by | Jun 2, 2024 | Aggregate
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Newt Gingrich & Jim Frogue
Real Clear Wire
President Joe Biden’s full-frontal assault on Medicare is becoming visible to America’s seniors. It will result in fewer patient choices, reduced benefits, and ultimately worse health outcomes. Biden’s efforts, assisted by Congressional Democrats, are destroying Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage.
Medicare Advantage was originally created as Medicare Part C in 1997 when I was Speaker of the House. It was introduced to create more comprehensive health plan options for seniors that included, for the first time, prescription drug coverage. The idea was to leverage consumer choice and market competition by insurers. Seniors can change plans annually for any reason.
More than 30 million seniors are in Medicare Advantage, which is more than half of all Medicare-eligible seniors. Enrollment has been on a “steady climb for the for past two decades,” according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. All MA enrollees have voluntarily chosen to join because it is better for their health.
A 2021 poll by Better Medicare Alliance showed seniors in MA have a 98 percent satisfaction rate. Ninety-five percent said it is important to have options beyond traditional Medicare. Ninety-three percent said a candidate’s position on MA would affect their vote. A bipartisan poll by the Healthcare Leadership Council in November, 2023 found more than 9-in-10 said they were pleased with their MA coverage.
Last week, CVS Aetna Chief Financial Officer Tom Cowhey told investors that the company may shed up to 10 percent of their four million MA enrollees next year. Humana CFO Susan Diamond suggested 5 percent of their enrollees may be dropped. This translates into as many as 1.5 million seniors losing their coverage of choice. And this figure is dwarfed by the millions of MA beneficiaries who will see reduced coverage around prescription drugs, vision, dental, transportation, gym memberships, and many other popular benefits that are only offered in Medicare Advantage.
A new report by the Kaiser Family Foundation noted that most states offer Medicare Advantage plans to their state retirees. Twelve states, including key swing states Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia, offer only Medicare Advantage plans. Senior voters in Philadelphia’s Main Line are unlikely to appreciate attacks on Medicare Advantage.
Biden’s war on Medicare doesn’t end with just Medicare Advantage. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act – passed in 2022 with exclusively Democratic votes and was signed into law by President Biden – is wrecking the popular Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage.
Medicare Part D was created by Congressional Republicans in 2003 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. For nearly two decades, Part D prescription drug-only plans were stable, affordable, competitive, and did something truly amazing for a health care program – stayed within original budget projections. To the surprise of even the bill’s authors, more than 1,000 plans signed up to participate within a year.
The Democrats promised that their Inflation Reduction Act would increase drug coverage for seniors and limit their out-of-pocket costs to $2,000 per year in 2025. It also allows seniors to pay their drug costs in installments. Sounds great. But seniors will be shocked on Oct. 1 when their Part D premiums skyrocket. Premiums were up 21percent last year and are likely to jump 50 percent this year. Awkward timing for Biden and fellow Democrats who are hoping to campaign on “lowering prescription drug costs.”
The Inflation Reduction Act is negatively impacting patient cost-sharing for prescription drugs in Medicare Part B as well. According to a new analysis in the trade publication Drug Channels, the inflation adjuster for most drugs is increasing instead of decreasing. Even instances where a drug price may be declining, it could still trigger big jumps in patient out-of-pocket costs.
IRA proponents boasted of their Medicare reforms saving $266 billion from 2023 to 2031. Even if that projection ends up holding true (and it doesn’t look likely), that amount is only a partial down payment on $670 billion for the IRA’s various green energy tax credits and new environmental spending.
How well is the Biden administration’s green energy spending going? The $7.5 billion in federal spending has resulted in only eight new charging stations for electric vehicles. And this at the same time consumer interest in electric cars is plummeting.
It is well known that the political left in America wants to move us toward government-run single payer health care. Imagine just one insurer and if you don’t like it you can’t leave. So, it is no surprise that Democrats would want to destroy the private sector’s involvement in Medicare, no matter how popular with seniors. But it is somewhat surprising that Democrats would be so politically obtuse to have smoking wreckage appear just before the presidential election. It remains to be seen if Republicans will capitalize.
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He is chairman of Gingrich 360. James Frogue was a senior health policy advisor to Trump for President in 2016. He is cofounder of FrogueClark .
This article was originally published by RealClearPolicy and made available via RealClearWire.
The post Biden’s War on Medicare appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Jun 2, 2024 | Aggregate
Image: @ParmisLJavan/X
Today’s Israel Day Parade in New York City was marred by hate-filled and hate-fueled pro-Hamas protestors, including one man who carried a sign reading “Kill Hostages Now.”
The protestor covered his face in a black mask and wore a Palestinian flag as a cape.
The man taunted marchers, which included family members of hostages kidnapped by Hamas terrorists.
Another protestor, also conveniently covering her face so as not to be recognized for her vile behavior, held up her phone with the message, “They’re not coming home,” spelled out.
“They” include the Bibas family and their two young sons. In February, the Israeli military shared a video of Hamas monsters kidnapping Yarden Bibas and his wife Shiri along with their two red-haired babies, Ariel and Kfir.
Kfir turned one in captivity in January.
The Bibas family, including their two babies, were kidnapped by Hamas terrorists.
Pure evil.
Imagine being so very evil as to hold a sign that reads “kill hostages now”
This is New York City pic.twitter.com/HlfrIEB4wd
— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) June 2, 2024
At what point will you all realize this isn’t a game?
These people want Jews dead.
@ParmisLJavan & @VividProwess pic.twitter.com/zrnwWpghbX
— Tamar Schwarzbard (@TSchwarzbard) June 2, 2024
While it is unclear exactly how many hostages remain in the hands of the barbaric monsters, Israeli officials believe 128 hostages taken in the October 7 attacks remain in Gaza and that at least 34 of them are dead.
The post Sick: Masked Protestors Hold ‘Kill Hostages Now’ and ‘They’re Not Coming Home’ Messages at Solemn NYC Israel Day Parade As Families of Captives March appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Jun 2, 2024 | Aggregate
From left: Special Counsel Jack Smith, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon and former President Donald Trump. (@axios / X screen shot)
Judge Aileen Cannon on Sunday responded to Jack Smith’s second request for a gag order against President Trump.
Cannon ordered Trump to respond to Jack Smith’s second motion seeking a gag order by June 14.
Jack Smith has to reply to Trump by June 21.
In another blow to Jack Smith, Judge Cannon won’t likely rule on his second gag order until late June.
Judge Cannon just posted an order related to Jack Smith’s 2nd request for a gag order on Donald Trump.
Smith wants Cannon to prohibit Trump from saying mean things about the FBI for its armed raid of MAL.
Cannon likely won’t rule until end of June. LOL pic.twitter.com/AW3TJj3GCU
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) June 2, 2024
Jack Smith on Friday filed a motion seeking another gag order on Trump related to his statements on law enforcement over the Biden DOJ’s deadly force policy during the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Armed FBI agents were prepared to confront Trump at Mar-a-Lago according to previously unsealed documents.
The FBI had a medic on the scene and identified a local trauma center for anyone “injured” during the FBI raid.
“Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person,” the document on the use of deadly force read.
Judge Cannon previously denied Jack Smith’s request to bar Trump from criticizing law enforcement after it was revealed Biden’s DOJ authorized the use of deadly force during the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Jack Smith late Friday night sought a gag order barring Trump from criticizing Biden’s rogue DOJ/FBI.
The names of the armed FBI agents involved in the Mar-a-Lago raid were redacted but Jack Smith tried to illegally gag Trump anyway.
“The Government moves to modify defendant Donald J. Trump’s conditions of release, to make clear that he may not make statements that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of this case.,” Jack Smith wrote in his first motion seeking a gag order.
Jack Smith’s second motion seeking a gag order cited Trump’s Truth Social post.
Trump exercised his First Amendment right on Saturday and doubled down on his assertion that Biden’s DOJ authorized the use of deadly force against him.
Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Trump is indefinitely postponed.
The post Judge Cannon Responds to Jack Smith’s Second Request For Gag Order Against Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Jun 2, 2024 | Aggregate
California Rep. Maxine Waters has suggested that Donald Trump risks pushing America toward civil war.
In an interview on MSNBC’s ‘The Saturday Show,’ Waters argued that Trump’s talk of “revenge” could push America over the edge.
“Congresswoman Waters, your name has been invoked several times,” asked host Jonathan Capehart. “We will give you the last word. What do you think?”
Waters responded:
Let me say when I tweeted about Trump talking about the Constitution, I basically said in my tweet that he had disregarded the Constitution he doesn’t have ant respect for the Constitution, I got over a million hits on that. I think the American people see through him and, they will be guarded in how they deal with the election.
Let me just say this, I am worried that he is so divisive and that he is talking about retribution and about revenge and I think that is dangerous. He has even mentioned civil war saying there will be bloodshed. I will spend some time with the criminal justice system, with the justice system asking them, tell us what’s going on with the domestic terrorists? Are they Preparing a civil war against us? Should we be concerned? What is he doing with this divisive language? It is dangerous.”
It is not just that he is a criminal, this is a man who disrespects the Constitution and democracy and we have to figure out what they are doing as domestic terrorists tried to take over the government January 6, how far is this going to go? Are they going to be attacking?
Last month, Waters aired a similar conspiracy in which she claimed Trump supporters were “training up in the hills somewhere.”
“I wanna know about all those right-wing organizations that he’s connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere and targeting what communities they’re going to attack,” Waters said at the time, without providing any evidence of these claims.
Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters floats a completely unhinged conspiracy theory that “right-wing organizations” are “training up in the hills somewhere” pic.twitter.com/EIDQgoeA9h
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 6, 2024
Yet back in 2018, Waters famously whipped up a crowd of leftists and urged them to harass members of Trump’s cabinet.
“If you see anybody from [Trump’s] Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!” she declared at the time.
The post Crazy Maxine Waters Suggests Trump is Pushing America Towards ‘Civil War’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Jun 2, 2024 | Aggregate
Photo: Getty Images
In a landmark decision, Kansas has reaffirmed its commitment to securing the integrity of its elections. The recent ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court upholds critical measures that safeguard the voting process, ensuring that each citizen’s vote counts and is protected from potential fraud and manipulation.
The case revolved around three contentious Kansas election laws designed to bolster the transparency and security of the voting process.
The first law prohibits the false representation of an election official, a common tactic used to mislead voters and disrupt the electoral process. The second requires a stringent verification of signatures on advance ballots, ensuring that votes cast correspond to registered voters. The third and perhaps most contentious, limits the number of advance ballots a single individual can deliver, combating potential ballot harvesting schemes that could manipulate election outcomes.
In 2021, several voting rights groups and private citizens initiated a lawsuit against these laws, claiming that the legislative changes violated multiple provisions of the state’s constitution.
The Daily Item reported:
The majority opinion reversed a 2023 appeals court decision that recognized any restrictions on the fundamental right to vote would be subject to the highest legal bar for evaluation, or strict scrutiny.
Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the majority, saying voting is instead a “political right” under the Kansas Constitution that has a lower bar for regulation than fundamental rights.
“But just because the right to vote is not protected in our Bill of Rights does not mean that constitutional voting guarantees are somehow weak or ineffective,” Stegall wrote. “Quite the contrary.”
Stegall wrote that for a voting law or regulation to be found unconstitutional, it must pass the “Butts test,” which means “the law must be shown to unreasonably burden the right to suffrage.” If voting were found to be a fundamental right, the burden would be on the government to show new voting laws or regulations are narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
Critics of these election integrity laws claim that such measures disenfranchise voters, particularly those in minority communities or those with limited access to voting facilities. They contend that these laws are overly restrictive and serve as barriers to a fundamental democratic right.
However, the Kansas Supreme Court, in a detailed opinion, dismissed these claims. The court highlighted that the measures in question do not impose new qualifications on voters but are simply safeguards to verify that those participating in the election are eligible and legitimate voters. The court emphasized that maintaining accurate and reliable voter rolls is a critical aspect of electoral governance, which these laws robustly support.
WIBW reported:
Justices Biles, Eric Rosen, and Melissa Taylor Standridge concurred in part and dissented in part.
“The court unanimously held that plaintiffs met their burden to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that the false representation statute is constitutionally infirm,” Biles’ statement read. “A majority of the court reversed and remanded this claim to the district court to consider the remaining temporary injunction factors.
“A majority of the court also held that the signature verification requirement is a valid effort by the Legislature to provide ‘proper proofs’ of the right to be a qualified elector.
“But the court remanded to the district court to consider whether the statute and its implementing regulations comply with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
“Lastly, a majority of the court affirmed the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss on the claim that the ballot collection restriction is constitutionally infirm, because the restriction is not a new qualification on the right to be an elector, and because the proscribed activity — ballot delivery — is not political speech or expressive conduct.”
Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, who is also a defendant, released a statement praising the recent judicial decision.
“The Justices got it right. This ruling allows us to preserve reasonable election security laws in Kansas. Signature verification has been the law for over a decade. This vital security measure is essential to our election system and the integrity of every vote,” Schwab said.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, another defendant, also issued a statement.
“The Kansas Supreme Court’s well-reasoned opinion confirmed that the legislature has the constitutional authority to establish proofs ensuring that voters are who they say they are. And that is exactly what Kansas’s signature verification requirement is. This important protection of election security remains in place. The Court was also correct in rejecting the argument that limiting the number of ballots a person can deliver somehow restricts free speech. Kansas’s law limiting the number of ballots a person delivers to ten is an important way of limiting ballot harvesting.”
You can read the opinion here.
The post Kansas Supreme Court Upholds State Election Laws Against Liberal Overreach appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
