with that goes:

‘If you hang around the barbershop long enough, you’re going to get a haircut…’

Are we about to learn next week that Obama got a haircut, and we’re all going to find out?

In the video below, Right Wing News breaks down the recent report from Young Conservatives, and compares it with an earlier report from Doug Hagmann of the Canada Free Press. Did Obama finally go to far this time? Let’s hope so. It’s long overdue!

                                                          

Young Conservatives Writes:

Last week, the House Intelligence Committee asked the Justice Department to submit any evidence it had pertaining to President Donald Trump’s claims of surveillance by the Obama administration. 

The plot thickens, as on Friday, the DOJ made its submission to the committee.

From The Hill:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent documents to the House Intelligence Committee on Friday in response to a request for evidence backing up President Trump’s claim that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

The committee is currently reviewing the documents, an aide confirmed to The Hill.

It’s unclear what’s in the documents, which CNN reported separately had also been delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee, though that report could not be immediately confirmed.

White House spokesperson Sean Spicer clarified Trump’s original wording, saying that when he used the term “wiretapping” in quotation marks in his tweet, he was referring to surveillance in a broader sense. 

Trump also didn’t back off the claim of surveillance, even joking about it with Angela Merkel who was spied on by the Obama administration.

The House Intelligence Committee will hold an open meeting on Monday discussing Russian interference and the claims of Obama administration surveillance. 

MEET TEAM OBAMA WITH THE AMNESIA

While some have disputed the claims of surveillance, if there was no surveillance, how then were Trump’s conversations with the Presidents of Mexico and Australia picked up and the transcripts later leaked specifically to undermine him? 

The media appears to have completely suffered amnesia about those reports.

It will be fascinating to see what evidence, if anything, the DOJ submitted…

Recall the following from a post last Friday titled: Obama Wiretapping Bombshell Drops; This is as Serious as it Gets (Video):

In that article, Douglas J. Hagmann reported that President Trump had in his possession evidence of the paper trail leading to a FISA court that substantiates his assertions that Obama, obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a national security investigation. For anyone not familiar with Douglas J. Hagmann, he has been a licensed investigator in the private sector for the last 30 years, where he’s worked on well over 5,000 cases, and he’s considered a surveillance specialist within his industry.

Often, his vast expertise has been sought out as either an informational or operational asset on various federal and state law enforcement agencies. In addition to his investigating duties, Hagmann is also an author, runs four websites, and has a successful talk radio show. Bottom line: If law enforcement agencies trust Hagmann’s investigative abilities, then I’m certainly going to trust them long before I believe a mainstream media that suffers from amnesia about the very stories THEY reported on previously.

Canada Free Press Reported:

There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office.

The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media.

At issue is Obama’s insistence to secure a federal wiretap warrant of Donald J. Trump, the candidate, using the federal court system as the mechanism to do so. The ostensible probable cause was alleged ties between Donald J. Trump and/or his associates with Russia.

The first warrant application was made in June 2016, according to reports published by The New York Times and elsewhere, but was rejected due to the lack of probable cause of criminal activity.

RECALL THAT THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT THE FISA COURTS…

WAS JUST DAYS AFTER THE INFAMOUS MEETING ON THE TARMAC! 

                                                                                                                   

When the request was denied in regular federal court, Obama and his Justice Department attempted an “end around” by citing the existence of a “foreign actor” and made a similar surveillance warrant application through the more specialized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in October of 2016. According to published reports, that warrant application was rejected as well, a rare occurrence in the FISA venue, which strengthens claims that no evidence of any foreign involvement ever existed. It has been reported that the initial warrant application to the FISA court specifically named Donald J. Trump.

It is also relevant to note here that this is the type of activity that led to the creation of the infamous “Wall” that was referenced after the 9/11 attacks. Its relevance to this specific instance is explained well by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy an article linked here.

Article posted with permission from The Last Great Stand

Sent from my iPhone

http://onlineathens.com/national-news/2017-03-19/republicans-odds-over-how-overhaul-medicaid?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=OnlineAthens%20Daily%20Headlines&utm_campaign=012717%20new%20morning%20template

Republicans at odds over how to overhaul Medicaid

WASHINGTON | The House GOP health care bill has competition from other Republicans, a group of governors who’ve made their own proposal about how to overhaul Medicaid for low-income people. They’re hoping GOP senators will find their ideas more persuasive.

It’s a gradual approach, with additional options for states. It’s likely to involve more federal spending than the House bill, but also keep more people covered. In the end, though, the governors are still talking about fundamental change.

Four GOP governors are pushing the plan, saying they represent most of the 33 Republican state chief executives. There’s no inkling of any involvement by Democratic governors, and it’s hard to conceive of such major changes without them.

Medicaid is a federal-state program that covers more than 70 million low-income people, about 1 in 5 Americans. Beneficiaries range from elderly nursing home residents to newborns. Former President Barack Obama expanded the program in his health care law, to mainly help low-income adults with no children living at home. About half the 31 states that accepted the expansion have Republican governors.

The House Republican bill would start by repealing Obama’s Medicaid expansion. More significantly, it would limit overall federal spending on Medicaid going forward. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the proposal would result in a cut of $880 billion from projected Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2026. By that year, 14 million fewer people would have Medicaid coverage, and program spending would be about 25 percent lower than what’s currently projected.

The House approach “provides almost no new flexibility for states, does not ensure the resources necessary to make sure no one is left out, and shifts significant new costs to states,” Republican Govs. John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas said in a recent letter to congressional leaders.

The future of Medicaid could become a pivotal issue as the health care debate moves to the Senate. Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said his boss “shares (governors’) concerns about the need to protect the Medicaid expansion population and give governors more flexibility to ensure they can design programs that meet the needs of their states.”

Differences between the House bill and the governors’ approach would have an impact on millions of people. Here’s a look:

MEDICAID EXPANSION

Current law: States can expand Medicaid to cover people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $16,640 for an individual. The federal government picks up almost all of the cost, gradually phasing down to a 90 percent share.

House bill: Ends Medicaid expansion. States can continue to receive the higher federal rate only for those enrolled by Dec. 31, 2019.

Governors: States that expanded Medicaid can also keep receiving the higher federal rate for new enrollees into the future if they agree to make other changes to their programs.

———

MEDICAID SPENDING LIMITS

Current law: Medicaid is an open-ended entitlement program. The federal government pays a share of each state’s cost of providing care for beneficiaries. That share varies among states, but the national average is nearly 60 percent.

House bill: Federal Medicaid funds would be limited under a per-beneficiary cap that takes into account what a state has spent traditionally, adjusted for inflation. House leaders are also expected to introduce an option for states to choose a block grant.

Governors: States could pick a per-beneficiary cap, a block grant or the current system. If they choose the current system, they would lose the more generous matching funds for new beneficiaries covered by expanded Medicaid.

If states choose a per-beneficiary cap or a block grant, they would not have to take a complete plunge.

Initially such limits would apply only to spending for able-bodied adults, including people covered through expanded Medicaid. It would be up to each state to decide whether to accept caps or block grants for sensitive groups of beneficiaries, including children, pregnant women, and elderly and disabled adults.

———

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Current law: State Medicaid programs must cover FDA-approved drugs for medically accepted uses. Pharmaceutical companies pay Medicaid rebates to states under a complex formula. A costly new drug like recent ones for hepatitis C can cause havoc with state budgets.

House bill: Not addressed.

Governors: States would be able to exclude coverage for a given medication. The option to exclude a drug would give them leverage in price negotiations with drug companies.

———

ELIGIBILITY AND BENEFITS

Current law: Federal government sets threshold for eligibility. States must cover certain basic benefits, including hospitalization, doctor visits, nursing home care and health screenings.

House bill: Not addressed.

Governors: States that accept spending caps would be able to freeze or reduce enrollment, with exceptions. States could impose work requirements for able-bodied adults. States would also gain authority to redesign benefits and require beneficiaries to pay modest amounts for their care.

“The Medicaid program is complex and different (beneficiary) populations have different needs,” said Trish Riley, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy, which advises state policymakers. The governors “recognize that you can’t have a hard cap on a program that has a lot of unpredictable costs.”

Sent from my iPhone

"If we insured our homes the way we insure our bodily care, we’d need to file a claim to change a light bulb. We’d then self-fund the purchase of the lightbulb (at many times today’s going price) but then smugly remind ourselves that this cost “went against my deductible.”

http://thenewamericana.com/2017/03/16/america-doesnt-have-a-healthcare-system/

America doesn’t have a “healthcare system”

Patricia Anthone•1 day ago

The healthcare industry, like every other industry in the “free” world, is a network of private individuals and entities engaged in consensual interaction on the basis of aligned interest and profit motive.

Each of the countless people and entities involved have a personal stake in the successful fulfillment of their role – their livelihood depends on it. Those who fail are quickly replaced. (No act of Congress needed.)

Our healthcare industry is not a “Healthcare System.” Unlike a school district, a highway department, postal service and other government-controlled systems, an industry or economic sector cannot and should not be thought of in terms that imply central control.

Why? Central control omits or diminishes the individual motive for consensual participation; taking merit, profit out of the mix as drivers of innovation, competition and excellence.

When someone fails in the private sector, competition sees to it that the failed entity is swiftly replaced. When a government-monopoly fails, it takes years and several acts of Congress to attempt a repair. Rather than concurrent solution-options offered simultaneously by a variety of competing concerns, you have sequential solution attempts, each hindered by the inevitable constituency every force-of-law program attracts.

No industry can be treated as a singular, centrally planned system, without gross disruption to the incentives which assure constant regeneration, renewal and innovation.

Americans used to understand this instinctively. That’s why our Constitution confines the Federal Gov’ts jurisdiction to specific, enumerated areas – none of which authorize it to control industry.

A full ObamaCare repeal had been passed by the House under Obama.

Now that Trump is in office why can we not put that very piece of legislation back through the works and have Trump sign it?

Then (and only then) we can look at removing any obstacles to allowing the private network to regenerate insurers, incent providers and restore consumer price pressure to its role in containing price escalation. Healthcare “prices” have not been subject to regular price pressure in at least a generation.

3rd-party payment so insulates us from cost that we no longer have any informed sense of value in medical care. The price of a given service has become, “whatever your insurer will allow.” Yet we act like insurance is the whole problem, focusing over a decade of legislative “solutions” on what had been a contract between private parties for the management of financial risk.

Why did this happen? It happened because the monthly insurance-premium amount has greater visibility than does any other healthcare cost. And if that’s where our attention is focused, that is where the potential “political capital” lies. So we have an entire body of law now focused on redefining health insurance.

Let’s look at the strange way we’ve come to define “health insurance.”

We’ve come to demand a “pre-paid health plan” that “covers” every conceivable service whether elective or not and whether or not the condition precipitating the need for that service pre-existed the “insurance” contract. The (natural?) result of this unreasonable demand is a ghastly-high premium on a policy that calls everything “covered” but actually pays for precious little until we exceed $4K-6K in costs – an eventuality unlikely outside of a hospitalization.

In effect, the result is that we all have “major-medical-only” coverage now (assuming “‘covered” means, “paid-for”).

If we insured our homes the way we insure our bodily care, we’d need to file a claim to change a light bulb. We’d then self-fund the purchase of the lightbulb (at many times today’s going price) but then smugly remind ourselves that this cost “went against my deductible.”

The biggest factor driving up the cost of healthcare services is the complete absence of consumer price-pressure on providers of healthcare! If individuals are covering their routine-care costs via HSA Accounts, the services rendered will once again come under the constant scrutiny of millions of Americans. That alone will force transparent and competitive pricing.

Let’s get back to common sense. The combination of HSA for funding routine care and an actual insurance policy for managing catastrophic-expense risk will put consumers back in charge.

Absent the unreasonable force-of-law demand that insurance companies transform into administrators of prepaid healthcare plans, insurers will resume constructing and offering competitive insurance products.

We have no need for a Federal Healthcare law as long as we remain a free society capable of innovating many and varied alternatives – simultaneously – without an act of Congress.

Sent from my iPhone

https://www.americanactionforum.org/week-in-regulation/cra-gains-steam-senate/

CRA Gains Steam In Senate

Virtually nothing happened in the world of published regulations this week. The regulatory freeze is still largely in effect, as two lone airworthiness directives provided the only monetized figures. Total costs this week were just $39 million, with no paperwork figures. However, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) continued to work in force. The Senate disapproved four regulations this week, totaling $501 million in regulatory rescissions and 3.8 million fewer paperwork burden hours. The per capita regulatory burden for 2017 is $428.

Regulatory Toplines

• New Proposed Rules: 27
• New Final Rules: 39
• 2017 Total Pages of Regulation: 13,378
• 2017 Final Rules: $27.2 Billion
• 2017 Proposed Rules: $111.5 Billion

The American Action Forum (AAF) has catalogued regulations according to their codification in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR is organized into 50 titles, with each title corresponding to an industry or part of government. This snapshot will help to determine which sectors of the economy receive the highest number of regulatory actions.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published two airworthiness directives, one proposed rule (for Boeing 737, 757, and 767 airplanes) and one final measure (for CFM engines). The total costs are just $39 million.

Tracking Regulatory Modernization

The Senate was busy this week and passed four CRA resolutions of disapproval. They repealed the Contractor Blacklisting rule ($872 million in total costs), a Resource Management measure, a regulation on Teacher Preparation Issues ($278 million in costs), and a rule on State Plans ($73 million in costs) from the Every Student Succeeds Act. The teacher preparation rule received a fair amount of bipartisan support, as eight Democrats supported the repeal. Look to those eight Democrats for any chance of passing a more comprehensive regulatory reform package this Congress. With House passage, the combined deregulatory total from Senate actions this week tops $500 million in costs and 3.8 million fewer paperwork burden hours.

As of this writing, the House and Senate have both voted to overturn seven regulations, detailed here. President Trump has signed three measures, but the recent slate of four additional CRA resolutions from this week await formal approval. Once signed, Congress and the administration will have eliminated $3.7 billion in total regulatory costs and 4.2 million paperwork burden hours.

There are seven additional House CRA approvals on which the Senate has not voted. This week, the House and Senate both introduced a resolution of disapproval to overturn an FCC privacy rule. In addition, Senator Ted Cruz introduced a measure to overturn a Department of Energy rule for “Test Procedures for Compressors.” To date, there have been 32 resolutions of disapproval introduced, with three formally approved.

Affordable Care Act

Since passage, based on total lifetime costs of the regulations, the Affordable Care Act has imposed costs of $53 billion in final state and private-sector burdens and 176.9 million annual paperwork hours.

Dodd-Frank

Click here to view the total estimated revised costs from Dodd-Frank; since passage, the legislation has produced more than 74.8 million final paperwork burden hours and imposed $38.5 billion in direct compliance costs.

Total Burdens

Since January 1, the federal government has published $138.7 billion in compliance costs ($27.2 billion in final rules) and has cut 20.8 million paperwork burden hours (due to 24.1 million in reductions from final rules). Click below for the latest Reg Rodeo findings.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/14/u-s-education-dept-and-common-core-seek-to-guide-state-education-plans/

U.S. Education Dept. and Common Core Seek to ‘Guide’ State Education Plans

AP

by Dr. Susan Berry14 Mar 201724

#ESSA provides parents w/ transparent information about their children’s education & how they can help students & schools grow and improve.

— US Dept of Education (@usedgov) March 13, 2017

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) – which replaced No Child Left Behind – every state is required to submit its education plan for approval to the USED for the purpose of accountability for taxpayer funds.

While USED has released a “revised consolidated State plan template” that reflects Congress’s recent rollback of additional Obama-era education regulations, the department says two private groups that own the copyright of the Common Core standards may assist states with an “alternative template.”

Streamlining the #ESSA state plan template puts the individual needs of States, localities, schools and students first.

— US Dept of Education (@usedgov) March 13, 2017

In a “fact sheet” released by USED, under secretary Betsy DeVos, the department refers states to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) for assistance “to support the plan submission process.”

CCSSO and NGA are “acknowledged as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards, and no claims to the contrary shall be made,” the Core’s website states.

USED provides the new rules for state educational agencies (SEAs):

An SEA may submit a consolidated State plan using either the revised template provided by the Department on March 13, 2017 or an alternative template that addresses each requirement identified in the revised template and developed with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). If an SEA does not use the revised template provided by the Department, it must submit a table of contents or guide that indicates where the SEA addressed each requirement in its consolidated State plan. To help ensure timely submissions, the National Governors Association will be working closely with Governors, CCSSO and Chief State School Officers to support the plan submission process.

In her statement about the new guidance, DeVos said:

The updated state template will ensure states are able to better serve students with the freedom and flexibility they deserve, and which Congress requires. My philosophy is simple: I trust parents, I trust teachers, and I trust local school leaders to do what’s right for the children they serve. ESSA was passed with broad bipartisan support to move power away from Washington, D.C., and into the hands of those who are closest to serving our nation’s students.

States, along with local educators and parents, are on the frontlines of ensuring every child has access to a quality education. The plans each state develops under the streamlined ESSA template will promote innovation, flexibility and accountability to ensure every child has a chance to learn and succeed.

Though DeVos recently said ESSA “essentially does away with the notion of a Common Core,” and her statement contains “local control” language, her insistence that approval of state education plans is a “good and important role for the federal government” has drawn the concerns of many grassroots parent activists who have been battling against Common Core proponents in their states for years now.

We’re doing what’s best for children by implementing #ESSA as Congress intended, w/ the freedom & flexibility state & local leaders deserve.

— Betsy DeVos (@BetsyDeVosED) March 13, 2017

Ohio grassroots parent activist Heidi Huber tells Breitbart News it is time for President Donald Trump to meet with parents who have been waging this fight in their states.

“For those of us who have been in the trenches of this education department reform fight for years now, we have watched this same cast of cronies repackage this top down, workforce development-data mining scheme ten times over,” she explains. “And without fail, behind every so-called door of reform lies the same Bill Gates funding machine and non-government organization apparatchiks.”

Huber points out the CCSSO has received $116,463,908 million in grants from the Gates Foundation, the primary source of private support for implementation of the Common Core standards.

“The latest DeVos ESSA regulation reduction repackage proves to be just more of the same,” she continues:

How is it that the Federal government, which only contributes 10% or less of a state’s education budget, has full authority over a state’s standards and assessments? According to DeVos’s new rules, a state can choose to use an alternative template, but guess whose blessing a state must earn under that scenario? Ah yes, the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO), the same group that was a major player in coercing states into Common Core. Ohio was but one of the states which CCSSO executive director Chris Minnich testified in opposition to Common Core repeal legislation and planted lobbyists to defeat our grassroots efforts.

“President Trump needs to sit down with the anti-Common Core parents who have led the fight in their states across the country if he truly wants to understand the nature of this beast,” she urges. “And he’d be well served in the process. We are tireless, fearless, and dedicated to winning this war. We are fighting for our children. Defeat is not an option.”

American Principles Project education director Emmett McGroarty acknowledges the new guidance “eliminates the Obama Administration’s instruction as to whom a state must consult in the development of its education plan.”

“The Trump Administration rightly recognizes that such instructions are a severe intrusion into state sovereignty,” he tells Breitbart News. “In fact, it ought to issue a government-wide Executive Order recognizing this principle, and it should pursue legislation to make that rule permanent.”

McGroarty, however, also notes the contradiction built into the USED’s new guidance:

But the Administration inexplicably invites a private entity into the governance process. It advises that a state may use the template developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (one of the owners of the Common Core) to submit its education plan. Moreover, the CCSSO template incorporates the dictates of the Obama education regulations and thus appears to flout Congress’s finding that those regulations violated, or were inconsistent with, the law in 23 respects.

According to Politico, governors and groups who have grown accustomed to the long reach of the Obama administration are complaining about the Trump administration’s loosening of the requirement to reach out to certain groups – such as civil rights advocates, teachers, and the PTA – in order to complete state plans. However, the CCSSO and the NGA both appear to want to allay the fears of these groups.

“[S]tates will continue outreach they’ve been doing for about a year – and new guidelines won’t change that,” says the CCSSO.

The NGA also released a statement about the new guide:

Governors are concerned that the Department’s revised template fails to prioritize proper stakeholder engagement, even though it is a core requirement within the law. NGA has led national efforts to encourage significant input from classroom teachers, parents, superintendents, principals and school boards. We will not waver as a result of this development.

Across the country, governors like Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards will continue to provide a forum for stakeholders’ voices so states can sufficiently develop their plans and determine the future of the collective education system.

However, Ann Marie Banfield, education liaison with the New Hampshire-based Cornerstone policy and research group, encourages parents to step back to see who is doing the arguing.

“It’s interesting that the political elite in Washington D.C. are arguing over a federal law that governs our local schools,” she tells Breitbart News. “This shouldn’t be an argument at all. No one handed the federal government this kind of power. They took it and we have to sit here and watch them hammer out what we can do in our local schools.”

“It doesn’t matter if it’s happening under Obama or Trump, this law is an overreach,” Banfield says about ESSA. “Those who passed this law ignored the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that’s what I think we should all be talking about.”

Dr. Karen Effrem, president of the Florida-based Education Liberty Watch, notes the USED’s new state plan template still allows states to submit to the federal government children’s “social and emotional learning” (SEL) data for accountability purposes.

“Sadly, USED’s new state plan accountability template still allows and promotes the use of extremely subjective ‘school quality or student success indicators,’ such as ‘student engagement,’ ‘teacher engagement,’ ‘school climate,’ and ‘any other indicator the State chooses that meets the requirements of this clause,’” she observes, and continues:

This opens the door for even more invasive and expensive social emotional assessments and data collection that will follow children for life and have potentially huge impacts on their future. Florida is contemplating adding “persistence” as “any other indicator” when even one of the nation’s leading experts in these types of SEL indicators, Angela Duckworth, has admitted that these assessments are extremely imprecise and not valid and these indicators should not be used in accountability schemes. Given that the law requires these indicators to be “valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide,” it is inconsistent with itself and none of these should be used. Parents and activists should oppose use of these kinds of fuzzy indicators in their state plans or in state legislation.

“Ultimately, the Administration needs to take seriously President Trump’s campaign promise to return education to local control,” McGroarty urges. “It must push for legislation to get the federal government out of the business of, among other things, evaluating state education plans and dictating when and in what subjects children must take standardized tests, how teachers are to be evaluated, and what data is collected on children.”

Sent from my iPhone