BloggeRhythms

In a very intelligent effort to evaluate the feelings of those most greatly affected by the Syrian refugee tragedy, Ben Carson traveled to the region and asked them directly.   

In that regard, FoxNews.com reported this morning that after finishing his tour of Syrian refugee camps in Jordan Saturday, he suggested that the “camps should serve as a long-term solution for millions, while other refugees could be absorbed by Middle Eastern countries.” 

Carson reached that conclusion, he told the Associated Press, because: “I did not detect any great desire for them to come to the United States. You've got these refugee camps that aren't completely full. And all you need is the resources to be able to run them. Why do you need to create something else?" 

He further told the Associated Press that all the refugees needed is “adequate funding. They were quite willing to stay there as long as it takes before they can get back home." 

So, here is another situation where most of the people involved on all sides have totally different feelings and objectives than the POTUS and his administration. The vast majority of the American population doesn’t want the refugees to come here, and the refuges themselves don’t want to be sent here either. But, that’s what happens when you don’t accept any input from others and make all the decisions by yourself. Everybody loses. 

On another troubling subject for the POTUS and his party, FoxNews.com also reported that: “The fate of a network of alternative “co-op” health plans started under ObamaCare remains uncertain going into 2016, after half of them collapsed amid deep financial problems. 

“The co-ops are government-backed, nonprofit health insurers propped up with over $2 billion in taxpayer loans. Twelve of the 23 co-ops established under the Affordable Care Act, though, have gone or are expected to go under by the end of the year, leaving customers who used them scrambling for coverage and taxpayer money at risk.” 

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are demanding answers on what’s being done, but the administration’s offering few predictions on the program’s future other than to say no more money will go toward new co-ops. As to whether that future will crystallize next year, a top federal health official said: “It’s impossible to say right now.”   

Fox News was told: “As the dust settles, we see the people who are being hurt the most are those whose health care was being provided by these artificially affordable plans. Now, they will have to face the nightmare of HealthCare.gov or one of the crumbling state exchanges for a new plan for which premiums are averaging double-digit increases.” 

What’s most remarkable though, is the cavalier attitude regarding the potential loss of significant taxpayer’s dollars. Kevin Counihan, insurance marketplace CEO at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, described the co-op failures and other changes as simply “inevitable” in the health care industry. 

“Things change,” Counihan told Fox News. “There is a natural ebb and flow to this business. You see this in start-ups in all industries, and it’s also true in health care.” 

However, typical start-ups are funded by willing and well-informed investors who clearly understand the risks they’re taking. They also have the opportunity to reap the rewards of success gained by the businesses' they fund, which is why they take the risk in the first place. But, all that U.S. taxpayer’s receive from the health care tax, is a significant increase in the amounts they’re required to pay to the government. Another lose/lose combination fraught upon the citizens who pay the bills for everyone else in the nation. 

On another subject, Trump said again on Saturday that he didn’t mock a New York Times reporter with physical disabilities. This time calling for an apology from the newspaper and saying the reporter is taking advantage of the allegation to a “horrible degree.” 

What’s most amazing about the gall displayed in this one is that at a campaign rally in Sarasota, Fla. he said: “I don't mock people that have problems, believe me.” Yet, the incident was recorded on tape and shown in news broadcasts live and in color all over the nation. Which raises the question of how long is even his adoring public going to keep accepting this kind of insult to their intelligence from this very wealthy empty suit?   

Which brings us to today's update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Robert Jonathan @inquisitr.com, writes: “Perhaps lost in the coverage of the Paris terrorist attacks on Friday the 13th, and its aftermath was Hillary Clinton’s claim that taking in lots of Wall Street money was appropriate after the devastating 9/11/2001 terrorist attack in New York City.

“According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ analysis, lawyers and those working in the investment industry are currently among the top sources of Hillary Clinton campaign contributions of so-called “hard” money.”

However, once again, the facts don’t mesh with Bill’s wife’s excuse and  explanation. 

In this case, The Washington Free Beacon  reports that: “The Wall Street connection predated the World Trade Center attack.” The article states that, she also received more than $1 million in Wall Street donations for her 2000 campaign for U.S. Senate. “That made her the third-largest recipient of Wall Street money of any member of Congress or congressional candidate running in that entire election cycle, which concluded 10 months before 9/11,” the International Business Times declared.” 

The Wall Street issue came up in the recent Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa, when presidential rival Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator, accused the former Secretary of State of being compromised by the cash that she rakes in from corporate interests. Moderator John Dickerson also called attention to the six-figure paydays that Clinton regularly received for speeches at financial institutions. 

What’s also very interesting, are the reactions of media outlets that are usually very supportive of Bill and his wife. 

Vanity Fair noted: “The remark drew immediate reactions, ranging from confusion over the connection Clinton was trying to make and shock at the gall of using the attacks to save her from a tough critique.”

And even the ordinarily reliable New York Times asserted: “Predictably, Twitter exploded with demands to know what campaign donations from big banks had to do with New York’s recovery from 9/11. Answer: little to nothing.” 

Campaign rival, Martin O’Malley declared: “I thought [it] was a pretty disgraceful moment, when she tried to put out a smoke screen, invoking 9/11 to hide the fact that she’s taken millions in contributions from the big banks on Wall Street, not to mention all the hundreds of thousands in speaking fees.”

Which brings up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios