How Rhode Island Parents Are Winning Back Their Rights To Vaccine Choice


Source: Vactruth.com
Missy Fluegge
August 6, 2016

Families in Rhode Island are winning the war against mandatory vaccination. They have joined together with two powerful advocacy organizations whose efforts have successfully aided the of introduction five legislative bills to their state government related to vaccine choice. Their diligence offers a strong example to other parents who also question the implications of mandating so many vaccines. [1]

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. Different kinds of exemptions, including religious exemptions, medical exemptions, or philosophical exemptions, are available in all fifty states, but some state governments have recently increased their efforts to limit vaccine exemptions and make additional vaccines “mandatory” for school attendance. [2, 3]

Why Parents Are Objecting

In 2015, many Rhode Island parents were outraged when their state Department of Health mandated at least one dose of the HPV vaccine for seventh graders in order for those children to attend school. The HPV vaccine is supposed to protect against a sexually transmitted infection caused by the human papillomavirus, and later, the development of cervical cancer. [4]

The HPV vaccine is currently recommended for young women and young men beginning at age nine, when they may not have even entered puberty and are not yet sexually active. [5, 6]

Gregory Zimet, a psychologist who has studied people’s attitudes toward the HPV vaccine, a vaccine which has generated greater controversy than other vaccines, noted that this vaccination is directed at “11-and 12-year-olds to prevent something that might not become an issue for 10, 20, 30 years.” He added, “It’s hard for people to see the connection and feel it as strongly.” [7]

Furthermore, this vaccine has a history of being unsafe and ineffective.

Elected Officials Are Listening

Rhode Island Families have objected to the mandatory vaccination policy against sexually transmitted infections. Parents have voiced their concerns about the ability of the CDC and state governments recommending and even mandating such a large number of vaccines, with seemingly little oversight, publicity, or public discussion.

One parent, concerned about why a vaccine for a sexually transmitted infection would be mandated, commented in a local news story, “HPV can only be spread sexually, and that shouldn’t be happening during the school day, so why wouldn’t they just recommend this vaccine” (instead of making it mandatory)? [8]

In response, Rhode Island Representative Justin Price has sponsored two bills designed to give parents control of what chemicals are injected into their children’s bodies. Bill H7475, proposed by Price and four other representatives, was introduced on February 4, 2016, and would grant parents the right to opt out of vaccines for diseases that are sexually transmitted, and they would not need a religious reason to do so. [9]

A public hearing was held to introduce the measure.

Scores of concerned parents attended one meeting in support of vaccine choice, but the state health department did not offer any written testimony, nor did they send a representative on their behalf.

Representative Price explained the basis for these two important pieces of legislation:

“This way it’s not just the Department of Health and the CDC making decisions for everyone,” Price said. “The public has the opportunity to have an input in what immunizations pass.”

Another bill, H7476, also introduced by Representative Price and four of his colleagues, would require the state health department to hold public meetings when a vaccine is being considered for a mandate. [10]

Vaccine Choice Supporters Continue To Work Together

Since the introduction of those two bills, three additional bills have been created to support parental rights, due to the resolute efforts of concerned parents and grassroots groups, including Rhode Island Alliance for Vaccine Choice and Rhode Island Against Mandated HPV, as well as the imperative support from their state representatives.

Currently in Rhode Island, parents need a religious reason or a medical exemption to opt out of vaccines.

Bill S2292 includes a provision to grant parents the right to exercise a philosophical exemption to vaccines, regardless of their religious beliefs or their child’s medical history. Additionally, the bill strikes down the requirement for children to be vaccinated against HPV to attend school. [11]

Bill S2295 contains important provisions affecting school attendance and vaccines, preventing the state Department of Health from setting minimum standards regarding vaccination against diseases which are not transmissible in a school setting, such as HPV. This legislation would also require three public hearings on proposed changes to immunization policy. [12]

Finally, bill H7899, introduced on March 9, 2016, by Representative Price and his colleagues, would allow allow parents and custodial caregivers to refuse vaccines for their children for sexually transmitted infections. It would also require all vaccine correspondence, related to any vaccine, to inform parents about the option to opt out of the vaccine. [13]

Is The HPV Vaccine Safe?

Currently, three versions of the HPV vaccine have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Gardasil, Gardasil 9, and Cervarix. These vaccines are administered in a three-dose series over a six-month period. According to the CDC, 92 percent of adverse reactions are “non-serious.” [14]

However, many parents and HPV vaccine-injured children have a different story to tell. Adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine include paralysis, seizures, miscarriage, Guillain-Barre syndrome, symptoms of multiple sclerosis, blindness, speech problems, ovarian cysts, and death. [15]

Additionally, some research shows that the Gardasil vaccine may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer. This research came from an organization you would not expect — from Merck itself, the manufacturer of the vaccine — which may explain why this information is not widely circulated in the mainstream media.

In 2013, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit revealed that, at that time, nearly $6 million had already been paid to victims of adverse reactions from the HPV vaccine. [16]

Is The HPV Vaccine Effective?

According to research, girls who are unvaccinated against HPV actually have a much lower incidence of contracting this infection:

“In 2007-2010, the overall prevalence of HPV was 50 percent in the vaccinated girls (14-19 years), but only 38.6 percent in the unvaccinated girls of the same age.

Therefore, HPV prevalence dropped 27.3 percent in the unvaccinated girls, but only declined by 5.8 percent in the vaccinated group. In four out of five different measures, the unvaccinated girls had a lower incidence of HPV.” [17]

A separate, 2012 study from the University of British Columbia, reviewed clinical trials of HPV vaccines and concluded that there is no data to support that HPV vaccines have prevented a single case of cervical cancer. The researchers stated that the safety trials were based on a “highly flawed design,” determining that the safety of the HPV vaccine has been misstated.

The researchers also noted:

“accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).” [18]

Disturbingly, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in 2003 about HPV, “most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer,” yet they continue to recommend this vaccine. [19]

Why Grassroots Efforts Of Concerned Parents Are So Important

Families who have faced a vaccine injury are motivated by passion and a unbreakable desire to help other families avoid the same tragedy. The Rhode Island Alliance for Vaccine Choice (RVIAC) has provided the means for parents to collaborate in their desire to protect and restore their parental rights. According to their website, they advocate “for legislation that supports parental rights and informed consent.”

They believe:

“All individuals should be given full knowledge of possible risks and benefits relating to medical procedures and vaccines including the HPV vaccine. The RI Alliance for Vaccine Choice works with our state legislators and government officials to eliminate the HPV vaccine mandate. We assert that individuals have the right to make vaccination decisions after discussing their healthcare treatment with their physician.” [20]

Their website states that their leadership comes from “all backgrounds” and “all walks of life,” people with diverse experiences, including “an average working man, a chiropractor, a photographer, real estate agent, a retired office worker, retired teacher and a person who works with non-profits,” who have formed a cohesive unit to support parents who want a choice about administering pharmaceuticals and other toxins into their children’s bodies. [21]

Their determined efforts have been fruitful, as upcoming legislation may grant more parents the choice to decline vaccines in a state which has boasted about its highest rate of HPV vaccination among young males (and the third highest rate of HPV vaccination for females) in the country. [22]

According to Dr. Mercola, a leading health expert:

“Everyone should have the right to evaluate the potential benefits and real risks of any pharmaceutical product, including vaccines, and opt out of any vaccine they decide is unnecessary or not in the best interest of their child’s health. Every child is different and has a unique personal and family medical history, which may include severe allergies or autoimmune and neurological disorders, that could increase the risks of vaccination.

It is your parental right to make potentially life-altering health decisions for your own children. Why wouldn’t you want to keep that right—even if you want your child to receive most or all vaccinations currently available?”

Unanswered Questions

Finally, we leave you with one more piece of important information to consider, an afterthought in this important struggle to give parents a choice about what is injected into their children’s bodies.

The state of Rhode Island participates in a “Vaccinate Before You Graduate” program, provided through a collaboration with a for-profit company, whose website admonishes parents that their child may need vaccines to get a job or get into college. This organization is known as The Wellness Company, the ultimate misnomer. “If you had to pay for all of these vaccinations, it could cost as much as $1200!” their website states. [23]

Who, then, is paying for the vaccinations administered by this for-profit “wellness” company? Informed readers already know the answer to that question.

What is the cost to our society of the lasting effects of vaccine injuries?

And why are governments and schools cooperating with private entities to administer pharmaceuticals to children?

Conclusion

Parents who are resolute in their efforts to safeguard their parental rights are making significant progress in the war against vaccine mandates. They recognize the power they have to influence government policies about vaccination. They find ways to connect with elected officials to voice their concerns about protecting their children from unwanted exposure to the chemicals, toxins, and foreign DNA contained in vaccines. They know their children don’t need a government-mandated vaccine against a sexually transmitted infection, especially at the young age of nine or ten years old.

If you live in Rhode Island, please contact your elected officials and encourage them to support the human rights legislative bills listed in this article.

If you are a parent or grandparent who would like to join with other concerned citizens to promote vaccine choice and medical freedom, you may wish to access the resources offered by the Rhode Island Alliance for Vaccine Choice on their website. They offer Ten Tips for Testifying Before a Legislative Committee, as outlined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.

You can also download their parent information packet, filled with helpful information about informed consent, sample letters to send to legislators, and religious and medical exemption forms.

Finally, if your child has been injured by the Gardasil or Cervarix vaccine, we encourage you to share your story in the comment section.

Read More At: VacTruth.com

References:

  1. https://vaccinechoiceri.com/tag/vaccine-choice/page/2/
  2. https://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/49-Doses-PosterB.pdf
  3. http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx
  4. http://warwickonline.com/stories/bills-would-limit-state-ability-to-mandate-vaccines,110522
  5. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/16/hpv-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx
  6. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf
  7. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/09/07/rhode-island-mandate-for-hpv-vaccine…
  8. http://warwickonline.com/stories/bills-would-limit-state-ability-to-mandate-vaccines,110522
  9. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText16/HouseText16/H7475.pdf
  10. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/HouseText16/H7476.pdf
  11. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/SenateText16/S2292.pdf
  12. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/SenateText16/S2295.pdf
  13. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/HouseText16/H7899.pdf
  14. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv-vaccine.html
  15. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/hpv-vaccine-victim-sues-merck.aspx
  16. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/16/hpv-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx
  17. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/16/hpv-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx
  18. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016780
  19. http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_2.html
  20. https://vaccinechoiceri.com
  21. https://vaccinechoiceri.com/tag/vaccine-choice/
  22. http://www.health.ri.gov/data/vaccination/
  23. http://www.thewellcomp.com/vbyg12gr.htm
Advertisements

Signed Into Law: Rhode Island Expands Medical Marijuana Program

bigstock-Medical-Marijuana-6220827-777
Source: ActivistPost.com
Mike Maharrey
July 25, 2016

Last week, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo signed a bill expanding the state’s medical marijuana law, further nullifying federal prohibition in practice.

A trio of Democrats, Rep. Scott Slater, Rep. Patricia Serpa and Rep. Joseph Solomon, introduced House Bill 7142 (HB7142) in January. The legislation expands the state’s medical marijuana law by making medicinal cannabis accessible to patients suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

The new law also streamlines issuance of a registry identification cards for hospice patients, cutting the time from 15 days to 72 hours. It also waives the registration fee for hospice patients and their caregivers.

HB7142 passed the House by a 67-1 margin. The Senate concurred on a voice vote. With Raimondo’s signature, the new law went into immediate effect.

Rhode Island legalized marijuana for medical use in 2006. The expansion of the state law demonstrates an important reality. Once a state puts laws in place legalizing marijuana, the program tends to eventually expand. When the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. HB7142 represents another step forward for patients seeking alternative treatments and a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.

EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION

Rhode Island’s medical marijuana program removes one layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition remains in place.

Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

While Rhode Island law does not alter federal law, it takes a step toward nullifying in effect the federal ban. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By easing state prohibition, Rhode Island essentially sweeps away part of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.

Rhode Island is among a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition. Colorado, Washington state and Alaska have all legalized both recreational and medical marijuana, and 25 states now allow cannabis for medical use. With nearly half the country legalizing marijuana, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition any more. The feds need state cooperation to fight the “drug war,” and that has rapidly evaporated in the last few years with state legalization, practically nullifying the ban.

“The lesson here is pretty straight forward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

Read More At: ActivistPost.com

_____________________________________________________________________

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

Leaked DNC Emails Confirm Democrats Rigged Primary, Reveal Extensive Media Collusion

Source: ZeroHedge.com
July 23, 2016

There are three key findings to emerge from yesterday’s dump of leaked DNC emails released by Wikileaks:

  • There had been a plot designed to smear Bernie Sanders and to hand the Democratic nomination to Hillary on a silver platter
  • There has been repeated collusion between the DNC and the media
  • There has been questionable fundraising for both Hillary Clinton and the DNC

First, a quick recap for those who missed the original report, yesterday Wikileaks released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. This is what the whistleblower organization reported:

WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.d

Subsequently, the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 (who has denied he works with the Russian government), who has already released hundreds of hacked DNC emails previously, told The Hill he leaked the documents to Wikileaks.

An initial read of the thousands of emails in the data dump reveals top officials at the Democratic National Committee privately plotting to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, confirming a long-running allegation by the Sanders campaign who has claimed that the DNC and Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had tipped the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton during the party’s presidential primary. They also reveal instances of media collusion as well as various questionable instances of fundraising.

Plotting Against Bernie Sanders

In an email from early May, DNC CFO Brad Marshall wrote about a plot to question Sanders’s religion. While not naming the Vermont senator directly, it talks about a man of “Jewish heritage” Marshall believes to be an atheist. It makes reference to voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states that were holding upcoming primary elections.

“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” the email says.

“AMEN,” DNC Chief Executive Officer Amy K. Dacey replied.

Marshall did not respond to a request for comment. But he did tell The Intercept, which first noticed the email, “I do not recall this. I can say it would not have been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate.”

* * *

In an email that concerned Sanders out-polling Clinton in Rhode Island, where the state reportedly only had a fraction of voting stations open, one staffer took a contemptuous tone of Sanders’ supporters,  speaking about them more as a nuisance than an arm of the party. “If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct,” the staffer writes, “They’ll probably complain regardless, actually.”

* *  *

Another email shows similar ‘us and them’ language being directed at Sanders supporters. “We have the Sanders folks admitting that they lost fair and square, not because we ‘rigged’ anything,” the email said. “Clinton likely to win the state convention with a slim margin and we’ll send a release with final delegate numbers.”

* * *

An email titled ‘Bernie narrative‘ sent by DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach to Miranda indicates that top officials in the party were trying to find an angle to disparage the Vermont senator in the media.

“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Paustenbach wrote in the May 21 message. “Specifically, [Debbie Wasserman Schultz] had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they’d either ignored or forgotten to something critical.”

“It’s not a DNC conspiracy, it’s because they never had their act together,” Paustenbach suggested.

* * *

Wasserman Schultz seemed to have already counted Sanders out of the race in a May 21 email, when there were still nine primaries to go. “This is a silly story,” the chairwoman said. “He isn’t going to be president.”

* * *

In another email, Paustenbach informed her that Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said the candidate should continue to the convention, Wasserman Shultz said: “He is an ASS,” referring to Weaver. The chairwoman made her opinion clear about Sanders in an message concerning the candidate alleging that the party hadn’t been fair to him.

“Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do,” she said.

Collusion with Clinton and the media

A communication from late May laid out the pros and cons of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz accepting an invitation to CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’, and indicated that the DNC was plotting its moves based on what would be amenable to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Clinton campaign is a mess, they’re afraid of their own shadow and didn’t like that we engaged,” DNC communications director Luis Miranda wrote. “But they’ll be unhappy regardless, so better to get out there and do some strong pivots and land good punches on Trump. They can’t tell us NOT to do TV right now, we shouldn’t pull ourselves out until they actually do.”

“It’s clear that Bernie messed up and that we’re on the right side of history,” Miranda wrote in another bullet point, referring to the Nevada convention.

“Let’s take this offline,” Wasserman Schultz said in response. “I basically agree with you.”

Wasserman Schultz and Miranda brainstormed ideas to attack Sanders’ position on the Israel/Palestine conflict with her communications team in one thread, with Wasserman Schultz saying that “the Israel stuff is disturbing” in reference to Sanders’ platform committee appointees attempts to include language denouncing the occupation of Palestinian territory in the Democratic platform.

The chairwoman says that the idea “HFA,” or Hillary For America, originally proposed the idea of using Israel/Palestine as “an ideal issue to marginalize Sanders on,” suggesting that the DNC were exchanging communications about anti-Sanders strategies with the Clinton campaign.

* * *

The DNC also made a secret “agreement” with Kenneth Vogel, an influential report for Politico. An email from late April with the subject line “per agreement… any thoughts appreciated” shows that Vogel sent an advanced copy of a story about Hillary Clinton’s fundraising to the DNC even before his editor even saw it.

“Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” DNC press secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote to  Miranda. “Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”

The published version of the story did not appear to have any significant edits from and was not favorable to the Clinton campaign, but the sending of a full, advanced copy to the subject of a story is considered to be a violation of journalistic ethics.

A source with familiar with the interaction between Politico and the DNC told RT America that the message was sent to officials to ensure accuracy in the story, and that it would have been difficult to ask for piecemeal clarifications due to its complexity. The “agreement,” in fact, referred to the DNC promising not to pass the story to a more favorable news outlet who might publish before  Politco.

* * *

Another email released in the Friday leak indicates that the DNC was in close contact with news websites on articles related to the Democratic Party. A Real Clear Politics article said that Sanders supporters were causing a lack of unity at the Nevada Democratic Convention.

“This headline needs to be changed,”  Wasserman Schultz wrote to Miranda.

“We need to push back… Patrice, what happened, DNC had nothing to do with this, right?” Miranda replied, referring to DNC Director of Party Affairs Patrice Taylor. Taylor responded saying that the article should be changed the event was run by the state party and the disorder “sounds like internal issues amount [sic] Sanders supporters.”

“Walter, please connect with Stewart and get him to push back,” Miranda wrote. The last email on the thread says: “Done. Article has been updated.”

* * *

Further evidence of the DNC’s extensive “content control” over mass media was revealed when Wasserman Schultz sent an email to NBC anchor Chuck Todd with the subject line “Chuck, this must stop,” and set up a time for the two to talk about MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski calling on Wasserman Schultz to step down.

In another email chain, Miranda said Brzezinski was willing to talk with Wasserman Schultz. “She’s already served as a judge and jury without even bothering to talk to me. Not sure why I should trust having a conversation with her would make any difference. Or that she even matters, to be frank,” Wasserman Schultz wrote back after a brief exchange.

In response to a New York Times story about Sanders’s defiance in the wake May’s unruly Democratic state convention in Nevada, Wasserman Schultz wrote: “Every time they get caught doing something wrong, they use the tactic of blaming me. Not working this time.”

* * *

To be sure, there has been a long trail of instances that confirmed Wasserman Schultz’s clear and repeated bias, as noted most recently in “DNC Head Threatened To Kick Michigan Mayor Out Of Debate For Cheering Bernie Sanders“, however this is the first time primary sourced evidence has justified such allegations.

There seems to be clear bias in the aggregate as well. Searches of the database shows an apparent bias by DNC officials against Sanders just by how closely either campaign was monitored. A search of “Sanders supporters” yields 306 messages, while a search of “Clinton supporters” shows only 65 results. A search of “his campaign” yields 780 messages, while “her campaign” only brings up a paltry 120 results.

Questionable Fundraising

According to the Daily Beast, the DNC blocked Roy Black from hosting a potential Barack Obama fundraising event. Black is the lawyer of billionaire and level-three sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after reports on Epstein’s trial from The Daily Beast and other outlets. The email states the DNC would still allow Black to donate and attend future events.

In an email thread from May 12th of this year, titled “Host for POTUS in Miami,” DNC finance assistant Karina Marquez originally asked the committee’s vetting team to “vet the following folks for POTUS please.” The list of six possible hosts for the event included Black and his wife Lea, who is a star on Real Housewives of Miami.

Continue Reading At: ZeroHedge.com

Obama Premiums Set To Spike Again In 2017

healthcare cost
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
June 20, 2016

Obamacare was instituted to make sure that every American had access to healthcare, especially low-income individuals and families. But Obamacare insurance premiums are set to go up yet again. For many, their families will be covered, but it could be a hardship.

In 2017, some of the most popular types of Obamacare health insurance plans want to jack up their prices by 10% or more in 14 major cities, an analysis published Wednesday reveals.

The Kaiser Family Foundation analysis shows there is a wide variation in the proposed prices of lower-cost so-called silver plans. The foundation found that about half of the markets it looked at would see a slight drop in the number of insurers selling plans.

The price hikes ranged from a high of an 18% premium increase proposed for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in Portland, Oregon, to a low of a 13% price cut for the same type of plan in Providence, Rhode Island.

In most of those areas, Kaiser’s report shows double-digit hikes would be common. [1]

Cynthia Cox, lead author of the analysis, said:

“Premiums are going up faster in 2017 than they have in past years.”

The impact on consumers will depend largely on whether they receive government subsidies for their premiums, as well as their own willingness to switch plans to keep increases more manageable.

Among the cities Kaiser looked at, the monthly premium for a 40-year-old nonsmoker in 2017 will range from $192 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to $482 in Burlington, Vermont.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com