Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

    CALIFORNIA GIVES LA SCHOOLS NEARLY $1 MILLION TO PUSH OBAMACARE

    CALIFORNIA GIVES LA SCHOOLS NEARLY $1 MILLION TO PUSH OBAMACARE



    by WILLIAM BIGELOW 29 Jun 2013

    According to the Heartland Institute, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) will receive almost one million dollars to promote ObamaCare. The program is designed to educate teens to target their families.

    The state's health insurance exchange, Covered California, said that within the $37 million in grants they are using to promote ObamaCare is $990,000 for the LAUSD. The LAUSD describes its program as “Teens trained to be messengers to family members.”

    Covered California spokeswoman Sarah Soto-Taylor said. “We have confidence that the model LA Unified brought to the table will be successful in reaching our target population, which includes family members of students.”

    Gayle Pollard-Terry, a LAUSD spokesman, stated:

    Teens are part of a "pilot" program to test whether young people can be trained as messengers to deliver outreach and limited education to family and friends in and around their homes. Teens will be educating adults that they already know (e.g., family or friends) and not other adults.
    Larry Hicks, another spokesman for the LAUSD, defended the program, saying:

    At a minimum, grantees will be required to submit to Covered California monthly, quarterly, and annual reports on their activities and progress towards agreed upon outcomes. If project benchmarks are not met, grantees may be required to submit additional ad hoc reports upon Covered California’s request. Grantees will also be required to report any proposed adjustments to their approved outreach and education plan using the information management system… Additionally, field monitors will be assigned to grantees to verify their progress.
    He was echoed by Pollard-Terry, who asserted, “This grant is ‘paid in the rear,’ so the funding will come based on performance. The district front-funds positions and we have the ability to start using existing staff for the most part.”

    If the funding depends on performance, look out; one-third of LAUSD students never graduate high school

    .http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Push-ObamaCare




  2. #2
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    NFL… we’ll pass on pimping Obamacare, thanks

    JUNE 30, 2013
    BY JAZZ SHAW

    Kathleen Sebelius isn’t having a stellar week in terms of getting groups on board to promote Obamacare. Yes, she had something of a win with librarians earlier, but her more recent efforts seem to be falling on deaf ears.

    One place where she’s pushing to find public opinion movers is in major league sports, looking for these highly visible organizations to begin “promoting the health law’s opportunities” as she did with the librarians.

    The most highly rated of these groups – the National Football League – has apparently read the writing on the wall and decided to take a pass.

    The National Football League is used to big, bruising battles. But on Friday, it announced that it was likely staying out of one of the roughest fights in Washington: the war over Obamacare.
    Earlier this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius disclosed that the Obama administration was in talks with the sports organization to help promote the law, which enters a new phase as advocates prepare to begin enrolling millions of Americans in health insurance this fall.
    … NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league had not made any commitment to the administration.

    “We have responded to the letters we received from members of Congress to inform them we currently have no plans to engage in this area and have had no substantive contact with the administration about [the health-care law’s] implementation,” he said in an e-mail.
    The “letter” in question refers to a note sent out by the Senate GOP on the subject of HHS asking the sports leagues to pitch in and help.

    “It is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion,” Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.) wrote in a letter to six major sports organizations, including the NFL and Major League Baseball.
    In the end, the question put forth in that letter is the real issue here, far more so than the national debate over Obamacare. Why on Earth would the NFL be interested in dipping a toe in this mess – either for or against – in the first place? What good would it do them, or anyone else? The league gets involved in a lot of different charitable efforts, the majority of which I agree with and find to be a totally valid use of the NFL’s time, money and popular appeal. These range from charities seeking to cure various diseases and support the families of those battling them to youth activities promoting sports, exercise and health. And it’s nice to see them giving something back to the community.

    But regardless how you feel about the law itself, this remains a largely political question. It involves issues of the power of the federal government versus the states and the individual far more than how many people have what kind of health insurance. The NFL is one of the few iconic, giant institutions in the nation which serve all of us, (unless you’re a Jets fan, of course) and turning it into a political stalking horse just pulls blocks out of its foundation. This was a good move on the part of the NFL, and I would say that even if they were refusing to support a political position I believed in strongly. We can get all the information we need from the usual sources, and I don’t need the NFL promoting responsible gun ownership, no matter how much I would accept their premise. I’d rather they get back to explaining what the heck is going on with Tebow.

    But don’t worry, Ms. Sebelius. You can still use federal money to train students to indoctrinate their parents on it.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/3...macare-thanks/

  3. #3
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Can the NFL Help Sell 'Obamacare'?

    National Journal-4 hours ago
    Massachusetts drafted the Red Sox to persuade “bros”—young and healthy men—to buy insurance. Now the Obama administration wants the ...
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Alabama, 13 other states leave millions uninsured with 'Obamacare' denial, study finds

    By Mike Oliver | moliver@al.com The Birmingham News
    Email the author | Follow on Twitter
    on June 03, 2013 at 6:39 PM, updated June 03, 2013 at 8:56 PM




    The 14 states, including Alabama, so far choosing not to expand Medicaid under federal health care reform will leave a total of $8.4 billion on the table and 3.6 million fewer people insured, according to a study released today.
    The study by RAND Corporation, exploring the implications of opting out of the federal expansion, also found that collectively the states would spend $1 billion more on uncompensated care in 2016 than they would by accepting the federal expansion.
    "We conclude that in terms of coverage, cost, and federal payments, states would do best to expand Medicaid," according to the study published in the journal Health Affairs.
    Carter Price, the study's lead author and a mathematician at RAND, said in a release that "states will still be subject to the taxes, fees and other revenue provisions of the Affordable Care Act, without reaping the benefits of the additional federal spending which will cost these states economically."
    States opting out will also pay the cost in the health of its citizens, the report stated. The authors, using previous study data, estimated that full Medicaid expansion would reduce deaths nationally by about 90,000 lives compared to 71,000 if the 14 states opt out.

    Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley has said he would not expand a "broken" Medicaid system. He signed into law last month a Medicaid reform bill, which turns toward a managed care model.
    States were given the right to opt out of the Medicaid expansion portion of the Affordable Care Act with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2012.
    In addition to Alabama, the other states publicly stating they will not participate are: Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
    Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid eligibility would be raised to nearly everyone with an annual income of less than 138 percent of poverty.
    "If 14 states opt out of expanding Medicaid, there are likely to be 27.9 million uninsured people - 3.6 million more than if the Affordable Care Act were fully implemented," the study stated.
    And the 14 states would see their federal transfer payments decrease by $8.4 billion, according to RAND. The states would see an increase in spending in the short term because they would spend more on uncompensated care, the study stated.
    Under the ACA expansion, the federal government will cover 100 percent of health care expenditures from 2014 through 2016. During these first years, Alabama would be responsible for a share of the administrative costs of the expansion. The federal matching rate declines after 2016, falling gradually to 90 percent in 2020. As a result, the annual costs to Alabama increase from $39 million in 2014 to $222 million in 2020, for a total over the years of $771 million.
    The RAND study did not break out data for individual states.

    A University of Alabama at Birmingham study last year said that the expansion in Alabama will provide Medicaid coverage to an additional 300,000 people and generate $20 billion in economic activity which will add $1.7 billion in tax revenue to Alabama coffers from 2014 to 2020.

    http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/06/alabama_13_other_states_leave.html
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •