California Sags Under Immense Weight of Socialist Healthcare

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 13, 2014

If you live in California, get ready for another round of crippling taxation. Parallel to the Obamacare mandate at gunpoint, the state will expand government coverage of Medi-Cal next year. Around one third of the state’s population, more than 11 million people, will be enrolled in the program. New estimates of participation exceeded expectations by 1.4 million people.

In California, small business forced to pass expense of health care on to customers.

Gov. Jerry Brown admits a diminishing base of taxpayers will come under the gun, although he doesn’t put it that way. He said the new government program represents “a huge social commitment on the part of the taxpayers of California.” Government mandated social commitments, of course, invariably arrive at gunpoint. If you disagree and refuse to pay and participate, you either end up in jail or fleeing the Golden State.

No doubt Brown’s latest scheme will drive even more producers out of California and into Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah. The experts chalk this mass migration up to “chronic economic adversity,” mostly unemployment.

Unemployment in California is high because business taxes are high. The tax-and-destroy policies of Brown and former Democrat Governor Pat Quinn have driven business and jobs out of the state. “Small companies with no clout and no leverage as well as taxpayers in general are the ones paying the price for the seriously misguided policies,” writes Mike Shelock.

So misguided, in fact, local restaurants now surcharge customers.

This article was posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 2:52 pm

Homeland Security Raids Flea Markets While Ignoring Terrorist Threats

Homeland Security Raids Flea Markets While Ignoring Terrorist Threats

The most recent raids occurred at two flea markets near Lawrence, Mass. earlier this week, which netted the arrest of 40 merchants accused of selling “bogus merchandise.”

“The Department of Homeland Security was the lead [in the raid] with Lawrence Police Department,” said Carrie Kimball-Monahan, spokesperson for the Essex Co. District Attorney.

And the police chief referred all questions concerning the raid to DHS, which previously targeted flea markets in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Texas.

But considering the recent exposé of DHS’s “hands off” list of terror suspects who are allowed unrestricted entry into the U.S., it’s getting pretty obvious that Homeland Security is more concerned with targeting ordinary Americans despite the fact that the agency was ostensibly created to stop terrorism.

“Perhaps the most egregious example emerged in 2012 when a leaked study produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, and funded by the DHS to the tune of $12 million, largely ignored Islamic terrorism while concentrating on the threat posed by Americans who are ‘reverent of individual liberty,’” Paul Joseph Watson wrote on the subject.

And let’s not forget how Homeland Security bought up shooting targets of American gun owners, such as pregnant women and elderly men, in addition to billions of rounds of ammunition including 25 million shotgun shells and over 141,000 rounds of .308 Winchester sniper ammo.

DHS has also used the color of law to regulate live music at restaurants.

But all of this is a stark contrast to DHS’s recent treatment of terror suspects, such as our revelation last January that Homeland Security had no problem granting members of the Muslim Brotherhood special treatment to bypass airport security at the behest of the State Department and the aforementioned “hands off” list.

Documents pertaining to the list, which were released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.), reveal that an Islamic leader with reported ties to several terrorist groups was removed from a watch list and given a visa despite officials suggesting that he endorsed and incited terrorist attacks.

Simply put, if you’re a member of a protected terrorist group, you’re likely to get better treatment from DHS than ordinary Americans, especially flea market vendors.

This article was posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 3:13 pm

New Hampshire Senate Kills In-State Tuition Bill for Illegal Aliens

New Hampshire Senate Kills In-State Tuition Bill for Illegal Aliens

by Brian Hayes | Top Right News

The New Hampshire Senate spiked a bill making students who entered the country illegally eligible for in-state tuition rates at University System of New Hampshire schools

The Senate’s action rejected the N.H. House that had passed the same bill earlier this year.

The move surprised some observers and showed how little influence pro-amnesty U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has over the upper house in her state. Ayotte had supported the bill.

The Senate sent House Bill 474 to “interim study” with a 24-0 vote Wednesday — a common move which in the second year of a two-year session, effectively kills the bill as the next legislature does not have to do anything with the bill.

Fifteen other states have passed similar statutes to bypass the federal law forbidding states from giving illegal immigrants state benefits.

Opponents argued the bill is unfair to out-of-state citizens and immigrants who wait years to enter the country legally.

Under the bill, the students would have had to meet all current requirements for in-state tuition and admission standards. They would have had to have lived in the state at least three years and have graduated from a state high school or a program to obtain a high school equivalency certificate.

The bill required the students to apply for legal residency or sign an affidavit that they will apply for legal residency as soon as they are eligible. Under a 2012 law, all students seeking in-state tuition must sign an affidavit that they are legal residents of the United States. A copy of the application for legal residency or the affidavit must be filed with the university system.

The House passed the bill on a 188-155 vote earlier this year, but that bill is now dead and buried.

Two hospital workers showing signs of deadly MERS virus in Florida

Two hospital workers showing signs of deadly MERS virus in Florida

More cases of the deadly Middle East Respiratory Virus, or MERS, may be surfacing in the state of Florida, with two health workers now reportedly showing symptoms as of early Tuesday.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that two staffers at an Orlando, Florida hospital who were exposed to a MERS patient earlier this week have started showing symptoms, and that one of the two workers has been hospitalized as a result.

According to Reuters, officials at the Dr. P. Phillips Hospital now say that the workers were exposed to the disease when they were recently in the proximity of a patient who had contracted MERS but had not yet been diagnosed. As RT reported earlier this week, that patient was hospitalized in isolation in the Sunshine State after flying from Saudi Arabia to London, then to Boston, Atlanta and Orlando.

One of the two workers at that Orlando facility has been admitted, Reuters reported, and the second is being isolated at home while observers monitor the development of any possible further symptoms.

On Monday this week, RT reported that the Florida patient eventually diagnosed with MERS was only the second person in the United States to show signs of the disease after a person in Indiana contracted the virus earlier this month. The hospital worker now being treated for MERS would be the third person in the US in under a month to become infected, and a fourth may soon be added to that list as well pending the outcome of the other staffer that’s now in isolation.

Last month, the World health Organization warned that that cases of MERS could increase with warm weather, and that upwards of 75 percent of reported MERS cases are secondary — or acquired from another sick person.

Late Monday, the director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told reporters during a conference call that the risk of MERS to the general public is believed to be extremely low, according to the Washington Post. Nevertheless, the CDC said they are working to contact more than 500 people who were on the same domestic flights as the man who was admitted to Phillips Hospital after entering the US from the Middle East.

The first patient in the US to contact MERS—the Indiana patient—was released from the hospital last week after he began testing positive and his symptoms disappeared. He had been living and working in Saudi Arabia as well, RT reported on Monday.

According to the CDC, MERS is fatal in around 30 percent of known cases.

Dems mistake 8 million sign-ups as happiness with Obamacare

Dems mistake 8 million sign-ups as happiness with Obamacare

There’s been a dramatic turnaround in some Democrats’ thinking about Obamacare and the 2014 elections. Where lawmakers once sought to avoid blame for their national health care overhaul, they are now confident, energized and ready to rub the supposed success of Obamacare in their Republican opponents’ faces.

At least that’s how the party’s most visible leaders would have it. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats are urging candidates to run proudly on Obamacare. And in the cheerleading section of the press, Obamacare is not just a benefit for Democrats but a disaster for the GOP.

“The early plan for Republicans to run on the failure of Obamacare has collapsed underneath them,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes said last week. “Now…they are slowly, gently, kind of sadly backing away from something that is working for millions of people.”

Maybe that’s just partisan bravado talking. But whatever the motive, such statements are simply not in line with the politics of Obamacare today. The fact is, Obamacare not only remains unpopular but also that its unpopularity may be changing — and not in a way that will benefit Democrats at the polls.

In the more than seven months since Obamacare’s exchanges started up last year, public opinion has increasingly been shaped by voters’ own experiences with the new law and less by their opinions about an abstract political policy debate. Millions of Americans have now had an opportunity to experience Obamacare, and if the polls are correct, more of them have had negative experiences than positive.

In a series of polls on Obamacare, the Kaiser Family Foundation has asked two simple questions that are particularly revealing about the new law’s reach: “So far, would you say you and your family have personally benefited from the health reform law, or not?” and “So far would you say you and your family have been negatively affected by the health reform law, or not?”

The percentage of respondents who say they have benefited from Obamacare has inched up, from 14 percent last October, when the exchanges went online, to 18 percent in April. But the percentage of those who say they or their family have been negatively affected has also increased, from 23 percent last October to 30 percent in April.

Of those who say they have benefited from Obamacare, half — that is, half of the 18 percent — say the primary benefit has been to make health care more accessible. About a quarter — again, a quarter of that 18 percent — say the Affordable Care Act has made health care more affordable.

Of the 30 percent who say they have been negatively affected, a big majority says Obamacare has increased their health care costs and narrowed their health care choices.

A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 55 percent of those surveyed disapprove of Obamacare — matching the highest disapproval rating in Obamacare’s troubled history. “The recent surge in signups for the new health care exchanges has had little impact on public opinion about the Affordable Care Act,” Pew concluded.

The results suggest that Democrats, in their euphoria over the “8 million” sign-ups to Obamacare, made a mistake in concluding that signups equal approval. In truth, a significant number of those signing up for health coverage on the exchanges might be unhappy about losing coverage elsewhere, or unhappy about the (unsubsidized) price they are paying, or dissatisfied with the choices available under their new coverage.

“Can’t assume the millions who’ve signed up for Obamacare are happy with it,” the blogger Mickey Kaus tweeted recently. “Millions have signed up for Time-Warner Cable.” With no offense to cable companies, Kaus had a point: Just because people have purchased something — in the case of Obamacare, under penalty of law — doesn’t mean they like it.

In response, Obamacare’s defenders always fall back to the position that polls show a majority of Americans do not favor repeal of the law. That is true, but not much comfort. A majority would almost certainly support gutting Obamacare — favoring, for example, doing away with the spectacularly unpopular individual mandate. The law’s future, at least as currently structured, is not by any means secure.

There has always been a debate among Republicans, in public and behind the scenes, over how much to emphasize Obamacare in this fall’s campaigning. There’s no doubt the economy is still more important to voters. But Obamacare will likely remain a key issue this November — and an unhappy one for Democrats.