HEALTH CARE BILL CUTS MANAGES MEDICAID SPENDING BUT DOESN'T KILL IT

HEALTH CARE BILL REDUCES MEDICAID SPENDING BUT DOESN'T KILL IT:

QUALITY CARE NOT WASTE AND ABUSE.

PROVIDES MORE HEALTHCARE JOBS & TRAINING.

GOP LEADERS MUST WORK TOGETHER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM.


Sources: Fox Business, Washington Times, Youtube


**** GOP Senator on Health Care Bill: Medicaid Spending Will Increase


Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), one of the senators who worked behind closed doors on the GOP health care bill, said that Medicaid spending will increase under the new bill.

"It will increase every year at the rate of inflation," Thune stated. He added that the bill aims to build upon the success of innovation already happening with respect to Medicaid.

Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), one of the senators who worked behind closed doors on the GOP health care bill, said that Medicaid spending will increase under the new bill.

"It will increase every year at the rate of inflation," Thune stated. He added that the bill aims to build upon the success of innovation already happening with respect to Medicaid.

House Speaker Paul Ryan also downplayed concerns, saying the bill must be written before it is presented.

"This shifts power, distributes power back to the states," Thune said.

The GOP bill will allow for more choices and competition, the South Dakota congressman promised.

"Too often these programs are driven out of Washington, D.C. in a one size fits all approach," Thune concluded.

Later on in the show, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) pushed back on Thune's claims, saying the Medicaid cuts are deeper than in the House version.

He said the bill "shifts the burden" for covering Medicaid to states, rather than providing more money for the program.

Pat McCrory Delivers 2015 State Address, No Medicaid Expansion; Focuses On Gangs

‪#‎PatMcrory‬

Gov PAT MCRORY'S 2015 State-of-the-State Address:

His Focus - NO MEDICAID EXPANSION and GANGS.

The word "GANGS" in North Carolina translates to BLACK Men.

Gov McCrory wants to increase the Pay for North Carolina Teachers to $35,000 annually.
(That's still too LOW!)

As is the case with most Politicians, Gov McCrory and some of his Key people are
very, very VINDICTIVE.

Yes McCrory is running for re-election in 2016.

However after listening to his 2015 State Address wednesday night, it's clear Gov McCrory thinks he NO longer needs the BLACK Vote.

On a more positive note, I was very impressed with NC Legislator LARRY HALL'S Democrat Response to Gov McCrory's 2015 state-of-the-state address.

Rep Larry Hall was Precise, Confident, Articulate and Persuasive.

Great Job!
(Rep Hall has served in the U.S. Marine Corps)

Sources: UNC-TV; WRAL; Youtube

OBAMACARE Health Care Insurance Plans Go Into Effect Today (How Will OBAMACARE Fare In 2014?)

"Eight Wonks Share Their 2014 Obamacare Predictions"


Everybody is talking about how Obamacare will look on January 1, 2014.

But how will things look on January 1, 2015?

We put that question to eight smart people who follow health policy.

They represent different political perspectives and come by their expertise in different ways.

There's an economist, three trained physicians, plus a longtime consumer advocate and organizer. Two of them worked for Republican presidents, one served a Democrat.

One frequently criticizes Obamacare from the right, another from the left.

But their predictions have more in common than you might suspect:

1) ****HAROLD POLLACK:

In 2014, the most interesting political and policy stories will shift from Washington to the fifty states. States face a mammoth implementation challenge. They also provide the terrain in which we will see whether bipartisan health policy is actually possible. In some parts of the country, we’ll see some fascinating negotiations as Republican governors and the Obama administration each seek a dignified path to make this thing work.

I hope that we see something else, too: An end to the politics of impunity toward the poor and the uninsured.

It’s sobering to think that the same inequalities that make universal coverage a moral imperative pose the chief political obstacles to universal coverage itself. Those with the most to gain from the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion are economically marginal, disorganized, alienated from the levers of politics, distrusted or disliked by many other Americans. This reality produces a striking sense of impunity among governors and legislators who deny Medicaid coverage to five million people, even as the federal government stands ready to foot virtually the entire bill.

As Medicaid expansion becomes real, Republican politicians who embrace it will begin to profit. Hospitals, cities and counties, and other interest groups in non-expansion states will ask hard questions about why their states chose a different path. Poor people themselves, in campaigns such as texasleftmeout.org, will increase the pressure, too.

It’s important that these recalcitrant officials pay some price—not just to smooth the way for expanded coverage, but to debunk a particularly toxic assumption in American life. Too many politicians assume that poor people just don’t matter, politically. On many issues from the sequester to unemployment insurance, the practical consequences of this assumption are only too obvious.

This assumption is being put to the test. In 2014, I’m betting that some governors will be surprised.


2) ***GAIL WILENSKY:

As expected, 2014 was a tumultuous year for the Affordable Care Act. It started in January with many people who thought they had enrolled not actually being insured--either because the information hadn't been accurately transmitted back to their insurance companies or because they hadn't paid their premiums by January 10. After a lot of pressure from the Administration to cover people retroactively if necessary, people newly insured began receiving services.

Access to health services was less problematic than many had feared because of the smaller-than-predicted numbers enrolling in private insurance. Only 4.5 million got coverage, even after the March surge in sign-ups. And there were the many "red" states that hadn't expanded their Medicaid coverage. Some states reported challenges getting primary care services provided to the newly insured--California having the most significant problems.

Some of the smaller regional insurance companies participating in 2014 decided not to participate again in 2015. Some larger companies that had only selectively participated in 2014 increased their participation only modestly for 2015, still concerned about the significant adverse selection that had occurred in 2014 and their difficulty to price properly.

The biggest uproar occurred when many smaller/mid-sized employers received notices that their existing policies didn't meet ACA standards and weren't being renewed. As expected, the Administration provided a variety of accommodations to these employers.

The best news is that the majority of states that had not previously expanded Medicaid announced intentions to do so for 2015. The bad news is that the newly elected Congress is even less likely to pass any legislative "fixes" than the previous Congress.

(Gail Wilensky has served as director of Medicare and Medicaid and she has chaired the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. She is now an economist and senior fellow at Project HOPE.)


3) ***ANTHONY WRIGHT:

By the end of 2014, more than 2 million Californians will be enrolled in new coverage options under the Affordable Care Act. A million will have coverage through our exchange, Covered California, following its second open enrollment period. More will be getting coverage through our Medicaid program. Already 700,000 newly covered people have insurance through an early expansion of Medicaid; by February it will be more than 1 million.

Washington-based media will continue to hyperventilate about Obamacare, mistakenly using every website glitch or early enrollment figure as a binary barometer of the law’s success or failure. But even in a state like California—where the website (mostly) works, premiums came in below expectations, and enrollments are on target—officials aren't putting up a “Mission Accomplished” banner yet. Just as rollout problems were never indications of the ACA’s demise, progress to date is not proof the job is finished.

As elections are about the future, not the past, I predict Obamacare itself won't be a major factor in future contests. The debate will be “What’s Next?”

In states that have been more hostile to the law, at least some officials will change their minds about the Medicaid expansion, allowing it go forward.

In states like California that have embraced the law, officials and supporters of reform will focus on improving the law. Among the questions they will address:

1. How can we ensure a safety-net that survives and thrives—to provide primary and preventative care to the remaining uninsured, including undocumented immigrants that were excluded from the ACA?

2. How can we further regulate the insurance market—beyond basic steps like banning pre-existing condition exclusions—so that insurers compete not on avoiding sick people, but on cost, quality, customer service and prevention? How else can we make the health industry more accountable for improved quality and reduced cost of care? California is likely to debate (through bills, the budget, and the ballot box) more oversight of networks, transparency of health spending, rate regulation, investments in prevention and public health, and more.

While we will concentrate on the unfinished work of implementing the law in 2014, the work to fulfill the full promise of the law will be just beginning.

(Anthony Wright is director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy organization.)


4) ***SEAN PARNELL:

Although it’s unlikely that 2014 will be as bad for the ACA as the initial rollout was, the law still faces significant challenges in the New Year.

The biggest hurdle will be enrollment, particularly among the young and healthy. Deductibles are high, premium subsidies generally aren’t available except to the poorest, the tax for being uninsured is low, and the young have always been overrepresented among the uninsured. This will continue to be the case in 2014 and beyond.

Late in 2014, insurers will announce premiums for 2015. They will be higher, inflicting a political price on Democrats. Expect more creative interpretations and regulatory flexibility out of the Obama administration in order to smooth over more unintended consequences of the ACA.

There will be more Americans who pay directly for more of their health care. The ACA is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to leave 30 million people uninsured, and tens of millions more will get high-deductible plans through exchanges or their employers. These self-pay patients will demand price transparency and discounts for paying in full at the time of treatment, and innovative entrepreneurs will step up to cater to them while ignoring the traditional third-party payment system.

At the end of 2014, I expect to see many advocates of the ACA look back and conclude that while it’s too early to call the law a failure, the meager results fall far short of what was hoped for.

(Sean Parnell is author of The Self-Pay Patient and a writer at www.theselfpaypatient.com)


5) ***DAVID BLUMENTAL:

The most recent CBO projections for ACA coverage, from May 2013, suggested there would be 7 million new privately insured Americans and 9 million new enrollees in Medicaid/CHIP by the end of 2014.

Through December 30, 1.9 million Americans had enrolled in private coverage through the federal and state marketplaces. As of December 20, 627,000 had enrolled in Medicaid/Chip. Let’s assume that by January 1 the numbers stand at about 2.0 million for private insurance (30 percent of the CBO 2014 target) and 1 million for Medicaid (11 percent).

The real deadline, however, for the first ACA open enrollment period is March 31, 2014, when penalties kick in. It would be reasonable to expect enrollment during February-March, 2014 to equal the 2013 numbers, bringing the total for private enrollees to about 4.0 million or 60 percent of CBO projections

Medicaid/CHIP numbers are harder to predict because enrollment can proceed continuously over the year. Assuming 1.5 million Americans enroll in Medicaid/CHIP during 2014, participation in public plans would come to 2.5 million or about 28 percent of projected.

Including the 3 million young people under 26 who have gained coverage under their parents’ plans in 2013, these projections would mean that a minimum of 10 million Americans would have become newly insured under provisions of the Affordable Care Act by the end of 2014.

As for costs, the ACA is given some credit (deserved or not) for keeping growth in overall health care costs below historical rates. However, times of rising personal wealth have always been times of rising health care spending. If the economy experiences strong GDP growth in 2014, growth in health spending is also likely to increase beyond the 2012 level of 0.8 percent per capita. A reasonable prediction: both GDP and health care will grow in the 2-3 percent range.

As a percent of GDP, health care expenses would remain unchanged at the 18 percent level.

This would have been viewed as a big accomplishment only a few years ago, but that was then.

(David Blumenthal, who has been a professor of medicine at Harvard and the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, is now president of the Commonwealth Fund.)


6) ***TEVI TROY:

One year from now, the Affordable Care Act will be hobbled but still there. The hangover from the botched rollout will continue to haunt the program, but the website will be in better shape, and an increasing number of people will be getting subsidized insurance via the exchanges. At the same time, sticker shock will continue, especially among those without access to subsidized rates, and take-up rates will continually be lower than the administration predicted.

This will lead to a situation where Democrats are touting the number of covered individuals and calling the ACA a success, while Republicans will highlight the increased costs, lower than expected numbers of covered individuals, and the roll out problems to determine that the plan is a failure. The answer to the question of whether the law is a success or a failure will come from the employer-based market. If employer-based plans continue without significant disruptions, the ACA will weather the storm; but if individuals in the employer-based market lose their insurance or see major changes in their plans, the ACA’s political troubles will worsen.

In addition, one year from now, Republicans will be pleased with their election gains in the House and Senate, but will also realize that, even with their political victory, they cannot repeal the ACA while a lame duck President Obama remains in office.

This will set up the 2016 election as yet another do-or-die test for the ACA.

(Tevi Troy is a former Deputy Secretary of HHS and the author of What Jefferson Read, Ike Watched, and Obama Tweeted: 200 Years of Popular Culture in the White House.)


7) ***JOHN Z. AYANIAN:

The most notable change will be 12 million newly insured Americans. In May, 2013 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected 9 million low-income adults would gain coverage in states opting to expand Medicaid during 2014, and another 7 million Americans would obtain private insurance through new federal and state health insurance exchanges. However, because of incomplete ACA awareness among eligible adults and early technical problems with the exchanges, I expect overall enrollment gains in 2014 will be 12 million instead of 16 million Americans.

A second major change over the next year will be much better functioning insurance exchanges. Major problems faced by HealthCare.gov and many new state exchanges will be essentially resolved through effective technical solutions.

The ACA’s future hinges on the U.S. Senate elections in 2014. If Democrats retain control of the Senate, ACA implementation will continue largely as planned. In contrast, if Republicans control both the Senate and House in 2015, Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress will agree to change several features of the ACA. Essential benefit requirements for insurers will be loosened, financial penalties for uninsured individuals will be lightened, insurance subsidies will be reduced or eliminated for some currently eligible households (those at 300-400% of the federal poverty level), and the medical device tax will be eliminated. Because President Obama will veto a full ACA repeal, its two core components—Medicaid expansion in 25 or more states and subsidized private coverage for most currently eligible households—will be preserved until the 2016 Presidential election.

(John Z. Ayanian is a professor of internal medicine and director of the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at the University of Michigan.)


8) ***DON MCANNE:

There is no doubt that, in 2014, we will see enough individuals enrolled in Medicaid, in the exchange plans, and some new enrollment in employer-sponsored plans (to avoid the penalty, though small this year), that the Affordable Care Act will be considered a success. But success is not measured by enrollment in insurance plans but rather by the ability to obtain access to affordable health care.

Not only will tens of millions remain uninsured, those insured that need health care will face financial barriers of high deductibles and other cost sharing, and many will face lack of choice due to narrow provider networks. Unavoidable care provided out of network could result in catastrophic expenses. We will continue to hear stories of people facing excess costs and network problems that will prevent them from accessing care of their choosing.

Already, from both the left and the right, there is much discussion of single payer (improved Medicare for all) as an inevitability once it is realized how poorly functioning will be our fragmented, dysfunctional system of financing health care. We will not see the threshold for action in changing to single payer reached this year, but within a few years, demand for change will occur.

The feeble recommendations from the right would only make things worse, partly by diminishing what little protection we do have, so there isn’t much left other than single payer. Once enough people understand that all of us can have free choice of care that is affordable through equitable public funding, they will demand single payer.

(Don McCanne is a senior health policy fellow with Physicians for a National Health Plan.)

Sources: The New Republic; TIME Magazine

Freddie Lempe Slated To Die Due To North Carolina's Slack, Stingy Medicaid System (NC DSS & Health Care Reform Needed)

Medicaid approved for Smithfield teen in a coma

A Smithfield father fighting a Raleigh hospital to keep legal guardianship of his son has been able to secure Medicaid benefits to cover the teen's treatment for a traumatic brain injury.

Freddie Lempe, 18, has been in a coma at WakeMed since a car wreck in March 2011.

His father, Fred Lempe, says Medicaid coverage for his son was dropped in December when he turned 18.

The hospital has said that the teen was denied coverage because his father failed to file the paperwork.

It wants the court to appoint a guardian for Freddie who would be legally authorized to make all medical decisions.

Fred Lempe has said he's gotten conflicting information from the Johnston County Department of Social Services about what was required.

Calls and emails to WakeMed were not immediately returned Friday afternoon, and it's unclear whether the hospital will pursue its request in the court system.

A hearing is scheduled for July 25.


View Larger Map


Sources: WRAL, Google Maps

Scott Walker & Rick Scott Ignore SCOTUS Health Care Ruling: GOP Governor Revolt! (Videos)

GOP Governors Resist Implementing Obama's Health Care Law Despite Supreme Court Ruling

Just because the Supreme Court affirmed that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, doesn't mean that Republican governors are rushing to follow it.

"We're not going to start implementing Obamacare. We're committed to working to elect Governor Romney to repeal Obamacare," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) Friday morning on a call with reporters hosted by the Republican National Committee.

The Affordable Care Act requires states to set up health care benefits exchanges to help Americans buy insurance. If a state fails to act, the federal government will operate that state's exchange program.

States have until Jan. 1, 2013, to demonstrate to the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a plan in place for the exchanges, which are required to be up and running by Jan. 1, 2014.

"On the exchanges, we've continued not to implement the exchanges in Louisiana. We're going to work very hard to get Governor Romney elected so this law will be repealed long before the effective dates," Jindal added.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) did not go as far as Jindal on the call, although he made clear that his state is not jumping to comply just yet.

"We don't even know exactly what that federal exchange would look like," he said. "So there's still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is. And over the next days and weeks we're going to be evaluating the case as well as the options for Virginia."

On Thursday, another leading Republican governor -- Wisconsin's Scott Walker -- similarly said, "Wisconsin will not take any action to implement Obamacare. I am hopeful that political changes in Washington, D.C., later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level."

While Obama's health care mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court, there was a bit of good news for anti-Obama Republican governors in the ruling. Part of the Affordable Care Act sought to dramatically expand Medicaid to cover more uninsured Americans. On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that states that refuse to comply will not lose all existing Medicaid funds. Instead, they simply will not receive new funds going forward.

The federal government has promised to pick up the full cost of the Medicaid expansion for the first three years, and reimburse 90 percent of the cost for states after that.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) held a call with reporters and bloggers on Thursday afternoon and said she believes that states will find the Medicaid funds hard to resist.

"A big expansion of Medicaid is part of this bill, as you know, and in order to make it saleable and tactical, we have 300 percent of the benefits described in this bill paid for in Medicaid to the states those first three years of the bill. I don't think the governors will turn that down," she said. "First of all, the people will have the need; the urgency is there. They don't have to have any matching funds."

"I believe that once this bill is rolling and states experience the benefits of it, it will be very hard for a state to say, 'I'm not taking 100 percent of the coverage that Medicaid would provide for these people.' That's our thinking on the subject," she added.

Neither Jindal nor McDonnell said whether they would accept the Medicaid funds.

"Here in Louisiana, we've not applied for the grants, we've not accepted many of these dollars," Jindal said. "We're not implementing the exchanges. We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Lousiana. The next opportunity we have to get rid of this law is to get Governor Romney elected, and I absolutely believe that he will be elected in November, and one of his first actions will be to repeal and replace this law."


View Larger Map


Sources: AOL, CBS News, Fox News, Huffington Post, Sunshine State News, Youtube, Google Maps

Rick Scott Says Florida Will Ignore SCOTUS Ruling On Obamacare: What About The People??

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court historically ruled Pres. Barack Obama's Affordable Health Care Act i.e., "Obamacare" to be Constitutional.

This includes the Mandatory Coverage provision which allows the Federal Government to Penalize Citizens who Refuse to purchase Health Care Insurance or who Refuse to Enroll in any kind of Health Care Insurance program, not excluding Medicaid & Medicare.

Many U.S. Presidents have tried however only one Truly Succeeded in Reforming our nation's Health Care Insurance System FOREVER.

Is it a Perfect Law?

Of Course Not!

However Perfect should NEVER be the enemy of what is Good.

Thus the Affordable Health Care Act is a Good Law which not only allows Children/ Dependents to remain on their Parents' Health Care Insurance plans until the age of 26, but also prohibits Health Care Insurance Companies from Denying Citizens the right for Coverage due to Pre-Existing Conditions.

The Affordable Health Care Act will Also help Create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs in the Health Care Industry.

And......

Most Importantly it will ultimately within the next 3 years Lower Health Care Insurance Premiums, which will allow more Uninsured people to have Health Care Insurance Coverage versus using Hospital Emergency Rooms to receive Medical Care.

This is GREAT!!!

Absolutely GREAT!!!

Even Skeptics like myself agree that the SCOTUS decision to Uphold the Affordable Health Care Act was a Wonderful Decision!

Hold it!

Because Not everyone is celebrating.

Not everyone is happy to see Millions of Uninsured American Citizens have Affordable Access to Quality Health Care.

NOT Everyone!

Who isn't happy about this landmark legal decision?

Most GOP Leaders!

That's right!

Most GOP Leaders are Angry & Unhappy to see Millions of American Citizens have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care in this Country.

Instead of celebrating & agreeing with the SCOTUS Decision on this ruling, they are plotting and scheming to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

How Selfish & Stupid!

What about the PEOPLE who Elected them into Public Office?

What about the Millions of Uninsured, Underinsured, Sick people who will benefit from this ruling?

Don't they matter?

Apparently NOT!

Because Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Boehner & Michelle Bachmann are planning to use ALL of their Political Capital and more Taxpayer Money to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act i.e,., "Obamacare".

GOP Leaders have now launched a Tax Mandate/ Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign to Defeat Pres. Obama this Fall and Completely Ignore the recent SCOTUS ruling of his Affordable Health Care Act.

This is So Sad!

Thus Regardless of whom this GOP Repeal Effort will harm (American Voters), GOP Leaders are Hell-bent on making the Affordable Health Care Act Obsolete.

Regardless of the fact that Mitt Romney created the Original Blue Print for the Affordable Health Care Act via "Romneycare", GOP Leaders are Laser-Focused on Obliterating "Obamacare".

By the way "Romneycare" has been Very Successful in the State of Massachusetts, with more than 98% of the Population in that State being Properly Insured and the Health Care Insurance Premiums more Affordable than in other states.

Regardless of the Hundreds of Thousands of Health Care Industry JOBS that will be
Destroyed, GOP Leaders are Determined to wipe the Affordable Health Care Act off the Face of this Earth.

Why?

Because Most GOP Leaders are using the Affordable Health Care Act to hide behind RACISM.

They HATE Pres. Obama and Everything he stands for due to him being a BLACK Leader.

If Mitt Romney or George W. Bush had Passed Comprehensive Health Care Legislation, everyone of those GOP Leaders currently Opposing the Affordable Health Care Act would be 100% on board with Romney or Bush.

However because a BLACK Man passed this Legislation (FOR THE PEOPLE), GOP Leaders are now Wroth with HATE.

And since the Affordable Health Care Act is Pres. Obama's Signature Legislation, the ONLY way those GOP Leaders can Eliminate his Existence & Legacy is to Repeal that Law.

Please correct me if I'm Wrong but since the SCOTUS has already ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be Constitutional and LEGAL, I don't see how GOP Leaders can Ignore this Law or Repeal it.

Any effort by Congress to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act would simply be Symbolic at best because the Law can NEVER legally be completely Repealed.

I believe GOP Leaders are LYING to the American People just to raise Money for Mitt Romney's Campaign.

Those GOP Leaders in Congress know good & well that they can NOT easily Repeal a Comprehensive Health Care Insurance Act that was Passed by Congress and Ruled Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

They know this!

So they have decided to LIE to Voters by attacking Justice John Roberts a Republican, launch a Massive Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign & Encourage Hospitals and Doctors to Largely Ignore the SCOTUS Health Care Law Ruling.

This is CRAZY!

I've often said that Racism makes people STUPID & Crazy, now I know its True.

It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama attempts to pass Financial Industry Reform, Comprehensive Education Reform, Student Loan Reform, Health Care Insurance Reform, Criminal Justice System Reform, Comprehensive Tax Reform, Affordable Housing Reform, Small Business Reform, Elderly Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, Tort Reform, Employment Discrimination Reform, etc.,

Whatever type of Meaningful Legislation Pres. Obama attempts to Pass, he will ALWAYS be blind-sided by Severe Political Opposition from some RACIST GOP & Democrat Leaders.

So what can the Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team do to Diminish what GOP Leaders are plotting against the Affordable Health Care Act?

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team Need to Launch a Major Campaign to Educate the American People on ALL the Good, Effective Components & Provisions included within "Obamacare".

Educate the American VOTERS about why Justice John Roberts a True Conservative, decided to cast his Vote with the Court's so-called "Liberal" Justices.

Justice Roberts cast his Vote alongside Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor because the Affordable Health Care Act is Effective, Constitutional Legislation that will HELP All American Citizens including Many Children, have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care without being Denied by Coverage Greedy Health Insurance Monopolies who previously used Pre-Existing Conditions to NOT Provide Insurance.

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team MUST Broadcast the Benefits of the Affordable Health Care Act from all 4 Corners of American Soil.

NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST!!!!

Broadcast those Benefits Non-Stop from Now until the November Election!!

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Thank You Pres. Obama!

Thank You Justice Roberts!!!

The American People Thank You Immensely!!!!






Gov. Scott says Florida will not comply with health care law or expand Medicaid

Florida Gov. Rick Scott now says Florida will do nothing to comply with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and will not expand its Medicaid program.

The announcement is a marked changed after the governor recently said he would follow the law if it were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Florida is not going to implement Obamacare. We are not going to expand Medicaid and we're not going to implement exchanges,'' Scott's spokesman Lane Wright told The Associated Press on Saturday. Wright stressed that the governor would work to make sure the law is repealed.

Scott told Fox News the Medicaid expansion would cost Florida taxpayers $1.9 billion a year, but it's unclear how he arrived at that figure.

Scott said the state will not expand the Medicaid program in order to lower the number of uninsured residents, nor will Florida set up a state-run health exchange, a marketplace where people who need insurance policies could shop for them.

"We care about having a health care safety net for the vulnerable Floridians, but this is an expansion that just doesn't make any sense,'' he told Fox host Greta Van Susteren.

Scott has gone back and forth on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Congress cannot withhold federal Medicaid funding from states that opt out of a requirement in the overhaul to expand coverage to those just above the poverty line.

On the day of the ruling Scott was cautious about the expansion, saying he wanted to read the ruling first.

Then during an interview Friday morning on a Jacksonville radio station, Scott said it was unlikely he would go along with the expansion because of the potential cost to the state.

But the governor told the Tampa Bay Times later in the day that he was still evaluating the ruling and would come up with a plan within a few weeks.

Scott, the former CEO of a hospital chain, has been a vocal critic of the health care overhaul from the start.

He made his first foray into politics by forming a group called Conservatives for Patients Rights that ran television ads criticizing the proposal before it was adopted by Congress.

Scott has also complained about the growing cost of Medicaid, the $21 billion safety net program that primarily aids the poor but also picks up nursing home bills for senior citizens.

The governor backed a push by the Republican-controlled Legislature to shift Medicaid patients into managed care programs, a move that is still awaiting federal approval.

Scott has rejected federal money in the past, most notably $2.4 billion for high speed rail. His administration has also said no to some money attached to the Affordable Care Act.

But Scott has said yes to money associated with the federal stimulus program and he has changed some of the positions he advocated during his run for governor.

Scott also must weigh the political calculations of saying no to Medicaid because of tight budgets, while it is likely he will continue to push for substantial tax cuts between now and his re-election campaign in 2014.

According to Census data released last year, Florida had the nation's third-highest rate of residents without health insurance during the past three years.

President Obama's health care law called for states in 2014 to expand Medicaid eligibility to those making up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or $29,326 for a family of four.
While estimates vary, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration has concluded that as many as 1.95 million more people would join Medicaid and other state-subsidized health insurance programs over the next five years.

Most of the cost, running into the billions, would be absorbed by the federal government.

The Medicaid expansion would not cost the state anything until 2017 — although AHCA estimates that changes to other state-subsidized programs would require state money starting in 2014.

AHCA estimates that the overall cost to the state would be $2.4 billion between 2013 and 2018 with the federal government picking up nearly $26 billion.

But other groups analyzing the potential changes contend that state officials have ``hyper-inflated'' the potential costs because they assume too many people will enroll.

The ultimate choice, however, won't be Scott's alone.

It will also be decided by the Legislature.






Republicans launch blitz against health care law

Republicans launched a blistering attack Friday on the health care reform law upheld by the Supreme Court, seeking to rally their base's opposition to the measure to bolster their fortunes in the November election.

Using the court's finding that the centerpiece of the law -- the individual mandate -- amounted to a legal exercise of congressional taxing power, GOP leaders accused President Barack Obama and Democrats of deceiving the nation about the Affordable Care Act during debate on the measure in 2009 and 2010.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky led the charge, saying Democrats used a "deeply dishonest sales pitch" to overcome public opposition to the measure back then.

"Nearly every day since then, the promises that formed the heart of that sales pitch have been exposed for the false promises they were," McConnell said on the Senate floor, adding that the Supreme Court decision Thursday provided "powerful confirmation of what may have been the biggest deception of all."

He urged Democrats to stop "trying to defend the indefensible" and join with Republicans to repeal the health care law.

Meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, a tea party favorite and leading opponent of health care reform, said she and congressional colleagues were sending a letter to state officials urging them not to implement the health care bill until after the November vote.

"All across job creator boardrooms today, decisions are being made by millions of employers to drop the employer covered health insurance," Bachmann claimed Friday on CNN. "That's why we're telling the states just stop, take a breath, because we're going to turn the economy around after November."

The polarizing law is the signature legislation of Obama's time in office, and opposition to it helped spur the creation of the conservative tea party movement.
Friday's rhetoric by McConnell and other Republicans reflected their shock and anger at the high court decision, which rejected the challenges of opponents who contended the health care law was unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance was valid as a tax, even though it was impermissible under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The most anticipated Supreme Court ruling in years allows the government to continue implementing the health care law, which doesn't take full effect until 2014.

That means popular provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and allow parents to keep their children on family policies to the age of 26 will continue.

However, Republican opponents of the law's expansion of government vowed to continue fighting to repeal it, with certain presidential nominee Mitt Romney saying that defeating Obama in November is the only way to meet that goal.

Both presidential campaigns are citing fundraising spikes after the Supreme Court's decision.

Romney's organization said Friday that it had raised $4.6 million online, and Obama's operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said it had surpassed that total.

The individual mandate is the linchpin of the health care law signed by Obama in 2010 after an epic brawl in Congress in which no Republicans supported the measure.

Obama has denied that the mandate is a tax, including in a 2009 interview with ABC in which he compared it to state requirements that motorists carry auto insurance.

"Nobody considers that a tax increase," Obama said then. "People say to themselves, 'that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.' "

At least 4 million people are expected to pay a penalty for not having health insurance when the rule takes full effect in 2016, bringing in about $54 billion to help offset the $1.7 trillion, 10-year cost of the act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

It's one of several revenue-raising provisions in the health care law, according to Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist and co-author of a 2010 book on the health care battle.

Under the health care law when it is fully implemented in coming years, most Americans will be covered by employee health plans, either their own or that of a head of household, or by existing government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' benefits, Jacobs noted.

Of the roughly 6% of the population remaining, a large portion of those will be exempted from the mandate because of poverty, religious beliefs or other reasons, he said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday that the fine for failing to have health insurance once the law is fully implemented is "a penalty, because you have a choice" of whether to obtain it.

"If you don't buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room," Carney said. "So your choice is to purchase health (insurance), or a penalty will be administered."

Bachmann's allegation that the health care law would lead to fewer U.S. jobs was challenged on CNN by Democratic Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware.

"If they're not hiring, it's because they don't have demand," Markell said. "What they care most about when they're deciding whether to hire is where do they have access to the greatest work force. I mean, these charges are just ridiculous."

Democrats also noted that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, implemented an individual mandate similar to the concept in the federal law.

Romney contends that the Massachusetts law was tailored to the state's needs and that such a solution was improper at the federal level.

He called the law known as Obamacare bad policy and a bad law on the federal level.

That didn't stop Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York from noting on CNN that Romney "actually defended what he called a penalty" during his term as Massachusetts governor.
"Not my words, Mitt Romney's words, were the free riders -- who chose not to get health insurance but shift those costs onto society -- need to pay their fair share," Israel said. "I didn't call them free riders. Mitt Romney did."

In Thursday's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

Roberts joined the high court's liberal wing -- Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- in upholding the law.

Read the Ruling:

Four conservative justices -- Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.
"To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," the dissenting justices wrote in their opinion. "Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry."

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday indicated that 37% of Americans would have been pleased if the law had been found unconstitutional, compared with 28% who would have been pleased if it had been found constitutional.

And the poll of 1,000 U.S. adults found that nearly four in 10 surveyed would have "mixed feelings" had the justices struck down the whole law.

Obama, in televised remarks, called Thursday's Supreme Court ruling a victory for the nation.

He used the focus on the issue to spell out the benefits of the law that remains unpopular with many Americans. The principle upheld by the high court's ruling is that no American should go bankrupt because of illness, the president said.

"I know the debate over this law has been divisive," Obama said. "It should be pretty clear that I didn't do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believe it is good for the country."

He said the country can't afford "to refight the political battle of two years ago or go back to the way things were."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who helped push through the law when she was House speaker, cited the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a longtime proponent of health care reform who died before the bill became law.

"Now he can rest in peace," she said, echoing what she'd earlier told Kennedy's widow by phone.

In his opinion, Roberts appeared to note the political divisions, writing that "we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies."

"That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," the opinion said. "We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

The narrow focus of the ruling on key issues such as the individual mandate -- limiting it to taxing powers rather than general commerce -- represented the court's effort to limit the government's authority.

"The framers created a federal government of limited powers and assigned to this court the duty of enforcing those limits," Roberts wrote. "The court does so today."
In another part of Thursday's decision, the high court ruled that a part of the law involving Medicaid must change.

The law calls for an expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, which involves spending by the federal government and the states, and threatens to remove existing Medicaid funding from states that don't participate in the expansion. Thursday's ruling said the government must remove that threat.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, NBC Politics, Sunshine State News, Youtube, Google Maps

"Affordable Health Care Law Song" Sung By Children (Children's Defense Fund) Videos

Sources: Children's Defense Fund, Youtube

Paul Ryan's 2013 Budget Slammed By Democrats! Path To Prosperity Or Poverty? Gov't Dependency Or Entrepreneurship?

Durbin slams Paul Ryan budget plan

The number two Democrat in the Senate said Wednesday that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal is "not a balanced approach" and would unfairly hurt senior citizens with it dramatic changes to Medicare.

"His budget refuses to imposes any new taxes on the wealthiest people in America. In fact, it cuts their taxes even more," Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said in an interview with "CBS This Morning."

"And to achieve it, it makes dramatic cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid and in programs that people count on for the basic safety net in America. It is not a balanced approach. Unfortunately it reflects where his party is today," Durbin said.

Ryan on Tuesday unveiled his his 2013 budget proposal, which includes an overhaul of the tax code that would leave just two individual tax brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent as well as revision of a proposal from a year ago to dramatically overhaul Medicare.

Ryan's plan is unlikely to become law, but is intended to provide a simple message for Republicans in an election year.

"Paul Ryan wants to privatize Medicare. At the end of the day, those seniors who are not healthy and can't buy health insurance today will find it almost impossible to do so under Paul Ryan's plan," Durbin said.





GOP budget sets up competing visions for 2012 candidates

House Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed 2013 budget has essentially no chance of becoming law, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose: The proposed budget draws a clear dividing line between Democrats and Republicans ahead of this year's presidential election.

Upon unveiling his budget today, Ryan said he "absolutely" expects the eventual presidential nominee from his party to get behind his budget proposal, despite its potential political landmines, most notable his proposed changes to Medicare.

In addition to adding a private insurance option for seniors using Medicare, Ryan's budget also overhauls the tax code and would create just two income tax brackets, 25 percent and 10 percent. Ryan said today his budget would balance the budget by 2040, putting the nation on the track to prosperity.

"We are sharpening the contrast between the path that we are proposing and the path to debt and decline that the president has placed us upon," Ryan said today. "And, yes, we do believe that our nominee, whoever this person is going to be, is gonna be perfectly consistent with this."

"I've spoken to all these guys," he added. "And they believe that we are heading in the right direction."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told CBS News he applauds Ryan and his House colleagues "for taking a bold step toward putting our nation back on the track to fiscal sanity and robust economic growth." The plan, he said, will "strengthen Medicare for generations to come" and shares Romney's goals of cutting taxes, reforming the tax code, reducing spending and tackling the debt.

Newt Gingrich called the Ryan budget "a courageous plan that correctly understands the key to returning to a balanced budget is robust economic growth, spending control and bold entitlement reform." He said his plan to grow the economy and balance the budget "differs in details but shares the same core principles."

At least one Republican presidential candidate, however -- libertarian Rep. Ron Paul -- says Ryan's budget doesn't actually go far enough. Paul, whose budget plan would make $1 trillion in cuts in one year, said in a statement that Ryan's plan is "essentially playing the same game the Washington establishment has played for years with our hard-earned money."

While it may seem like politics-as-usual to Paul, Democrats are already casting Ryan's budget as too extreme. The congressman's 2013 plan is sure to face the same fate as his 2012 budget: It was approved by the GOP-led House but was flatly dismissed by the Democratic-led Senate and President Obama. Democrats seized on the proposals in the budget to accuse Republicans ending Medicare. In a presidential election year, the criticism is almost certain to be louder.

The White House today blasted Ryan's plan, in part because they said its tax breaks "would be paid for by undermining Medicare and the very things we need to grow our economy and the middle class - things like education, basic research, and new sources of energy."

But rather than shy away from those fights, Ryan has made clear in the past week that Republicans are ready to embrace them. The budget chairman released two campaign-like videos in the days before releasing his budget, telling Americans they have a choice to make about the nation's future.

"Will it be a future that looks like the America we know?" Ryan says in a video released Monday, over ominous music. "One of greater opportunity, greater prosperity, or more of what we're seeing today: debt, doubt and decline."

While he may not win over the full Congress with his plan, Ryan at least wants to make his case to the voters and perhaps give his party a boost in November. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, was at Ryan's side today to praise his plan and promise similar plans if Republicans win back the Senate this year. He excoriated Senate Democrats for failing to put forward their own budget.
"The Senate's Democratic majority has forfeited their claim to leadership for America," Sessions said. "If the voters give the Republicans in the Senate the honor of having the majority and the leadership, we will work with the House to pass a congressional budget. It will be an honest budget. It will change the debt course of America."

Mr. Obama has similarly put forward proposals this year he aims to make part of his re-election pitch, even though they were dead-on-arrival in Congress. Facing the prospect of more GOP resistance this year, the president's re-election team released their own 17-minute video -- albeit with a lot more theatrics, complete with narration by Tom Hanks -- touting the president's accomplishments.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

Paul Ryan Unveils Risky 2013 GOP Budget; Medicare Targeted, Major Revisions To U.S. Tax Code.

Congressman Paul Ryan's Risky 2013 Budget Blueprint Targets Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare Reform, Social Security, the U.S. Tax Code & Defunds Pres. Obama's Health Care Law i.e., Repeals it.





House G.O.P. Lays Down Marker With New Budget Plan

House Republicans, believing that worries over the deficit will trump affection for Medicare and other popular programs, unveiled a federal budget blueprint Tuesday morning that would cut deeply into domestic spending, transform the tax code and balance the budget by 2040.

Because tax revenues would remain unchanged, the deficit under the plan would be almost as deep as the red ink under President Obama’s feet in the fiscal year that begins in October. But by mid-decade it would drop precipitously, and over decades, significant changes to Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health care plans for the poor and the elderly, would help bring the budget into balance.

“We are here to offer Americans the chance to choose which future they want,” Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said, positing a choice between “a path to renew prosperity” and “the president’s path of debt and decline.”

Ultimately, the House budget is a political document, since the Senate has no intention of passing a budget of its own.

The plan amounts to a political bet, with high stakes wagered by both parties.

“This isn’t just matter of the House battling with the Senate or arm-wrestling with the president,” said J. D. Foster, a fiscal policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “For better or for worse, what they produce is going to be the standard for conservatives and Republicans going into this election season.”

Republicans believe voters will reward them for what one what member of the House Budget Committee, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, called a “bold and realistic” effort to transform and shrink government. Democrats are equally certain that because the plan fundamentally changes Medicare without raising taxes on the rich, they can pummel vulnerable Republicans.

On Monday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began a “Millionaires over Medicare” campaign against 41 House Republicans who Democratic officials believe are vulnerable to the line of attack. “Under the leadership of Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Speaker John Boehner, House Republicans are again proposing a budget that ends the Medicare guarantee while protecting millionaires,” a memo from the group said. “It’s not only bad politics, it’s very bad policy.”

The budget plan embraces a Medicare plan similar to the one put forward by Mr. Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, which would change the health plan from a guaranteed, fee-for-service government insurance program to a menu of private insurance plans subsidized by the government. Older Americans would be able to buy into the existing fee-for-service program, although annual expenditures would be capped.

The other flashpoint will be total spending on programs under Congress’s annual discretion. The budget will cap that spending at $1.028 trillion, the same level set by last year’s budget but $19 billion below the cap set in July after protracted negotiations to raise the nation’s statutory borrowing limit.

Democrats argue that the level in the new budget amounts to a broken promise that will lead to more strife as the House and Senate forge 12 spending bills this summer that will add up to two different totals. The House will aim for the $1.028 trillion cap in the new House budget while the Senate will aim for $1.047 trillion, the summer Budget Control Act cap.

“Ignoring the B.C.A. represents a breach of faith that will make it more difficult to negotiate future agreements,” two senior Democratic senators said Monday in a letter to Mr. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader.

“Rather than trying to tear down the B.C.A., we should be holding it up as an example of what can be accomplished if we are willing to set aside our differences and work hard to find bipartisan solutions to our nation’s challenges,” said the letter from Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

House Republicans argue that additional cuts to both discretionary and entitlement spending are needed now to head off an automatic $110 billion in across-the-board cuts to defense and domestic programs in 2013. Even with the lower total, the House would still be above the $950 billion that domestic programs would reach if the across-the-board cuts take effect.

Under the House plan, the current $1.18 trillion deficit would fall to $797 billion in the coming fiscal year, compared with $977 billion under Mr. Obama’s plan. By 2016, the deficit would fall to $241 billion by Republican estimates. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that Mr. Obama’s budget would still have a $529 billion deficit in 2016.

The Ryan plan would accumulate $3.1 trillion in additional debt through 2022. The president’s would add $6.4 trillion, more than twice that total. The Republican budget cuts spending by $5 trillion more than the president’s plan, mandates the repeal of Mr. Obama’s health care law and assumes the elimination of the government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The tax code would be simplified to just two tax rates, 10 percent and 25 percent, with the closure of tax credits and deductions. The 35 percent corporate income tax would be lowered to 25 percent and the existing, worldwide system of taxing corporate profits would be changed to a territorial system in which only domestic profits were subject to United States corporate taxation. But the budget assumes revenues would stay consistent with revenues under the current individual and corporate tax codes.

Medicare would be turned into something like Mr. Obama’s health care plan for the uninsured, a subsidized set of private insurance plans, while Medicaid would be converted to fixed block grants to the states.

Bipartisan talks continue over a so-called grand bargain on deficit reduction that would combine tax increases, spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. But hopes are dimming as both parties frame the election around their vision of deficit reduction.

“The idea of a grand bargain in 2012 is very hard to find credible,” Mr. Foster said. “To a large extent this election is about deciding what the grand bargain is supposed to look like.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, NY Times, Google Maps

Mitt Romney vs Planned Parenthood: Stands Firm On Promise To Cut Funding For ABORTIONS. I Agree!

Mitt Romney stands firm on his promise to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood ABORTIONS. This I DO Agree with! I would NOT vote for Romney but I do Agree Planned Parenthood Should NOT be receiving Federal Dollars for ABORTIONS as Pres. Obama promised Bart Stupak back in 2010.


Romney can't escape birth control questions in Illinois


Mitt Romney tried to make his final day before Tuesday’s Illinois primary all about the economy, but in the end he couldn’t escape the distracting questions about birth control that have seeped into the Republican presidential discussion for weeks on end.

Romney faced two questions about contraception as he wrapped up his last event Monday, a sun-splashed outdoor town hall on the campus of Bradley University in Peoria.

After Romney riffed for about 20 minutes on President Barack Obama’s management of the economy, he solicited questions from the large student-heavy audience.

As the first questioner made apparent, these voters were not pre-screened.

“So you’re all for like, yay, freedom, and all this stuff,” said the first woman to approach a microphone. “And yay, like pursuit of happiness. You know what would make me happy? Free birth control.”

Her remark drew a mix of applause and boos from the crowd, and a rebuke from the Republican frontrunner.

“You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something,” he said, waiting for the crowd noise died down. “If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for? Vote for the other guy, that’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about.”

That exchange was followed by another question about Romney’s plan to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

A female audience member asked Romney where he might suggest “millions of women go” without Planned Parenthood offering reproductive and sexual health care.

“Well they can go wherever they’d like to go,” Romney told her. “This is a free society. But here’s what I’d say, which is the federal government should not tax these people to pay for Planned Parenthood … The idea of the federal government funding Planned Parenthood I’m going to say no, we’re going to stop that.”


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CNN, KSDK, Youtube, Google Maps

Lanier Cansler Leaves North Carolina's DHHS Due To Partisan Politics & Professional Frustration

Outgoing DHHS chief: Politics led to frustration


Lanier Cansler stepped down Tuesday as secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, saying that he expects the frustration of running the state's largest agency to increase in an election year.

Cansler, who has headed DHHS since the beginning of Gov. Beverly Perdue's administration three years ago, announced Jan. 13 that he would leave at the end of the month to start a consulting business focusing on finding better ways for health care to work in North Carolina.

He said he's used to challenges – he was a four-term Republican lawmaker who has served for a Democratic governor. Still, reconciling the differences between the executive and legislative branches of government became tougher than ever in recent months.

"It does get frustrating whenever you're working on the issues and you get caught in the political contest," he said. "In each of their minds, I think what they're thinking is the best thing for the state, but there's great philosophical differences."

Republican legislative leaders and Perdue have been at odds in recent weeks, for example, over how to handle a growing budget hole at DHHS.

The agency's budget was cut by more than $350 million last summer, but difficulties in making those cuts – the federal government didn't approve of many moves – has left DHHS with a $150 million deficit. It's projected to grow to more than $240 million by fiscal 2012-13, which starts in July.

"I realize politics are always going to be there, but to the extent you can let the right decision rule the day rather than let politics rule the day, that's the goal, because that's when you can achieve the most for the state," Cansler said.

Throughout his tenure, Cansler also dealt with allegations of neglect and abuse at the state's psychiatric hospitals. Months before he took over, a patient at Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro fell and was left in a chair, neglected for nearly 24 hours before he died.

One of his first actions in 2009 was to establish a zero-tolerance policy for patient abuse, yet a May 2010 incident at Cherry Hospital prompted him to order intensive retraining for all employees of the facility.

Cansler said he's proud of the strides made to change the culture inside DHHS, such as better training, to fight Medicaid fraud and to stabilize the state's mental health system. He said, however, that the state needs to invest more in mental health.

Perdue has named senior policy advisor Al Delia acting secretary of DHHS. Cansler has agreed to be chairman of Perdue's new Commission on Affordable and Sustainable Healthcare, and he said he would be available to help Delia as needed.

"I'll still be in the mix. I just don't have to worry about the crisis of the day," he said.


View Larger Map


Sources: WRAL, Google Maps

Nikki Haley Supports HPV Vaccine Too! For Young Minority Girls On Medicaid!

Rising GOP star Haley has own history with HPV vaccine fallout

As the debate over Texas Gov. Rick Perry mandating the HPV vaccine continues between Republican presidential candidates, a woman whose endorsement is coveted by all them, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has her own complicated history on the issue.

In 2007, shortly before Perry issued an executive order requiring that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV, that causes most cervical cancers, Haley was throwing her support behind a similar bill in South Carolina. At the time she was in her second term as a state representative.

State Rep. Joan Brady introduced the Cervical Cancer Prevention Act in South Carolina, and the Republican corralled more than 60 legislators, including Haley, to sponsor the bill. Unlike the executive order for which Perry is taking heat, this legislative mandate did not include a provision for parents to opt out of inoculating their daughters.

Within months, fierce opposition mounted, and legislative records back up accounts from sources who recall sponsors "dropping like flies" before a unanimous vote killed the bill on April 18, 2007.

More than a dozen legislators formally requested to be removed as sponsors from the bill, but the future governor of South Carolina was not one of them.

State Rep. Kris Crawford, a physician who led the debate to discredit the policy resulting in the bill's demise, said even though Haley voted against the bill like everybody else he wondered why she didn't remove herself as a bill sponsor if she opposed the mandate.

"If you're a co-sponsor of a bill and it's a bad bill, take your name off of it," Crawford said.

Haley's office declined to comment and pointed CNN to information about the vote on her campaign website.

Palmetto Family Council President Oran Smith was among the conservative activists actively lobbying legislators to oppose the bill.

"When we finally got to them and explained the full story, they were very quick to pull their names off," Smith recalls. "Sure we wish (Haley) had done that as well, but ultimately when it came up on the big board, she voted the way we wanted her to vote twice."

On her campaign website, Haley acknowledges her initial support for the bill but said in a statement, "Through the legislative process, it became clear to me that an opt-out provision was not going to be included in the bill and it sought to mandate that middle-school girls obtain a vaccine -- and strip parents of the right to make the choice for their daughter. In light of that turn of events, I voted to kill the bill."

Haley voted against the opt-out provision she says in her statement would have made the bill palatable.

Smith said that was likely part of legislative strategy by Haley and other conservative Republicans in the state House to vote against the opt-out provision so the bill with a straight mandate wouldn't have a chance of passing.

Crawford, a Republican, said he is not so sure.

"There are exactly two groups of people who can claim they were against this giant overreaching of government -- those who never sponsored the bill and those who were sponsors but subsequently removed their names from the bill when it was explained to be a boondoggle mandating vaccination of little 12-year-old girls against a sexually transmitted disease," Crawford said. "Everyone else was either for the bill or riding the fence trying to claim victory regardless of outcome."

Smith said, "In our view, the opt-out (amendment) did not remove the mandate; it just purported to remove the mandate. That was a position that then-Rep. Haley accepted, and she ultimately voted with other conservatives to not fall for that amendment."

Sheri Few, president of South Carolina Parents Involved in Education and an adviser to Haley's 2010 gubernatorial campaign, said many of the bill's co-sponsors were "misled" by those pushing it.

"Nikki was not the only one misled -- more than a third of Republicans in the House co-sponsored the bill," Few wrote in a statement on Haley's website. "When the facts came to light, even the primary sponsor moved to kill her own bill and it was defeated -- an action that included (Rep.) Haley's vote against it."

Perry's 2007 executive order was repealed two months later by the Texas Legislature, but the issue has been dogging the governor on the presidential campaign trail.

Read more about Perry's HPV executive order

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has criticized her opponent in the GOP presidential race for being politically motivated by Merck & Co. Merck, the first company to offer a Food and Drug Administration-approved HPV vaccine, engaged in a well-documented campaign in 2007 to lobby legislators to pass laws that would add the vaccine to the list of required immunizations before attending public school.

The Texas governor denies those allegations, saying his decision to protect females against cancer-causing HPV resulted after meeting a young woman who later died from cervical cancer.

But Perry has admitted that bypassing the Texas Legislature and employing an executive order was a mistake. On Wednesday, speaking to reporters in Virginia, Perry acknowledged the order "should have had an opt-in instead of an opt-out."

The debate over Perry's executive order reminds Smith of the legislative fight in South Carolina more than four years ago. He said he empathized with Perry when the candidate was asked about his 2007 decision in recent debates.

"It was how I felt in 2007 and 2008. We didn't want cervical cancer to take the lives of women, but at the same time, we were militantly opposed to weakening parental rights," Smith said.

Smith, who advocates an "educate but not mandate" approach to the HPV vaccine, said he believes Perry will need to convince voters motivated by social issues that his HPV vaccine decision is an anomaly in his 10-year tenure as governor.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Reports of Health Concerns Following HPV Vaccination


VAERS Limitations

VAERS data cannot be used to prove a causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event. The only association between the adverse event and vaccination is temporal, meaning that the adverse event occurred sometime after vaccination. Therefore, the adverse event may be coincidental or it may have been caused by vaccination, however we cannot make any conclusions that the events reported to VAERS were caused by the vaccine.


HPV Vaccine Safety

There are two licensed HPV vaccines, Gardasil® and Cervarix®, available to protect against the types of HPV infection that cause most cervical cancers. Gardasil® was licensed for use in females, age 9-26 years in June 2006 and for males age 9-26 years in Oct 2009. Cervarix® was licensed for use in females age 10-25 in October 2009.

The safety of HPV vaccines was studied in clinical trials worldwide before licensure. For Gardasil® , over 29,000 males and females participated in these trials. For Cervarix®, over 30,000 females participated in several clinical trials.

Since licensure, CDC and FDA have been closely monitoring the safety of HPV vaccines. There are 3 systems used to monitor the safety of vaccines after they are licensed and used in the U.S. These systems can monitor adverse events already known to be caused by vaccines, as well as detect rare adverse events that were not identified during pre-licensure clinical trials. The 3 systems are:

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)–a useful early warning public health system that helps CDC and FDA detect possible side effects or adverse events following vaccination.

The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project–a collaboration between CDC and 10 health care organizations which monitors and evaluates adverse events following vaccination.

The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network– a collaboration between6 academic centers in the U.S. which conduct research on adverse events that might be caused by vaccines.

Reports to VAERS Following Gardasil®

As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination: 17,958 reports among females and 346 reports for males, of which 285 reports were received after the vaccine was licensed for males in October 2009. VAERS received 423 reports of unknown gender. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious.


Non-serious adverse event reports

VAERS defines non-serious adverse events as those other than hospitalization, death, permanent disability, or life-threatening illness.

The vast majority (92%) of the adverse events reports following Gardasil® vaccination have included fainting, pain, and swelling at the injection site (the arm), headache, nausea, and fever. Syncope (fainting) is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. Falls after fainting may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented by closely observing the person for 15 minutes after vaccination.

Serious adverse event reports

Any VAERS report that indicated hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or death is classified as serious. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.


Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) has been reported after vaccination with Gardasil® . GBS is a rare neurologic disorder that causes muscle weakness. It occurs in 1-2 out of every 100,000 people in their teens. A number of infections have been associated with GBS. There has been no indication that Gardasil® increases the rate of GBS above the rate expected in the general population, whether or not they were vaccinated.

Blood Clots

There have been some reports of blood clots in females after receiving Gardasil®. These clots have occurred in the heart, lungs, and legs. Most of these people had a risk of getting blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (the birth control pill), smoking, obesity, and other risk factors.


Deaths

As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil® . There were 54 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty two of the total death reports have been confirmed and 36 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

VAERS Reports Following Cervarix®

Since licensed in October 2009, uptake of Cervarix® vaccination in the U.S. has been low. As of June 2011, there have been 39 VAERS reports of adverse events following Cervarix® vaccination in the U.S. The majority of these reports (97%) were considered to be non-serious.

Cervarix® has also been in use in other countries such as England and Europe prior to licensing from the FDA.

Summary

Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines. Any problems detected with these vaccines will be reported to health officials, healthcare providers, and the public and needed action will be taken to ensure the public's health and safety.


View Larger Map

Sources: Center For Disease Control.gov, CNN, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps