Op-Eds and Blogs

One unpleasant surprise in the grotesquely misnamed “Affordable” Care Act is how narrow the choices are. As even so Obama-friendly a newpaper as the New York Times is now admitting, “No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network — or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want.” Insurers are doing this to control costs. Plans sold on the exchanges are barred from charging customers fairly but instead must overcharge many to subsidize those with existing expensive health conditions. Insurers are doing this by narrowing options. Because getting to pick a doctor you like is, under Obamacare, apparently just a bad habit: “We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has," said Marcus Merz, the chief executive of PreferredOne, an insurer in Golden Valley, Minn.

<b>Originally printed in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 6, 2014</b> Fifteen months ago, I asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton why she hadn't simply picked up the phone and talked to the Benghazi survivors to find out what had actually happened. Instead of being straightforward, she deflected this uncomfortable question with a now-infamous question of her own: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" The answer to that question and the motive behind this administration's lies and coverup are finally becoming quite clear. The belated release of a Sept. 14, 2012, talking points email from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes proves that senior White House officials were fully engaged in directing the coverup and perpetuating the lies. According to the Rhodes email, the goal of the administration's Benghazi spin was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." This was in spite of the fact that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, the administration knew — or certainly should have known — there was no protest.